The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LON DON, SA UR
eDAY EVENIN ri; 14. 1856.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

The 92i3i, prisi sittings at Westminster were continued
to-day. In the Court of Queen's Bench, Lord Campbell
and a special jury were engaged trying an action.
Tozer v. Child and another, churchwarden of St. Cle-
ment's Danes, for special damages in refusing to take
his vote at the last election for vestryman, on the ground
that the plaintiff bad not paid the church-rate due
at the time, and also f refusing to put the plaintiff in
nomination as a vestryman. The ground of refusal
of payment of the church-rate was based on the
illegality of the rate. In the Court of Exchequer an
action was being tried before the Lord Chief Baron,
brought by the Customs against Lucian Marchand, of
Red Lion-street, Soho, for the evasion of duty on 222
Geneva gold watches, in attempting to smuggle them
through the customs, by their being fastened in a vest
and belt made for the purpose and being worn next the
skin of the weareu . Both actions are likely to occupy
court the whole of the day. In the Common
Pe Ls Mr. Justice Willes was engaged trying an
action on a bil of exchange of no public interest.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

SOUTH WESTERN.

Yesterday a special meeting was held at the Waterloo
Bridge Station, under the Wharncliffe order, for the
purpose of considering bills now before Parliament in
which this company is interested.
Mr. Chaplin, M.P., was in the chair.
The first bill introduced was that for making a railway
from Yeovil to Exeter, known as the Exeter Extension.
The CHAIRMAN said the bill now to come under
their consideration was read a third time and passed in
the House of Commons on the previous evening. Be-
fore entering into the details of the bill, he would refer
to some misunderstanding which had existed amongst
proprietors with referents to the notice of the meet-
ing. That notice stated, "at the same meeting there
will also be submitted for the consideration of the pro-
prietors, the bills hereinafter mentioned, in which re-
spectively certain clauses and provisions have ban in-
serted by their respective promoters, proposing to
c refer powers on, or to affect the interests of, the Lon-
don and S.iutl-Western Railway Company, &c." The
truth was, the Yeovil and Exeter Extension was the
only undertaking in which this company was interested
by subscription, or shares, or capital, or in any way
whatever. The Great Western had, as the shareholders
were no doubt aware, attempted to compel them to lay
down a double line of rails, the object of which was to
have a broad as well as a narrow gauge ; but that at-
tempt was defeated, and the line would, therefore, be a
single line upon the narrow gauge only. With regard to
the other bills to come b-I,re them (the South-Western
Company having had their name withdrawn from the
Crystal Palace Bib), this company had no capital in the
undertakings, nor did they promote them in any way ;
but inasmuch as they must be tr;butary to the traffic of
the South-Weetern, he considered it was to their interest
to give all the facilities in their power to form junctions
with their line, and possibly to work the traffic at some
future day. He considered it better to acquire those
powers by means of the bills now before Parliament,
promoted by independent parties, instead of obtaining
those pc were at their own expense at some future period.
Having made this explanation, he thought the subject of
the Exeter Extension had been so fully ventilated that it
was unnecessary to enter into the details of the mea-
sure. He might say the Lill had passed the House of
Commons almost enterily without alteration, the only
opposition having been that on the part of the Great
Western, with the otioct he had before alluded to, but
which the committee declined to entertain.
Mr. BIRDMAN (the ealicitor) proceeded to read the
clauses of the bill, from which it appeared that the time
allowed the company for the laying down the single line
extends to the year 1861, with the permissive power to
lay down a double line. The company are empowered
to subscribe or advance capital to theamisunt of 100,0001.
to the Salisbury and Yeovil, but not until the latter have
laid out 150,000/. The terms upon which such advance
is to be made are 4 per cent. interest, and half the sur-
plus profits in proportion to the money advanced.
Mr. HENRY WOOD asked if there were no profits at
all, where would the surplus profits come from ?
Mr. HIITCHINS.—Of course there would be no profit
at all.
Mr. BIRCHAM then read the clause relative to the
qualification of candidates for the directorship, which, it
will be remembered, was the subject of considerable dis-
cussion at the former meeting. Under the provisions of
the present bill, the qualification for a director at the
South-Western board was raised to £3,000 of consoli-
dated preference or ordinary stock. It is also provided
that in the event of any director now sitting at the board
not holding that amount of stock, he should be allowed
three months from the passing of the bill for the purpose
of completing the required qualification. Another ins-
poitant clause related to the permission to the proprie-
tors of unseating a director by a vote of a general
meeting. Originally, it appears, it was intended that
this power should be vested in a simple majority, but,
upon the suggestion of Mr. Sergeant Gaselee, ;t was
subsequently determined that three.fifths of the share-
heldere must concur in such a resolution for the removal
of a director.

