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

any letters he might receive, he would confine himself to
communicating to the persons who addressed themselves to
him the terms upon which they could be received into the
service of his country, so far as he was acquainted with
. them. That-'appears to me to have been a promise of a
most solemn character, Mr. Crampton's own communica-
tion to Mr. Marcy resting upon Mr Crampton's allegations
now produced by himself in self-defence. Was that pro-
mise kept? Did Mr. Crampton confine himself to that in-
formation ? Is there a man in this house who will rise
and say he did so ? If he did not, how are we to meet the
charge of the American Government, when they say we
deceived and deluded them, that we threw them off the
scent and induced them to believe that although proceed-
ing
s were, going on in the Union we had nothing to do
with them, because they gave credence to our assurance,
as conveyed by Mr. Crampton, that whatever agency was
employed in the United States it was the agency of unsup-
ported and unrecognised volunteers with which the Go-
vernment had nothing to do. But was there nothing
more? There was a certain Angus M'Donald who appear-
ed to think that, free trade being a very good thing, it
might properly be applied to recruiting, who, upon re-
ceiving a remunerative price for the passage, offered to
take persona to the British dominions. Well, we laid
hold of this convenient despatch to Mr. M'Donald, carried
it with great pomp to the American Minister, who read
the indignant and almost ferocious terms in which the
offer of Mr. Angus MlDonall was repudiated. Upon the
very day of the conversation with Mr. Marcy to which I
have referred this letter was written to Angus M`Donald,
and it will not be very uncharitable to suppose it was
written for the purpose of being exhibited to Mr.
Marcy. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was, however, read
by Mr. Marcy, was regarded by that gentleman as an
important fact, and led to the expression of great
satisfaction on the part of the American Government.
Let me say I was very sorry to hear the criticisms
of the hon. and learned member for Leominster (Mr. J. G
Phillimore) upon the conduct of the American Govern-
ment upon this subject. If peace be our object, together
with the maintenance of the honour of England—(hear)
—I would ask whether the attainment of those objects are
promoted by private members setting themselves up as
Judges of the conduct of the American Government? I
will give my judgment upon the conduct of that Govern.
ment upon the question before ns ; but if it be true that
the American Government is pettifogging and litigious,
then I sly, instead of that being at reason for trampling
upon the law, it was a reason why, if not out of regard for
them, at least in consideration for the great country which
we represent, we should have held those laws more sacred,
and have avoided still more carefully to give so litigious
and pettifogging a people the slightest reason for com-
plaint. A comparison has been made between the procla-
mation of Mr. Angus M'Donald and that of the Nova
Scotian Government, and it has been argued that what
was against the law if done within the boundaries of the
United States was not against the laws if done beyond
those boundaries. Upon that all I can say is, I cannot
conceive a so:rier answer than that things which were not
lawful for a man to do because done by a private indi-
vidual within the dominion of the United States might
lawfully be done by the British Government immediately
upon the borders of the United States. But that is not
the question at issue. Compare the proclamation of Mr.
Angus M'Donald with that of Mr. Wilkins, autl with
actual proceedings of the British Government in the
United States. Mr. M'Donald disseminated the informa-
tion that, upon certain terms, he was prepared to send re-
cruits to a British colony. Mr. Crampton and his agents
disseminated information, too, and advertisements ap-
peared in German newspapers published in the Union,
that persons were requiredto go abroad—sometimes it was
said as mechanics, but everybody understood the kind of
machinery they would be expected to use. (Hear, and a
laugh.) The only difference was, that they provided a free
passage, or paid money for the purpose. Therefore, it
stands thus—that we actually paraded in the face of the
American Government our condemnation of the unfortu-
nate Angus M'Donald. and thus, perhaps, ruined his inno-
•cent and well-intended enterprise, while at the same time
we were doing all that he proposed to do, superadding the
provision of II free passage, or paid money to meet the
expense. I think no one will deny that a Government who
by its agents pursued that course, and afterwards signified
•: its approval of their acts, is not only fairly chargeable with
n concealment, but is also liable to the charge of having de-
luded the American Government. Therefore, nothing is
a; more unjust than the charge which is made against the
American Government of having at first confined its com-
plaints to the proceedings of unauthorised persons, and
• subsequently extended those complaints to the British Mi-
nister and his subordinates. The American Government
at first confined their representations to the unauthorised
persons, because it believed the answer which was given.
•, Those representations were extended when they found that
. the answer was not based upon truth. Aiming as Ido at
a plain and intelligible statement, I must say the Ameri-
can Government was deceived by the proceedings of the
British Government. I say wo intentionally broke the
law of the Union. My hon. friend (Mr. Spooner) tells us
not to judge generally of intentions. I agree with him,
except so tar us we can infer them from acts. Mr. Cramp-
ton—and I give him credit for it—began his proceedings
by taking the opinion of a most eminent American
lawyer, one in whom, according to Mr. Crampton'.
significant alescriptinn, he had perfect confidence, not only
as to professional ability, bat also as to political principles
—that is to say, a man who, he believed, could confidently
be reckoned on as having no feeling aim se to the interests
of Great Britain. That gentleman seems to have given a
very prudentopi niou' neon which. I conceive, Mr. Crampton
was bound to act. Why did Mr. Crampton take that
opinion? He himself, at page 131, gives us the reason'.
He says he took it because he did not understand the neu-
trality laws, and therefore he says :
" I requested an eminent American lawyer, in whosejudg-
tnent and professional ability I felt entire confidence, to draw
up for me an opinion on the subject; and a copy of this
opinion I thought it right to transmit to her Majesty's con-
sols in the chief cities of the Union, and, a copy of it accom-
panied my despatch to your lordship of the 13th of March."
