The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-02 00:00:00

Law Commission had male its report. That Pelmet lied
been made; nothing was done, and since then legislation
teas getting worse on the subject. Hebei waited already
fear months to redeem his pledge that he would bring
the question before the house, and now found himself
deprived'of the opportunity which offered itself.
Sir G. GREY said it was quite impossible the motion
of the right hon. gentleman cold I be passed without a
debate. The Government had opposed the adjournment
of the debate on the previous night for the purpose of
giving the right hon. gentleman and other hon. members
the opportunity of proceeding with their respective mo-
tions, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
would have been ready to state what bad been done, as
a member of the Common Law Commi-ision, if the Ties-
non could have been brought on. If, however, the
right hon. gentleman would on any future evening ad-
dress a question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan-
caster, his (Sir G. Grey's) right hon, friend would be pre.
pared to state the position of the question and the pro.
bable couree of the Government in regard to it.
The motion for postponement was then agreed to, and
the adjourned debate was proceeded with.
Mr. M. GIBSON said he had moved the adjournment
of the debate on the preceding night, because whatever
doubt might exist as to the propriety of the motion,
no doubt could exist on the proposition that once the
discussion of the question was entered on it ought not
to be prematurely concluded. A forcible appeal bad been
made to the hon. member for Mayo not to bring on the
motion, and doubtless the conviction which actuated those
who made that appeal was that no good could arise from
the discussion of the question at this moment, but pro-
bably some evil. He (Hr. Gibson) was himself averse to
the motion on other grounds, but he could not admit
that there was any Parliamentary ground for shrinking
from its discussion, because when the Minister of the
Crown laid papers before the house relating to negotia-
tions with any foreign powers, pending or concluded, he
invited Parliament by that act to express an opinion on
the subject, and any member was therefore at liberty to
elicit an expression of that opinion. The Government
could not therefore complain of the question broueht un-
der discussion, because if publicity was deemed by them
to be injurious to the cause in hand, they ought not to
have courted publicity, and because having, as it were
invited Parliament to discussion, silence on the
part of the house might he taken as acquiescence in their
course of policy. As the motion stood, therefore, it was
impossible for any hon, member to shrink from recording
his vote. The motion involved the questions, first, whe•
ther the operations carried on by her Majesty's Govern-
ment in enlisting soldiers for her Majesty's service in the
United States were wise and politic •, secondly, whether,
supposing them wise and politic, they were prudently
and judiciously condUeted ; and, thirdly, whether the re-
sults were such as to enable Parliament to approve of
the policy of the Government and of its mode of proceed.
icg. He (Mr. Gibson) had been opposed to the principle
of the Foreign Enlistment Acc from the beginning, be-
cause he felt that any attempt to carry it out would lead
this country into international disputes of a serious
character. He should not, however, permit his opinion
upon that measure to bias his judgment in the present
case ; because the bill having been adopted by Par-
liament it became the duty of the executive to give
effect in some form or other to the intentions of
the Legislature. The Secretary of State for the
Home Department had, thrown out an insinuation to the
contrary effect as regarded the supporters of the motion ;
and he had stated that the speech of his (Mr. Gibson's)
friend the hon, member for Inverness might have been,
and probably had been, delivered in opposition to the
Foreign Enlistment Act. There was another statement
of the right hon. gentleman in refeience to the contents
of the blue book, an .t the papers laid before Parliament
on the subject, in which he (Mr. Gibson) could not con-
cur either. The right hon. gentleman had said that the
friendly feeling of tee British Government, and their un-
willingness to give any just came of offence to the United
States Government, was evident on the face of every des-
patch which had been sent from the Foreign Office, and
and that they had done nothing whatever to place them in
the wrong with the United States Government. He (Hr.
Gibson), however, found passages in those despatches of
Loi d Clarendon than which, in his opinion, nothing could
be more insulting to the United States,or bettercalculated
to produce irritation and bad feeling between the two
countries. In the despatch of November 10, 1855, Lord
Clarendon informed Mr. Crampton tbat Mr. Buchanan
bad called on him to inquire why such large reinforce-
ments had been sent to the West Indies, as he was ap-
prehensive it would create excitement in the United
States ; and that he bad t ild Mr Buchanan there was
no intention on the part of her Majesty's Government
to attack or menace the United States ' • but as they had
reason to believe that ships were fitted out in United
States ports for Russian purposes—as there was a great
conspiracy in progress in the. United States to create an
insurrection in Ireland—as a Milted States ship had
recently been engaged in taking soundings in the ports
of the West Indies—and as there had been a note from
Marcy to Mr. Crampton, indicating a fixed purpose to
promote a quarrel, her Majesty's Government thought
it fit to be prepared for the course of events which it
had done and would de nothing to provoke, and which
they would still do their utmost to avert. (Hear.) He
(Mr. G.) denied the accuracy of these statements. As
regarded the first of them—namely, that ships were fit-
ting out for Russia in the ports of the United States—
that charge, which had been made by Mr. Barclay, our
consul, was made under false information, and it was re-
tracted by Mr. Barclay himself in a published apology in
the newspapers. To steve, therefore, that this was a rea-
son why an increased force was sent out to the West In-
dies, was to assume the truth of the allegation without
waiting for inquiry, and to act on that assumption was to
insult a friendry nation. Then as regarded the great cron•
spiracy to promote insurrection in Ireland in the United
States, he (Mr. G.) not only denied the fact, but he con-
demned the terms as totally inapplicable to the Irish
population, subjects of her ty, in the United States.