Mr. Sergeant GARELRE availed himself of that oppor-
tunity of explaining that remarks had been made to his
' prejudice in the matter of this clause. It had been called
a "directors' protection clause." So far from this being
the case, it was a "shareholders' protection clause,"
conferring on them a power which they never possessed
before, of turning out a director when he misbehaved
himself. But at the same time he could not conceal
from himself the inju4tice which would be done if they
were able to turn out a director upon a single majority
of one; and, theref.re, it was he hal endeavoured to
secure that which was a fair safeguard against the cap-
rice of a party spirit of a meeting.
After a short discussion on matters totally irrelevant
to the subject before the meeting,
The CHAIRMAN put the resolution for the approval of
the bill, which Mr. SNOW sec inded.

Mr. HELPS said he iiad already taken so active a part
in opposition to this measure that he could no be content
to give a silent vote upon it. Ile believed than the bill
before them was not the free act of the company, but had
been forced upon them by Parliament ; and he would
state briefly how he would vote, and why. He felt it is
duty to abstain from giving a sanction to the bill by even
the semblance of acquiescence on his part. He opposed
the bill on principle ; and, speaking from his honest con-
victions—not, he beieved, prompted by any pride of
consiAency—he con,idered it a gross violation of free-
d )m of private enterprise in this country, and opposed to
every principle of equity.
Mr. PIINOFIBR said he believed if every proprietor
were canvas-ed at his own fireside he would sympathise
with the hon. gentleman who had last spoken, or, he
might say, condole with the directors ; for he firmly be
lieved that a greater piece of commercial villany was
never perpetrated than the infliction upon this company
of the construction of the Yeovil and Exeter Extension.

Mr. WOOD opposed the bill on the ground that the
line would ever pay, and entered into a statement of
statistical facts, comparing the Yeovil and Exeter with
the London and Brighton, which were received with re-
peated it.terruptions by the meeting.
Mr. FOOKES objected to the bill on the ground that
no power taw, contained in it to effect a junction with the
Great Western at Exeter. The original object of con-
structing a line to Exeter was for the purpose of uniting
the railways of the west with those of the south, and be
contended that this object bad been altogether lost sight
of ; and he charged the direct,rs with entertaining the
design of carrying out a narrow gauge line from Exeter
to Falmouth and Piyinmith, to which their large hold-
ings in Devon lines appeared to give a sanction. It
was impossible, he said, to arrive at any other conclu-
sion, in the absence of any arrangement having been
made for a connection with the western lines.

M. HUTCHINGS, M.P. (.4 director), repudiated the
charge, which he considered very offensive to the mem-
bers of the board. He would ask what act of the boardi
had led the hon. proprietor to the conclusion he had
come tot The hon. proprietor should bear in mind that
the present line was imposed upon them by Parliament,
from which they had no escape.