A great conspiracy, to be followed by an armed invasion
of Ireland ! Was there a man in the house who would
say he believed it ? It was consequently an insult to im-
pute it to the United States, and to charge the United
States Government with knowing it was in progress. As
regarded the American ship taking soundings in the
West India ports, that was a sheer absurdity ; charts,
accurate charts, of all the ports in the West Indies,
could be bad in any of the shops for the sale of such
commodities without any trouble, and at a trifling cost.
The cry about "soundings " was a periodical cry, hav-
ing been absurdly got up on many occasions in this
country, mere particularly just before the French Re-
volution, bat without the least foundation fur the alarm
that wee supposed to be felt. The tone now adopted
by the,Governrnent was that what they had done in the
United States was what they were entitled to do, and
nothing more. Buf had nob the Government made mis-
takes m the Hanse Towns, and had not the Prussian
Government taken our consul, and not only roughly
handled him, but thrown him into prison ? And if they
made one mistake might they not have made an-
other ? The Government wished the world to be-
lieve that all the British Government had done in
issuing their proclamation was to "give informa-
tion "to the American people. But upon that ground
every law might be broken. A man might say to an•
other, "I wid give you 101. if you will vote for me,"
and say, with just as much reason, that that was only
"giving Information" to the voter. Tee right hon. gentle.
man the Secretary for the Home Department had told the
house that no persuasion had been used to induce the men
t r leave the United States ; but Lord Clarendon, in his
despatches, maintained that the Government had an indis-
putable right to use persuasion and offer inducements to
American citizens, If that were the opinion of the Govern-
ment why should that denial have been put forward ? If
the British Government had power to do that, they had
power to do all that the American G ivernment itself
had power to do. But be (Mr. Gibson) thought it was
highly necessary to inquire whether the recommendation
of Lord Clarendon in the despatch of July 16, that there
should be no concealment from the American Govern-
ment, had been followed up or not. Now Mr. Crampton
had had but one conversation with Mr. March (that of
March 22) until September, and on that occasion in
March, he told Mr. Marcy that numerous applications
had been made, and Mr. Marcy said that persons
might of course leave the United States, but he should
enforce the neutrality laws. (The right hon. gentleman
then read the minute of this conversation as read by the
Attorney-General on the previous evening, in which Mr.
Crampton said he had intentionally abstained from in-
forming Mr. Marcy of the means adopted by the British
Government to induce Americans to join the British
army.) Now that was really and truly the only impor-
tant matter that Mr. Marcy had any interest in know-
ing, because upon the exact messes employed depended
the legality or illegality of the proceedings of the British
Government. It was now denied so very forcibly that
anything wrong had been done, that he supposed the
Government were prepared to do again that which they
hail done. He could see no reason ter desisting from that
which we had a perfect right to do ; but be believed that
had there been no United States municipal law at all, the
British Government had no right to make treaties with
agencies of questionable character, but to communicate
with the Government itself. He believed, after reading
the works of the most eminent writers on international
law, that no Government had any right to operate in the
territory of another without the consent of that Govern-
ment. It had been stated in a pamphlet, the writer of
which was prepared to verify his statements, that the
operation of our Government there had cost about
40,0001., and that the net proceeds of the whole transac-
tion were 37 Germans who were now creating mutiny
and disturbances in our garrisons at Plymouth. These
men had cost about 1;0011. a-head, and could not be
trusted with arms in the public streets. How any Bri-
tish Government could imagine that the English people
would sanction their sending across the Atlantic in pur-
suit of Germane at that price he could not tell. [The
right hon. gentleman then read some further passages
from the pamphlet, stating that payments had been
made to those persons who had gone to America, and
returned after a fruitless journey.] Now when appli-
cations were made to the Government for situations, it
was not usual to compensate the applicants who
were refused, and he-believed that some arrangement
had been made between those persons and the British
Government. [ln support of that opinion the right hon.
gentleman read a letter from the Hon. Juseph Howe to
a Major Smolenski, promising him the colonelcy of the
regiment when it was formed, and four dollars a man for
every recruit he shipped from Boston.] Now there was
au answer to the letter from Smolenski himself, who
said—" I have received the annexed letter, and I under-
take to serve her. Majeteiy the Queen' as therein ex-
plained." This letter was signed "Joseph Smolenski."
Ile (Mr. Gibson) maintained that if ever there was a con-
tract that was one, and if the thing, hid been legal it
would have been a contract between two parties in the
fullest sense of the word. It wen)rieh!eve been a hiring
add' retaining. He found that Mr, Mathew, the con-
suj, admitted that be had paid money to Mr. Rata

through Mr. Howe, to whom the receipt was made out,
and the most remarkable part of the proceeding was
this, that in acknowledging the despatch admitting this
fact Mr. Crampton said he saw nothing wrong in any-
thing that Mr. Mathew had done, and in fact be took
upon himself all the responsibility. Hertz, it appears,
was on very friendly terms with Mathew, for Mathew
said be went one morning int ) his bedroom and with
oaths and protestations induced him to lend him fifty
dollars, but that he had not the honesty to repay him the
amount. Now, was it true that the Government had
spent the public money in carrying out what Mr. Marcy
had properly called these " unseemly contests ?" He did
not know whether the Government had thus spent the
public money or not. If they had, they of course a•l-
-remitted that these men were their agents. (Hear) Bct
it appeared plain that Mr. Crampton had given Strobel
money, and that Strobel by such means at once became
the agent of Mr. Crampton, who was responsible for his
acts. Mr. Crampton in one of his letters stated that
on his arrival at Halifax Captain Strobel waited
upon him and informed bins that there were many
Germans and others there who would gladly
join if the requirements of the British nation were
only made known to them. Upon that representation Mr.
Crampton gave him money to carry on his operations.
He (Mr. M. Gibson) very much regretted that her Ma-
jesty's Government were mixed up with proceedings such
as these, and he repudiated any enlistment whatever
with the United States. At the same time he was very
much surprised that when this course was decided upon
the agents of her Majesty's Ministers did not at onee put
themselves in friendly communication with the American
Government. The opinion of Judge Kane had been ad-
verted to as sanctioning the proceeding of the English
Government, but that learned judge, in the course of the
trial of Hertz, said he was surprised to hear that whilst
the British press was fulminating against the Americans,
there were agents of the British Government drawing
away persons to fight the battles of a people who were
not very courteously pressing upon them (the Americans)
the duty of neutrality. He hoped nothing that had oc-
curred would at all injure our relations with the United
States. He believed it amounted to nothing more than a
difference between the American Government and the
Government of our ewn country. The English House of
Commons had nothing to do with Mr. Marcy, Mr.
Cushing, or President Pierce, but with their own Minis-
ters, and it was his deliberate opinion that they had not
done well in picking this quarrel with the United States
for the purpose of getting a few miserable Germans.
Mr. BAITER said there were considerations which
might render it not inappropriate that he should make a
few observations. He was intimately connected commer-
cially with the United States, and bad spent many years
of his life there, with a view to obtain information upon
the social and political condition of the States. He had
no sympathy with those who spoke of the United States
not as a child whom we ought to cherish, but as a
rival whom we ought to chain and bridle. No doubt
the constitution of the United States had many defects,
which filled thinking men with dismay. But we should
not be too sensitive or prone to find fault, but being
ready to make all allowances, we should treat their
shortcomings with generosity and magnanimity. He
confessed that before reading the papers laid upon the
table by command of her Majesty, he had a strong bias
in favour of the Americans, but a careful perusal of them
had led him to the conclusion that the House of Com-
mons had no right to pass such a censure, as that con-
tained in the resolution, on her Majesty's Government,
and he had framed an amendment, which he understood
by the forms of the house he could not put, to the effect
that the resolution was unjust by implication to Mr.
Crampton, and directly to her Majesty's Government.
de regretted that Mr. Crampton did not communicate
to Mr. Marcy what were the intentions of her Majesty's
Government. He did not make such a communication,
and therefore if there was any error in this matter, it
certainly was at the door of Mr. Crampton himself.
(Hear.) In 'saying this, however, he did not stand there
as the apologist of her Majesty's Government, but for
the purpose of expressing his own opinions as an inde-
pendent member of the House of Commons. Then,
with respect to her Majesty's Government, and to
the course they took in this matter. Tnat Lord Claren-
don did make some unguarded statements could not be
denied, but they were soon recalled, and the American
Government had stated its full satisfaction with the ex-
planations her Majesty's Government had rendered. In
every other despatch Lord Clarendon had adopted that
conciliatory and generous tone which the people of this
country had a right to demand. (Hear.) Then it must
he recollected that Mr. Marcy, Mr. Attorney• General
Cushing, Mr. Vandyke, and others—not newspaper edi-
tors!, but gentlemen holding important situations under
the federal Government—had used language of the most
insulting and irritating nature. He could not help com-
ing to the conclusion that her Majesty's Government
had acted in a most generous and conciliatory spirit to.
wards a people with whom this nation would always de-
sire to be at peace. If President Pierce and others bad
acted in a similar spirit, many of the difficulties that had
followed would have been avoided. He bad no hesita-
tion in saying that while they were blustering about
war with England, it was only civil war that they
feared. (Rear.)