Mr. FOOSESwdenied baring brought any charge against
the directors. It was an opinion at which he had arrived
upon the ostensible facts of the case.
Mr. HENEAGE (formerly member for Grimsby) said he
considered Parliament had exceede I its proper powers,
and the directors had gone beyond theirs. Parliament
had introduced the clauses conditionally, and the direc-
tors had accepted them.
After a further conversation, the resolution was put
and carried, with five dissentients.
The second bill t i be submitted to the meeting was for
the incorporating of the Salisbury Railway and Market
House Company.
The CHAIRMAN explained the objects of the bill to be
the construction of a market house, and about half a
mile of railway to connect with the South-Western at
Salisbury. The whole of the capital had been subscribed
by independent parties, and this company had no lia-
bility in the matter.
Upon the reading of the clauses, it appeared that per-
missive power was given to the South-Western to sub-
scribe 1,000/ , and upon the resolution for the approval
of the bill being put from the ch&r, the same was carried,
with tt P exception of the clause relating to the advance
of 1,000/.
The third bill was for making a railway from South.
ampton and Dorchester to Blandford St. Mary, to be
constructed entirely by independent capital. The length
of the line is 10 miles, and it is proposed that the South-
Western should have powers to make arrangements for
working the line.
The bill was uranimously approved.
The last bill on the list was for making a railway from
Lymington to the South-Western line at Brocklehuret,
with a landing place at Lymington.
The CHAIRMAN explained tkat the length of the line
was four miles, imposing no liability whatever on the
South-Western, and would lead to the establishment of
steam c mmunication between Lymington and Yar-
mouth, in the Isle of Wight, which it was believed
wouA contribute considerable traffic to the South-
Westsrn.
Mr. HUTCHINS said the promoters of the line were
the gentry and tradesmen of Lymington, who had sub-
scribed sums varying from 2001. to 3901. each to the
undertaking. Perhaps a better subscription list, or one
more generally responded to, could not be found.
roe bill was also approved, and the business termi-
nated.

CRYSTAL PALACE.—We are requested to state that the
first display of the great fountains of the Crystal Palace
in the presence of her Majesty on Wednesday next will
not take place earlier than five o'clock. It is desirable
that this fact should be known, since the lateness of the
hour may enable many to see the flower show at the
Botanic Gardens, in the Regent's-park, as well as the
display
at Sydenham on the same day.

• .„.„
.t .;
, t ,
t'• Z. 14 4;c-''.ltl
- •

SUN OFFIOE, Six o'Cloek.

THE DISMISSAL OF MR. CRAMPTON.

The following is the despatch of Hr. Marcy to
Mr. Dallas, informing him of the determination of
the American Government to dismiss Mr. Cramp-
ton.

THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, MAY 29.
A message was received from the President of
the United States, informing Congress that he has
ceased to hold intercourse with the Minister of the
British Government to Washington, and deems it
proper to lay before them the considerations of
public duty which have led to the adoption of a
measure of so much importance.
Among the documents transmitted by the Presi-
dent is the following despatch from Secretary
Marcy to Mr. Dallas :
SECRETARY MARCY TO MR. DALLAS.
"Department of State, Washington, Tuesday, May 27.
" Sir,—The President has carefully considered the note
of the 30th ult., addressed to you by the Earl of Claren-
don, her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, relative to the questions which have arisen be-
tween this Government and that of Great Britain on the
subject of recruiting within the United States for the
British army; and as directed me to present to yon Lis
views thereon, for the purpose of having them made
known to her Majesty's Government. He has been much
gratified by the conciliatory spirit of that note, and by the
desire manifested by the E trl of Clarendon to adjust the
existing difficulties, and preserve and strengthen the
friendly relations betwen the United States and Great
Britain.
"The vast interest which the Government and people of
both countries have in upholding and cherishing such rela-
tions cannot be more solemnly impressed upon her Majesty's
Government than it is upon that of the United States. The
unequivocal disclaimer by her Majesty's Government of
any intention either to infringe the law or disregard the
policy, ornot to respect the sovereign rights of the United
States,' and their expressions of regret if, contrary to
their intentions and to their reiterated directions, there has
been any infringement of the laws of the United States, are
satisfactory to the President. The ground of complaint,
so far as respects her Majesty's Government is thus re-
moved. But the President extremely regrets that he can-
not concur in Lord Clarendon's favourable opinion of the
conduct of some of her Majesty's officers, who were, as this
Government believed, and, after due consideration of all
which has been offered in their defence, still believes, im-
plicated in proceedings which were so clearly an infringe-
ment of the laws and sovereign rights of this country.
"In respect to such of these officers and agents as have
no connection with this Government, it has nothing to ask
from that of her Majesty ; but the case is different in rela-
tion to Mr. Crampton, her Majesty's Envoy and Minister
Plenipotentiary to this Government, and the Consuls at
New York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati. The President
is gratified to perceive that her Majesty's Government
would not have hesitated to comply with the request to
withdraw these officers from their official position if it had
entertained the views here taken of their conduct in regard
to recruiting contrary to the laws and sovereign rights of
the UniteeStates. I need scarcely say that in making this
request, no interruption of the diplomatic relations between
this Government and that of Great Britain was anticipated;
but, on the contrary, the President was and is sincerely
desirous to keep them upon a most friendly footing.
"Mr. Crampton's withdrawal was asked forexpressly upon
the ground that his connexion with the affair, raising re-
cruits in this coun try for the Br itish service, has rendered him
an unacceptable representative of her Brittauic Majesty near
this Government.' Forthe sa me reason the with draw al of the
three British Consuls was also requeste I. These officers
were, as this Government confidently believes, deeply im-
plicated in proceedings contrary to the law and sovereign
rights of the United States, and contrary, as it now appears,
to the intentions and reiterated instructions of their own
Government. It was their personal acts, not the less ob-
jectionable for having been done contrary to the directions
of her Majesty's Minister, which rendered them in their
official character and position unacceptable to this Govern-
ment, and induced the President for that cause to solicit
their recall, believing that by this couree he was contri-
buting to the common interest and harmony of the two
Governments. He has nt,t, after most mature considera-
tion, been able to change his view of their conduct, and
cannot therefore change his purpose in relation to them,
though their conduct related to, and in fact originated, a
difficulty which disturbed the cordial harmony and good
understanding betwean the two countries. It constituted
a decided objection to them of a personal character, which
loses none of its force by the satisfactory adjustment of
that difficulty. The only embarassment which attends the
critic is the difference of opinion between the two Govern-
ments as to the complicity of these officers in illegal pro-
ceedings within the United States. In riviewing this
subject, the President was disposed to avail himself of any
reasonable doubts which could be raised in his mind in
order to bring his opinion in this respect into conformity
with that of her Majesty's Government ; but, after careful
consideration of the case, he has been unable to change
the conclusion to which he had previously arrived.
"The difference of opinion may in some degree be as-
cribed to the difference iu views of the two Governments in
respect to the neutrality laws an i sovereign rights of the
country. It is not proposed, however, to continue the dis-
cussion upon that subject. The conclusions of the Presi-
•tent, stated in my despatch of the '2Bth of December to
your predecessor, in regard to the construction of that I r.w
aid the extent and character of these rights, remain un-
changed, and he cannot forego the duty of using all proper
means to sustain and vindicate them.

"The main C,.11.10 of this difference of opinion is the dif-
ferent appreciation of the proofs by which the charges
,gainst her M•jesty's diplomatic Representative and Con-
sul s are sustained. Lord Clarendon asks this Government
r,o regard the bare declarations of these officers as of suffi-
cient weight to countervail evidence against them. Their
denials, as presented in his despatch of the 30th of April,
(and that is all which has been communicated to this Go-
vernment on the subject,) seem to be special, and do not
traverse all the alleg 4ions against them. They deny that
they have infringed our neutrality law by enlisting persons
within the United States for British service, or hiring or
retaining persons to leave the United States for the pur-
pose of
.being enlisted in that service.
" The charges acamiust them are much braader, and em-
brace the offence of violating the laws and sovereign rights
~f'the United States, by setting in operation within our
own territory and conducting an extensive system of re-
cruiting, which was not and could not be carried into effect
without infringing upon our laws and rights; by employ-
ing numerous agents to engage parsons, for pecuniary and
other considerations, to leave the United States for the
express purpose of entering into the British army ; and by
keeping these agents in this employment after it was well
known that they were constantly infringing our laws.
The denial of the implicated officers only covers a part of
the delinquencies imputed to them, but, confining the ex-
culpatory declaration to the simple charge of having vio-
lated the provisions of our neutrality act, it does not merit
the consideration which Lord Clarendon has ascribed to it.
" By adopting Lord Clarendon's construction of our neu-
trality law, contained in his note of the 16th of November,
which renders it almost nugat,;•ry, and contrary to that of
this Government and of its judicial tribunals, these officers
have not probably found much embarrassment in meeting
the charges with a general denial—but giving to the decla- I
ration of Mr. Crampton and the Consuls all the considera-
tion which can be fairly claimed for it under the circum-
stances of the case, it cannot counterbalance the uni in-
peached and well-sustained evidence which establishes the
charges against these officers of having infringed the laws
and sovereign rights of the United States.
"Lord Clarendon's note to you of the 30th of April con-
veys the impression that the evidence by which the officers
are implicated is derived from one or two witnesses, whose
credibility has been assailed. This, however, is not a cor-
rect view of the facts. By examination of my despatch of
the 28th of December, it will be perceived that these wit-
noises were strongly confirmed, and that there are proofs,
wholly independent of their testimony, abundantly suffi-
cient to establish the complicity of Mr. Crampton and the
Consuls in their infringement of the laws and sovereign
rights of the United States.