Mr. PEACOOSE did not mean to deny that Ame-
rica was a great and rising nation. He dirt not mean to
deny that the Americans spoke English, or that they
hospitably entertained the hon. gentleman who had just
sat down. (Laughter.) But he did mean to deny the
statement that had been made that this was an improper
time for the discussion of this question. It was constantly
said when the question was raised that the present was
not the proper time for considering it ; but now there
were no negotiations pending, for they had terminated
roost disastrously to the fame and honour of this court-
_

try. Mr. Crampton admitted that be had corresponded
with Strobel in cipher, that he gave people instruc-
tions as to the beat way of being enlisted, that he
made arrangements for evading the laws of the Unit-
ed States, and that he went to Halifax, there more
fully to earry out his plan et operations. The
hon. gentleman proceeded to read some extracts from
the correspondence with a view to show that the course
of proceeding which Mr. Crampton carried out was part
of a policy adopted by the Government at home, and
carried out by their agents abroad. He then referred to
the case of Mr. Cdrtas, our consul at Cologne, who was
condemned for enlisting contrary to law, but was par-
doned on the declaration made by him• that he was acting
under the direction of the British Gcvernment. That
was precisely an analogous case to that which had taken
place in the United Skates, and be contended that if Mr.
Crampton were right he should have been upheld at the
risk of the loss of Mr. Dallas. If be were wrong he
should have been recalled. Instead of that advice being
taken, this country had adopted a mean course, at the
suggestion of the noble lord at tho head of the Govern.
ment—the orator of Rornsey, and the rhetorician of the
Mansion-house ; who had stated that he would protect
the meanest of E 'gland's subjects, and yet had nue-
embed, when there was the slightest appearance of
danger.

Air. SPOON-ER said he would not enter upon the
merits of this question, for he believed that the more it
was discussed the more dangerous it would become. The
resolution visited her Majesty's Government with dis-
approbation, while the American Government was per.
frctly satisfied. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) An insult
not intended was not an insult, and any one who re-
sented it when it was not intended knew the conduct of
neither a Christian nor a gentleman. (Hear, hear.) If
the Government had sent back Mr. Della., they i would
have committed the most desperate act that could be
conceived, and would have plunged the two countries
into an inevitable war. (Loud cheers.) We could
afford to be magnanimous and wait patiently under
false accusations until, God grant, the differences could
be settled satisfactorily between the two countries. He
would not, therefore, enter into the merits of the ques-
tion ; he bad his own opinions on the subject, and
would not venture to express any opinion on the points
so ably argued by the honourable and learned Attorney-
General and the hon. and learned member for Stamford
last night. He did not profess to understand the legal
bearing of the points in question. He would recommend
those hon. members who laughed at this expression of
his ignorance themselves to get up and point out in
what respect either of these learned gentlemen were
wrong. Believing that the present was not the proper
time fur arguing the question, he should decline to pro-
nounce any opinion on the subject, and would vote for
going into committee of supply.
Mr. GLADSTONE— Sir, the speech which has just
been delivered by my hon. friend marks a feature in
this debate so important, and so much connected with
the vote that I shall probably give myself at its close,
that although I am likely upon a division to go into the
same lobby with the hon. member, yet I think there is
no impropriety in my following him in discussion. It ap-
pears to me that the two cardinal aims which we ought to
keep in view in the discussion of this question are peace
and a thoroughlycordial understanding with America for
one, the honour and fame of England for tha other. I
am bound to say that in regard to neither of these points
am I satisfied with the existing state of things, or with
the conduct of her Majesty's Government. A cordial
understanding with America has not been preserved ; the
honour of this country has been compromised. Sir, I
am not one who will wet up the phantasm of honour in a •
case where the plea appears to me unreal, or who will
condescend to separate between honour and the honour-
able conduct of which it ought to be the symbol. But as
respects the honour of England, I assent—l cannot but
assent—to the statement of the hon. and learned gentle-
man who has already spoken from an opposite bench,
that what is considered by the world to he a❑ insult—
that which, at any rate, cannot but be called an insult--
has been put upon England by the Government of the
United States. Has it been put with or without a cause !
If with a cause, it ought to be confessed ; if without a
cause it ought to be resented. Sir, I am bound tosay that
upon this question my feelings are such that it would
be impossible for me to meet with a direct negative the
motion of the hon. member for Mayo. I could not Bay
' No" to a motion which states that the conduct of her
Majesty's Government in regard to enlistment in Ame-
rica has not entitled them to the approval of this house.
Nor do I mean simply to take my stand, when I say I
am likely to vote with the hon. member for North War-
wickshire, upon the circumstance—though it is an im-
pi,rtant one—that we are not called upon to say " Ay"
or " No" to that question. The question which you,
Sir, will put from the chair, that we should go into
C immittee of Supply, gives to the matter the technical
Parliamentary aspect of what is called the " previous
question ;" but, at the same time, I must say that I do
not concur in the censures which have been bestowed
upon the hon. member for Mayo with respect to the time
of bringing forward his motion. (Hear, hear.) Yet the
question is one of the greatest difficulty. I cannot say

that there is no inconvenience attending a enotlon which
criticises or assails the conduct of her Majesty's G
veratnent engaged in transactions with a foreign ccuutry;
bat, before deciding the question whether the hon. meet-
ber for Mayo is open to the severe censures which have
been cast upon him, we must consider whether the
papers which have been laid on the table do not make
us acquainted with all the facts of the caee—whether the
misunderstanding with America has not gone beyond
the point of mere diplomatic communication, and has
assumed form and action in the face of the world, and
whether the house itself, or at least those individual
members who have familiarised themselves with the con-
tents of the blue-books, wilt not by declining to take
this opportunity of expressing their opinion upom them
become parties to the approval of the conduct of her
Majesty's Government ? (Hear, hear.) For myself,
Sir, I frankly own that I have felt the greatest difficulty
in considering the question what vote to give upon
the present occasion. I never recollect a question
more difficult as pressing upon my own under-
standing and conscience (hear, hear) but with
my knowledge and experience of this house, I am
convinced that those who feel with me cannot do
better than throw themselves or. the indulgence of
the house, stating fully the difficulties which they experi-
ence, exposing themselves if need be to adverse criticism,
but relying with confidence on the generous forbearance
of the house to put a fairconstruc; ion upon their language.
(Hear.) At any rate, after what I have said, Isbell state
in intelligible language why it is I expect to find myself
voting with the hon. member for North Warwickshire.
My hon. friend stated, at the commencement Of the dis-
cussion, that he deprecated the beginning of it as likely
to icjure the interests of peace, and he likewise charac-
terised it as a party question, casting some discredit upon
it on that account. Is it, then, in point of fact, a party
question ? Why, I appeal to his own example against his
precept. He himself has risen in his place and declared
that he will vote against the motion of the hon. member
for Mayo. So far that is an indication that it is not a pal ty
question. (Hear, hear.) Again, within the last few mi-
nutes the right hon. gentleman the member for Man-
chester, who, I apprehend, does not belong to the same
political school as the hon. member for Mayo, has
declared his intention to support the motion. But if my
right hon. friend and the hon. member for Mayo are
making it a party question, on behalf of what party are
they raising it ! Is it of the party opposite ? Does the
hon. member for Mayo belong to the school of the right
hon.. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire ?
Why, sir, it is quite plain this is not a party question.
And, sir, I am bound to say that, in my opinion, that is
a vitel element in the consideration of the case. Disap-
proving the conduct of her Majesty's Government in
the managenlent of the foreign enlistment question, I say
here that I should be ready to express that disapproval
by vote if I saw a motion to that effect made ke a peety
ready to be responsible for the consequences of success.
Now, sir, I say to the hon. member for Mayo, with-
out the slightest disrespect, that these questions of
votes of censure upon Governments are matters of
great importance, and that in considering them we
must look not merely to the terms in which they are
framed, but likewise to the quarter from which they
emanate. (Hear.) I mean nothing disparaging to the
hon. member for Mayo ; but are we to regard his mo-
tion as the declaration of a party ready to be responsible
for the results of its adoption, or is it merely the expres-
sion of the opinion of individual members of this house,
who can have little influence upon the division, and who,
if the resolution were carried, could not themselves be
responsible for the consequences ? (Hear.) I think, sir,
it is a good practical rule in Parliamentary discussions
that we should not by our votes weaken the hands of Go-
vernment unless we are prepared to displace them from
office. (Hear.) I think it is not desirable that in these
foreign transactions the Government should be assailed
by votes that tend to weaken their influence on behalf
of their country; unless they are moved by those who
are responsible for carrying those opinions into effect. I
therefore should have approved the motion before the
house if it had been moved by some party who were re-
sponsible for carrying the resolution of the hon. member
for Mayo into effect. For a vote of censure on the Go-
vernment, as an abstract resolution, I am not able to
vote, but if the motion had come before me supported by
those who were ready to carry out the principle it em-
bodied I should have felt it my duty to give effect to my
opinion. But then I may be asked, " Why, admitting
that we ought not to weaken the hands of the Govern-
ment in carrying on their difficult negotiations with a
foreign country—why do you enter upon this discussion
and express opinions contrary to the course taken by the
Government ?" My answer is plain. I have no choice
after the turn which this debate has taken. [An hon.
member made a remark, which was inaudible.] My hon.
friend says I am going to speak one way and vote an-
other. (A. laugh.) Well, Sir, I object to all votes of
an abstract character, and which cannot be carried to a
practical result. I believe it to be a wise rule that
votes of censure on the Government should only be pro-
posed by those who are able to give effect to the prin-
ciple contained in those votes. I should not shrink from
giving my vote in accordance with that opinion, but as
matters stand I shalt vote for going into Committee of
Supply. The state of things with which you have to
deal is this :—Upon the British Minister the penalty of
dismissal from Washington has been inflicted. As far ae
the honour of this country is concerned, the state of
things is therefore unsatisfacti.ry. As far as regards the
American Government, what is its condition ? Was the
breach with America closed up by his disinter:al ? Will
any man say Ire believes it is ? It it were rightto retain
Mr. Dallas, why do you keep our diplomacy in a state
of half animation? Why do you not appoint a successor
to Mr. Crampton ? I can conceive no reason for not send-
ing away Mr. Dallas that does not equally prove that
you should appoint a successor t 3 Mr. Crampton. If the
American Government bad no cause to justify them in
dismissing Mr. Crampton, why do you retain Mr. Dal-
las ? If they had a cause to justify them, why do you
not admit that they are right and seed a successor to fill
Mr. Crompton's place ? (Hear.) My right hon. friend the
Secretary of State for the Home Department having
spoken last night, I presume we are in possession of the
views of the Government, and the Government were not
content to debate this question except upon its merits.