I trust that it will not be questioned that it belongs
exclusively to this Government and its judicial tribunals
to give a construction to its municipal laws, and to deter-
mine what acts done within its jurisdiction are an infringe-
ment of these laws. This is a matter which concerns its in-
ternal administration, and it cannot allow the agents of any
foreign Power to controvert that construction and justify
their conduct by a different interpretation of our laws,
which virtually renders them ineffective for the purposes
intended. The Earl of Clarendon informs you, iu his note
of the 30th of April, that Mr. Crampton positively denies
the charge of complicity in any of the acts of illegal enlist-
ment in the United States, and that the three Consuls in-
culpated do the same. He assumes that the charge against
them is sustained mainly by the evidence of two persons,
Strobel and Hertz, whom he conceives to bo unworthy of
oredit,and ho appeals to the American Government to accept
as conclusive declarations of the Ministeis and Consuls.
"I am instructed to say that these considerations do not
relieve the President's mind of the unfavourable impressions
produced by the conduct of these gentlemen in relation to
foreign recruitment in the United States. It will be seen,
by referring to my despatch of the 28th December, in which
the grounds of charge against Mr. Crampton were fully
stated, that the testimony of Strobel and Hertz was quite
a secondary and unimportant part of the evidence adduced,
the charge being supported, independently of their testi-
mony, by other witnesses, by original letters of Mr. Cramp.
ton and others, and by the undenied and undeniable acts
of Mr. Crampton. As to Strobel and Heitz, however, it
may be observed, the documents transmitted by Lord Cla-
rendon as proving these persons unworthy of credit are
entitled to but little weight, consisting as they do of ex
parte affidavits, detailing matters mostly of hearsay ; and
whatever may have been the character of those persons it
by no means follows that they did not testify to the truth.
" They were agents selected and trusted by Mr. Cramp-
ton himself, and to them he committed most important con-
cerns. Such an endorsement should countervail the im-
peachment of their veracity, founded on loose, hearsay re-
ports. Nor does it seem to be a thing of much moment, in
relation to the present question, that Strobel, in copse•
quence of imputed misconduct, was dismissed from emoloy-
went by the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, and af-
terwards endeavoured to obtain money from Mr. Cramp-
ton. The fact remains that he held a commission in the
British Foreign Legion, and that, as is clearly proved and
not denied, he maintained, as recruiting officer, and for a
consioerable period of time, association, personally or by
correspondence, with Mr. Crampton.
"The employment of Strobel, by Mr. Crampton, their
long association in the joint work of recruiting in the
United States for the Foreim Legion, the distinction of
Her Majesty's commission of captain in the corps conferred
on Strobel would seem at least to deprive Mr. Crampton
of the right to deny his credibility as a witness. But there
is a large and more compreh nsive class of considerations
applicable to this particular question. For a period of
nearlyfive months, that is, from about the middle of March,
1435, to the sth of Augnet, 1855, the peace and order of
this country were 'disturbed, especially the cities of Bos-
ton, New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati, by the un-
lawful acts of numerous persens engaged in raising recruits
or in being recruited for the British Foreign Legion. They
were supplied with ample funds by British agents, and
they obstinately resisted and set at naught all the efforts
of the loeal authorities of the United States to put a stop
to their proceedings, nor did they desist until they received
otders to that effect from the British Government in the
month of August.
"The recruits thus unlawfully raised in the TJ Lited aides
during all that time were conveyed by British agents to
Halifax, and there enrolled in the Foreign Legion. AU