My hon. friend the member for Warwickshire said lie
would not enter upon the merits of this question, and
that is a perfectly consistent course for me to take or for
my hon. friend ta.take. But the Government have en-
tered upon the discussion upon the merits of the case.
That was a manly course, and I do not find fault with
it. Whether it was a prudent course I ant not so sure.
But they declared their adherence to all that has been
done and stated during the whole progress of this
painful discussion. Nothing can, be more explicit than
the declarations they have made to this effect. The
Attorney General declared that, whereas there had
been charges against the Government of violating both
international law and the municipal law of the United
States, he denied both those charges, and denied that
either law had been violated. My right hon. friend the
Secretary of State for the Home Department was
even bolder in his manner of deabng with this subject
than the Attorney General. He said that the officers of
the Government had noted up to the spirit of the instruc-
tions that they had received. He said that no acts bad
been done contrary to the American law, and that the
apologies made to the United States' Government did
not admit that such acts had been done, because her Ma-
jesty's Government felt all along that no wrong had been
done. So that the doctrine of the Government is that
their proceedings have been justified by their own in-
structions. I am certainly not prepared to be respons-
ible for that opinion by the side of the evidence in this
blue-book. I believe, indeed, that such an assertion is
made in the teeth of the plainest evidence in every page
of these documents. That is not only my opinion, but I
believe it is in effect the opinion of a great many of the
members of this house who have given their time and
labour to the perusal of these blue-books. Small is, I
fear, the number who answer to that description. There
are many things that the English people will do. They
will sign petitions : they will attend meetings ; they will
get up agitations ; they will pay taxes, and double taxes
if need be. But blue-books they will not read. That
is the case also with members of this house. I say fear-
lessly that the Attorney-General has not read these blue-
books. (A laugh.) That is a fair challenge, and I will
show that the references of the Attorney-General to these
books—references evidently supplied to him at second
hand—betray that be has never entered upon the study of
these important documents. The effect of these declara-
tions of the Government is, that they keep alive the re-
collection of the differences between this Government and
the Government of America, and I am not prepared to
assent to the opinion of those who say that it is not de-
sirable to remove these affairs from the hands of those who
have hitherto conducted them. On the contrary, I think
that no Government is so little qualified toconduct these
negotiations with America to a successful result, be-
cause of the differences that have prevailed, because of
the course of combined obstinacy and weakness which
the Government have pursued, and because the recol-
lection of these differences has been kept alive by claims
which present a great difficulty in the further progress
of the negotiations. My right hon. friend (Sir G. Grey)
stated in a fair and candid manner a point of great im-
portance. I refer to the supposed apology of the British
Government. It has often been said that the American
Government cannot complain, because if any wrong has
been done them it has been covered by a handsome apo-
logy. 'But that is not the language of my right hon.
friend. He did not say that if any wrong had been done
to the Government of the United Statesit bad been
covered by an apology. On the contrary, my right hon.
friend said, with the greatest candour and truth, that
the apology offered to the United States' Government
had always been a conditional apology, and was not an
apology that implied or admitted that a wrong had been
done, because her Majesty's Government, having been
fully conscious that they had done no wrong, had
not offered an apology that suppoied that a wrong
had been done. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend
stated these were the apologies that had been made.
They had been repeated in various despatches. They
all ran in one form. The British Government would
regret deeply if, either intentionally or unintentionally,
they have done a wrong to America. But they have
not done a wrong to America. (Hear, hear.) If no
wrong had been done I grant you that an apology so
couched ought to be accepted, and that it would be a
frank, genercus, and conciliatory step, going as near as
possible to meet the views of the American Government.
But if a wrong has been done, such an apology is no
apology at all. (Hear.) Whether a wrong has been
done, therefore, is the question upon which we have to
fall back. I maintain that if a wrong has been done that
wrong has not been atoned for by the apology. Let me
say two things, which will shorten my part in the dis-
cussion. In the first place, I will not, as a general
rule, quote from these blue-books, bat for every word I
utter I am ready, if called upon, to repeat, the chap-
ter and verse. If I do not quote much, it is .be-
.canse it would be unreasonable in me to trespass upon
the indulgence of the house. In the next place,
I forbear to discuss the question of internatiowia
not that I think it uniirportillt, liseatiaa I btathit 110

position is less defensible and no pretension less tenable
than that we may exclude the queNtion of inter rational
law from the consideratiwi of this sulject front the fri-
volous reason that the Americans have a munici pal law.
Lint as the case is clear upon the municipal la w, I am
ready to confine myself to that in the practic It view of
the case which I Lave prescribed to myself. I am sorry
to say that the propositions that I have to an sport, as
embodying my conscientious convictions, are unfortu,
nately propositions which attach very strong 6 lame to
the conduct of the Government. Sir, I shalL not at-
tempt to qualify those opinions by any expressions of
regret. These things are of little value in hosZ-,ile dis.
cussion. It is better for a man to speak out wha: he has
to say, and to trust to be contradicted, corrected, and
exposed if he has not spoken the truth. What I have
to say is this—fn the first place, concealment wfas prac-
tised towards the American Government ; and; in the
second place, not only was concealment practised, but
the American Government were deluded and resisted by
representations, which I do not say were intended to
mislead, but were evidently such that they must toislead,
if properly considered. I say this--that the municipal
law was not only broken, but it was broken in defiance
of the advice of those who were chosen as counsellors--
it was knowingly broken on the part of the agents of the
British Government. Ido not say that in these papers
in to be found the proof that this was done under the di.
rection of the British Government: In that respect I
venture to differ from the hon. gentleman the member
for Mayo, and, permit me in passing to say, I could not
but listen with regret to the observations expressed
from the Treasury bench, not only on those portions of
the speech of the hon. member for Mayo in which be
introduced, by way of illustration, certain passages from
Irish history--(a laugh)—but on the general tendency of
that speech to throw blame on one particular member
of the Cabinet. I must say, in justice to the hon. mem-
ber for Mayo, that although it may be good tactics to
strive to keep out of view one's own incapacity by in-
troducing exciting matter, the hon. gentleman has no
cause for any such expedient, because he has amply
proved by argument his full ability to deal with the
merits of the question. (Cheers.) But I differ from the
bon. gentleman in that point. I think he stated these
things were done under the direction of her Majesty's
Government. I confess I do not discern that on the
face of the papers. (Hear.) But, in my view, it matters
little whether they were done under the direction of the
Government or not, if the Government made themselves
parties to the acts by their subsequent approbation.
(Hear) And here, sir, I cannot help regretting deeply
the injustice done Mr. Crampton by the .hon. member
for Montrose. (Cheers.) One proposition that I state
with the greatest confidence is this—that injustice was
not done Mr.' Crampton by any member of the Govern.
ment, but it was done ty the hon. member for Mon-
trose, (Hear.) The hon. member, with his regard for
America, was not willing to inculpate America ; and,
with his regard for the Government, was not willing to
inculpate the Government. (A laugh.) So, following
the example of President Pierce, and passing by both
the British and the American Governments, he threw
the blame upon Mr. Crampton, and said Mr. Crampton,
when he took the lawyer's opinion, ought to have stopped
the scheme of recruiting. I give Mr. Crampton credit
for taking a lawyer's opinion. It was a wise and pru-
dent step, but when it is said he should have stopped the
scheme of recruiting, did it rest with Mr. Crampton to
disobey orders from home ? (Hear,) In my opinion
Mr. Crampton sailed as near the wind as he could, and,
in justice to Mr. Crampton, it must be remembered that
when be bad taken the lawyer's opinion he sent home
that opinion to his Government and wrote to Lord Cla-
rendon—

` Your lordship will no doubt perceive that the provi-
sions of the Neutrality Act restrict our operations within
very narrow limits."
(Cheers.) I take it that it was a fair expression that in
his opinion the whole thing should be abandoned. That
suggestion was not adopted by the Government at home.
Mr. Crampton had begun to act in the spirit of what he
conceived to be these intentions, and the result is that
her Majesty's Government are unreservedly acquitted by
the Americans, and Mr. Crampton is no longer Minister
at Washington. (Cheers.) But with respect to Mr.
Crampton my proposition is this—that there is not one
hair's breadth of distinction between the position of Mr.
Crampton and the position of her Majesty's Government.
(Hear.) I think, as far as I can judge, that the zeal of
Mr. Crampton, and, perhaps, what he believed to be the
intentions of the Government, but were not the instruc-
tions of the Government, were the source of the evils
which have arisen. (Hear.) Everything which Mr.
Crampton did was approved by the Government at home;
every claim that Mr. Crampton made was maintained by
the Government at home, and I entirely decline to draw
the least distinction between the original responsibility
of Mr. Crampton, as the subordinate person, and the sub-
sequent responsibility of the Government by its unre-
stricted posterior approval of Mr. Crampton's conduct.
(Cheers.) But I say that, at first, Mr. Crampton concealed
those proceedings from the American Government, and
that in a point of great importance. (Hear.) The hon.
member for Mayo has quoted a passage from Lord Cla-
rendon's despatch of the 15th July, in which Lord Cla-
rendon says that he has instructed Mr. Crampton, above
all, to have no concealment from the American Govern•
ment. My right hen. friend the member for Manchester
says, that if that were so, then it was a high offence in Mr.