these acts, as well as their illegality, were notorious. Long
before the trial of Hertz in September, and of Wagner in
October, they must have beea brought to the particular
notice of Mr. Crampton, the British Consuls, and other
agents, by the prelindoary judicial inquiries which took
place both at New York and Philadelphia. In consequence
of steps to that effect taken by me on the 2?d of March,
the proper instructions were issued on the 23d, and prose-
cutions commenced in Philadelphia on the ',;0.1a of March,
and in New York on the sth of April. As an example of
the character of these proceedings, their notriety, and
their comprehensive legal effect, what occurred in May
deserves particular notice.
"At New York, on the 15th of May, a number of per-
sons, namely, Godfrod Wachier, Wilhelm Schumacker,
Julius Parkus, Oscar Cremey, and Andrew Lutz, were
examined before Commissioner Betts, on a charge of re-
cruitment for the service of Great Britain. Eminent
counsel were employed by the accused, who argued that
no offence had been committed, because it did not appear
that any valid contract of enlistment had been consum-
mated ; but this ground of defence was overruled by the
commissioner, who, though he discharged Wachier for de-
fective evidence, committed Lutz, Schumacker, Cremey,
and Parkus.
"At Philadelphia, on the 25th of May, three persons—
Hertz, Perkins, and Bucknail—having been arrested on
the charge of illegal recruiting in the service of Great Bri-
tain, applied to the Circuit Court of the United States,
by habeas corpus, to be discharged from custody. The
presiding judge, the Hon. John K. Kane, on the examina-
tion of the evidence taken in the case before a commis-
sioner, found the proofs were sufficient to bring the acts
of Hertz and Perkins within the conditions of the law,
but not so to Bucknail ; accordingly the latter was dis-
charged, but the two former were committed for trial.
" Thus, so early as May, it was judicially shown that
what was doing in this respect was unlawful. Mr. Cramp-
ton was acquainted with these proceedings, and was thus
sufficiently admonished that the acts of recruitment car-
ried on under his authority did in fact, whatever may
have been his intention, constitute a violation of the mu-
nicipal law of the United States. This had been decided
by the Courts of the United States, and was publicly and
extensively made known. It is not controverted—indeed
it is admitted, that he had the recruiting business in his
charge and under his controul ; yet he permitted it to be
continued, although judiciously determined to be unlaw-
ful, through the months of May, June, July, and August.
"Now this long series of acts, unlawful and otherwise
prejudicial to the good name and tranquillity of this coun-
try, were performed by persons who were liberally paid by
the British officers, and many of whom actually entered
the military service of Great Britain. That was incon-
testably proved on the trial of Hertz and Wagner, by evi-
dence which has not been and cannot be impeached, and
although the evidence adduced on these trials does not
need corroboration, still it may not be amiss to add that
much other evidence to the same effect is in possession of
this Government, some of which is annexed to this des-
patch, in the form of dosuments responsive to those ac-
companying the letter of the Earl of Clareadon.
" Who is to be held accountable for these unlawful acts ?
Were they all performed by volunteer and irresponsible
persons, as argued in the Earl of Clarendon's despatch of
the 16th of July ? That cannot be admitted for the con-
clusive reason that they received pay from British officers,
and of course were employed by some responsible agents
of the British Government. The Earl of Clarendon, in
behalf of her Majessy's Government, disclaims all inten-
tion to violate the laws, compromise the neutrality, or-cgs-
, respect the sovereignty of the United States by the Enlist-
ment of troops within their territory. The President un
reservedlyaccepta and is fullysetistied with this disclaimder.
Of course the unlawful acts in question were not autho-
rised by the British Government, but the fact is never-
theless well established that they were done, and done in
the name and at the expense of the British Government.
" Who, then, is responsible for these acts ? Were there
no direct proof, though there is much of that character,
the inference would be irresistible, that, not being autho
rised by the British Government itself, they were the un-
authorised acts of the British agents in the United Statss,
Such agents, having acted in wilful disregard of their Go-
vernment in thus infringing our laws, may have failed to
inform their Government that what they had undertaken
to do could not be done without infringing those laws ; or
by mismanagement, indiscretion, or over zeal, they may
have participated in such infringement, though well know
ine' it was contrary to the wishes and express orders of
their Government. However this may be, it is certain that
agents existed, because their acts appear. Who were these
agents? Of this we aro not left in doubt.

" In the documents on the subject recently laid before
Parliament it is distinctly stated that the enlistment in
the United States did not stop until Mr. Crampton gave
orders for their cessati,n on the sth of August. He had
the power to stop the acts of enlistment. He knew the
proceedings were, from the commencement, exceedingly
offensive to this Government, and that it was devoting its
activeenergies to arrest him. Ile was bound to know—he
could not but know—what was notorious to all the world,
that, through the months of April, May, June, and July,
the recruiting agents in various parts of the Unite.i
States, and conspicuously in Boston, New York, Philadel-
phia, and Cincinnati, were keeping up a most unseemly
contest with the law officers of the United States, and
that, at least, as early as May, the illegality of the pro
ceedings had been pronounced by the Federal Courts iu
New York and Philadelphia, and yet, notwithstandirg
this, he permitted the unlawful acts in question to go on
wiehout check until the month of August. For thus giv-
ing countenance to those illegal proceedings he is distinctly
responsible.

" But his accountability extends yet further for the
same documents show that the official suggestion to the
British Government of the untoward scheme of obtaining
recruits in the United States cane from the correspon-
dence of Mr. Crampton, and of the consuls at New York,
Philadelphia, and Cincinnati, and that to Mr. Crampton
was the superintendence and execution of the scheme com-
mitted, and thus it was that he who directed had power to
stop pr.cee tinge, and thus from early in MArch until Au-
gust he is found busily occupied in superintending the en-
listment, partly in the Unite,t States and partly in Canada
and Nova Scotia, and in issuing instructions to the agents
engaged in that enterprise.