Crampton to practise concealment. The American Go-
vernment, not doubting the assurance conveyed by Lord
Clarendon, said the same thing and laid on Mr. Cramp-
ton's shoulders this burden—that, having received strict
instructions not to practise concealment, he did practise
concealment. The hon, member for Mayo has stated that
there does not appear in these papers any instruction to
Mr. Crampton not to practise concealment, and he has
called upon the Government to point out to him where
that instruction is. (Hear, hear.) The Attorney-Gene•
ral followed, and he did not answer that appeal. The
Home Secretary spoke later in the evening, and did not
answer that'appeal. The appeal must be renewed, for
this house has a right to know from her Majesty's Go-
verntiient whether it is true that Lord Clarendon in-
,truetid Mr. Crampton to have no concealment from the
American Government. If he thd so instruct Mr. Cram-
too, then undoubtedly the American Government are
justified in the distinction which they draw ; but, if Lord
Clarendon did not so instruct Mr. Crampton, and if the
reference ;_n the despatch of July 15 is erroneous, then it
is impossible to find words to describe the injustice in-
flicted on Mr. Crampton, because Mr. Crampton Las
been made to bear the responsibility of concealment,
which the hon. member fur Montrose well said was the
fatal error from the outset, whereas the responsibility of
that concealment belongs to the Government. I frankly
own I think it does belong to the Government, for,
although reference is made in the despatch of July 15 to
sonic instruction not to practise concealment, there is
no passage in any prior despatch, or indeed in any de-
spatch, prior or subsequent to that effect. The material
point in the case is, whether concealment was or was not
practised ? The Attorney-General said no concealment
nal practised, for Mr. Crampton pointed out to Mr.
Marcy that the British Government had established, or
intended to establish, a depot at Halifax. And this is
what induced me to say the Attorney• General had not
read the papers, because my hon. and learned friend gave
two references to despatches, neither of which contain a
eord as to the depot at Halifax ; but there happens to
be a third extract which does refer to it. I presume the
person who prepared the references for the Attorney-
General had unfortunately placed the wrong figures in
the margin, or they were wrongly supplied at the mo-
ment, and my hon. and learned friend, not having
read the papers, was unable to correct the error.
(Laughter.) However, it is quite true Mr. Crampton
did say to Mr. Marcy that the British Government
intended to establish a depot at Halifax. It is not in the
blue-book; but it is in the 14th page of the last papers
presented to Parliament. I think there is no doubt
it was mentioned, but it is a fact, for Which I do not think
Mr. Marcy had any great reason to feel obliged, inasmuch
as this depot was the subject of great discussion in the
public journals, and it is just possible Mr. Marcy Might
have acquired a knowledge of its existence without any
such communication being made by Mr. Crampton. The
question is, did you conceal from the American Govern.
ment that which was the matter and the cause of the com-
plaint? The American Government never complained of
the existence of the depot at Halifax. There is not a word
which implies such a complaint on their part. They knew
quite well that the establishment of such a depot at Hali-
fax, whether prudent or not, was perfectly within the
rights and competence of the British Government, and I
am perfectly ready to say that I and my right hon. friend
near me (Sir J. Graham) are responsible for that act in
conjunction with the members of the present Government,
because that resolution was the last step within our cog.
nisance before we were compelled to quit the Cabinet of
my noble friend on a question arising on the motion of
the hon, and learned member for Sheffield. But that was
never made the subject of complaint. What the American
Government have complained of is the employment of an
agency within the United States not only to give informa-
tion, but to tempt to induce by the offer of valuable con-
siderations, the subjects of the United States to go beyond
the United States for the purpose of enlisting. That is the
subject matter of their ccmplaint, and I want an answer
to this question—Did Mr. Crampton tell the American
Government that he, on the part of the British Govern-
ment, was about to establish such an agency or not? Mr.
Crampton says he did not tell the American Government
the details. I must say that appears to me an unworthy
mode el dealing a ith the question. This is not a question
about details. It is a question about a measure, constitut-
ing the corpus of the complaint, on the part of the Ameri-
can Government, namely—the employment of an agency
within the United States for the purpose of disseminating
information and inducing men to go beyond the United
States to enlist. (Cheers.) Did Mr. Crampton communi-
cate that, or did he not ? If not, it is useless to talk of not
concealing, when you conceal not a detail but the very head
and front--the very ground and foundation, of the whole
case. (Cheers.) I say, without the =sliest doubt, Mr.
the
Crampton did not communecioaatuesethtahtertoe
is e
theAmericandeclaration,
vernment,
vernment, and I say so, b
express and positive, of the American Government, because
there is nothing in the statement of Mr. Crampton himself
which sustains the allegation that he made such a communi-
snthteh United case
nited
cation to Mr. Marcy. (Hear, hear.) This fact stands the
proposition first great
tslitaattetsh,efogroitnhgeaptpout to
an agency 1 i
e
of inducing American citizens to go beyond the border and
be enlisted, was concealed from the American Government.
That is the charge of concealment, and it will be well if
the Government can give some answer to it. (Hear.)
But concealment was not all. There was more, unfortu-
nately. I request hon. gentlemen to look at the 14th page
of the last papers which have been laid upon the table,
and there they will find that Mr. Crampton, referring to his
despatch of the 22d of March of last year, gives us a large
part of a despatch which was not given in the exiginal blue.
book. He there gives his account of his conversations with
Mr. Marcy, and states the substance of kis communications
with that gentleman. He says he told Mr. Marcy that to
the inquiries which had been addressed to him by persons
in that country he bad invariably replied by referring them
to the provisions of the act. After stating those provisions
lee goes on to say consequently all he could do was to give
testicle persons • the information of which he was in Pos-
session as to the terms and the time and place A wklick
they might, if so disposed, be received into the
service of the British Government. Therefore, 31e.
Crampton solemnly assured Mr. Marcy fiat, in answer to