"It does not suffice for Mr. Crampton now to say that
he did not intend to commit or participate in the commis-
sion of any infringement of the laws of thelTuited States.
He was the directing head of the long-continued infringe
manta of the law. It was under superior authority from
him that acts of continuous violation of law were perpe
tratecl by the inferior agents. Some of these agents are
proved by his own letters to have held direct intercourse
with him ; and in every stage of inquiry in the numerous
eases investigated by the American Government there is
reference by letter and oral declaration to the general su-
perintendence of Mr. Crampton. His moral and legal re-
sponsibility are thus demonstrated. With full information
of the stringency of the laws of the United States against
foreign recruiting, with a distinct perception of its being
all but impossible to raise recruits here without infringing
the laws, and with a knowledge of the condematory judi-
cial proceedings of April and May at New York and Phi-
ladelphia, yet he persisted in carrying on the scheme until
August, when its obstinate prosecution brought on a mos/
unpleasant controversy between the United States and
Great Britain ; and it is not the least of the causes of
complaint against Mr. Crampton that by his acts of com-
mission in this business, or in failing to advise his Go-
vernment of the impracticability of the undertaking
in which he was embarked, and the series of illegal act,
which it involved, and in neglecting to observe the
general orders of his Government, and step its recruit-
ing here the moment its illegality was pronounced by
the proper legal authorities of the United States he was
recklessly endangering the harmony and peace of twit
great nations, which, by the character of their com-
mercial relations, and by other considerations, have the
strongest possible inducements to cultivate reciprocal
amity.
" The foregoing considerations substantially apply to
the conduct of the British Consuls at New York,
Pkila-
delphia, and Cincinnati. Though of a subordinate official
character, they are not less responsible than Mr. Cramp-
ton. Toe continuous violation of law proceeded within
their respective consulates, month after month, under their
eyes, not only without any apparent effort on their part,
to stop it, but with more or less of their active participa-
tion therein. The Consulate at New York appears to have
been the point at which the largest expenditures were
made, and it is proved by documents herewith transmitted
that payments at that Consular office to some of the re-
cruiting agents, continued to be made by the secretary of
the Consul, in the Consul's presence, from time to time,
down to the beginning of Jan. in the present year.
" The President, as has already been stated by me, can-
not admit the force of the objection now urged of the al•
leged want of respectability on the part of some of the wit-'
nesses by whom these facts were proved, and as to whom
a prominent cause of such alleged want of respectability
seems to be the fact that their evidence has inculpated
their accomplices in the violation of the law. The testi-
mony which most directly inculpates the British Consul at
New York, as will be seen by the inclosuree herewith, is
in the affidavits of the very persons relied on by her Ma-
jesty's Government for proofs in this case, and whose de-
positions accompany Lord Clarendon's note to you of 30th
April. The Earl of Clarendon perfectly well understands
that in Great Britain as well as in the United States it
would be impossible to administer penal justice without
occasionally receiving the evidence of accomplices.
" In Great Britain not only is evidence of this class re-
ceived continually in state trials, as well actin inferior mat-
ters, but rewards and other special inducements are held
out to such witnesses by not a few provisionsof acts of Par-
liament. The competency of such persons in a given case,
and ',heir credibility, are in bath countries questions upon
which the court and the jury, in their respective sphere
of jurisdiction, ultimately pass. In the present case con-
clusions have been established on documentary proof and
other unimpeachable evidence, by proceedings before the
proper tribunals of the Uuited States, by the verdicts of
juries, and by the ruling of judges, which must be held as
final in the estimation of the President. The Earl of Cla-
rendon suggests, as a consideration pertinent to this ques-
tion, that the Minister and Consuls had no means or op-
portunity of rebutting the charges thus indirectly brought
against them in the trial of the inferior recruiting agents.
" In regard to the Consuls, the Earl of Clalen-ion errs
in supposing that they had not 'till means and opportunity
if they saw fit, to appear and to confront and contradict
any accusing witnesses. They were not allowed to interfere
in the trials by mere letters written for the occasion which
indeed they could not have done lawfully had there been
no such prohibition : but, if conscious of their own inno-
cence, and that of the parties-on trial, and that their own
acts would bear examination, it was alike their duty and
right to appear and say so on oath, and to contradict by
their testimony whatever was alleged against British ofE ours
or agents if known to them to be untrue. Nor is it any
just cause of complaint that evidence was received upon
these trials impugning the acts of Mr. Crampton. It was
in due course of proceedings required to be shown, as
against the parties on trial, that the recruitments in whit-h
they were engaged were for the service of a foreign Go-
vernment.

" Mr. Crampton was himself privileged froni trial for a
violation of oar municipal law, but the persons whom he
employed were not for that cause to go unpunished—nor
was the administration of penal justice to be indefinitely
suspended on account of his position and the diplomatic
immunities which that conferred , on the oontrary, it Was
peculiarly proper that the facts by which he was implicated
but for which he could not be tried, should be verified in
due form of law, for the information of his Government as
well as that of the United States. The Earl of Clarendon
remarked in his letter of the 30th Apyil that—
" The intentions of the British Government, andthe
arrangements made to carry nese intentions into execnton,
were not concealed from-the Government of the United
States ; those intentions and arrangements were frankly
stated by Mr. Crampton to Mr. Marcy in conversation on
the 22d March, 1855, and the only observations which Mr.
Marcy made in reply were that the neutrality laws of the
United States would rigidly be enforced, but that any
number of persons who desired it might leave the United
States and get enlisted in any foreign service.'
" It is incumbent on me to say that in this respect the
Earl of Clarendon labours under serious misapprehension