Now, in this opiuionjt is distinctly laid down that any
person would be found guilty of offending against thenen-
traeity laws who either gave money or money's worth to
any other person within the territories of the Union in
order to induce or enable him to go abroad for the purpose
of enlisting in a fereige service. Why do I say that we
intentionally broke the law? I will show you from the
declaration of a British officer how be understood the
meaning of that opinion. Mr. Lurnl-y, who stilt remains
in America, and who has entirely identified himself with
the proceedings of Mr. Crampton, says at page 15, in a
letter to Consul Dyer,—
" But a promise to pay the travelling expenses or to pro-
vide for the family of any person who may join her Majesty's
service, as proposed by your correspondent, would not de-
prive such emigration of its voluntary character, but would
constitute a violation of the neutrality laws of the United
States, and no prop isition of this nature can therefore be
entertained by her Majesty's Minister or consuls."
So it stands upon these documents that the compel of the
British Government state 1 that giving either money or
money's worth to persons to induce them to go abroad for the
purpose of enlisting would be a violation of the law ; and it
atandsupon these documents, also, that Mr. Lumley,on the
13th May, representing Mr. Crampton, wrote to Consul
Dyer to say that a promise to pay travelling expenses con-
stituted a violation of the neutrality laws of the United
States. The meaning, therefore, of these laws, as ex-
pounded, was known and admitted by the agents of the
British Government. That was on the 13th of May. On
that day Mr. Lumley etated a promise to pay travelling
expenses would be a violation of the law. Where was Mr.
Crampton on the 13th of May ? He was at Halifax. What
was Mr. Crampton doing at Halifax at the time when Mr.
Lumley was thus soundly expounding the American neu-
trality laws? Mr. Crampton was committing that very
breach of the neutrality laws—aye, and something even
beyond that—which Mr. Lumley was denouncing from his
office at Washington. (Hear, hear.) If you turn to page
133, you will see that Mr. Crampton begins by saying that
he left Washington on the 2d of May to go to Halifax ;
that he arrived at Halifax on the 11th; it was there that
" Strobel, who had already brought with him some men
from New York and Boston, and who appeared to be well
acquainted with the condition and desires of his country-
men in the States, positively afeerteil that be knew many
hundreds of Germans in the cities and country in thp vicinity of the great lakes who only required to be informed
of where they could be receive! in C snada, and to be sup-
plied with the small sums which would cover their travel-
ling expenses, immediately to present themselves on British
territory for enrolment in her Majesty's service." They
required something more than a promise of travelling ex-
penses; they wanted the money in hand ; the promise of
travelling expenses was declared illegal byLumley
Mr. at
Washington. Mr. Crampton at Halifax
says :—"T lo
plan, seeming to me to present a batter prosriecf
cape and at the same time to be unobjectionable garde.) the laws of the United States was adopted," asAfre-
ter
this, will any gentleman rise in this house, end state thrt,
the laws of the United States have not been violated
(Hear, hear.) Is it possible t ) carry evidence farther? I
have shown you the American construction 01 the law
and I certainly hold that the Americ in Courts and Geeern,
meat were better entitled to construe their own municip
al
law than any foreign Government. I should like to ktipcta how we should deal with the American Minister who wws
in this country, doing. certain acts contrary to our con-
struction of ills law, judicial, a el o Ilerwbp, and eheuld
bring forward Seine ingenious view t; k an on the other aide
of the Atlantic with respect to that c instruction in order
to justify his acts. But the case do, s not stand upon the
- opinion of your own American lawyer; it stands upon Mr.
Lumley's declaration on the part of tae British Govern.
ment, that it was a breach of the law to promise to pay
these travelling expenses, combined with Mr. Crampton',,
-simultaneous declaration that at that very period, at
Halifax, he Agreed t ) a plan for pay n; hard c eda to per.
sons then in the United States to enable them to find their
way to Halifax and enlist. That is what I call nn inten-
tional breach of the American neutrality laws, It is us-
necessary to go through the varinns cases; lam sorry to
say there are too many. My right hon. friend (Mr. M.
Gibson) has mentioned the case of Mr. Smolenski and the
contract with Mr. Howe. There is no answer to th at case
except this—that Mr. Howe was not diplomatically em-
ployed by the British Government in th, United totes.
There were, in fact, no means of getting hold of this gen-
tleman—as dm of the newspapers said of him, he was too
slippery. But there is one case to which I sl;al: refer for
a few moments—l 'mean the case of C.msnl Mathew.
The Attorney-General yesterday i-eerned to suppose that
this was a question where the evidence was all on one
-side; that 'on the one side we hart the testimony of Hertz
and Strobe), and on the other the assurances of Mr.
Crampton and the three consuls rust is one reason why
I congratulate the Attorney-General on his felicitous and
all but total ignorance of what the blue-books contain, for
it is impossible he can have read the blue-books and ima-
gine that that is the whole issue raised. Now, I throw over
illertz and Strobel altogether, and am only sorry that that

'mass of affidavits from one person and another, swearing
to all aorta of things. should have been produced public
documents—these affidavits being the most worthless trash
ever printed in tkis world. Ido more than reject the tes-
timony of Hertz and Strobel. I don't attend to the allega-
tions of the American Govarnment. I look solely to the
evidence afforded by onr own officers and our own agents.
I won't remark on the dove-like innotenc3 of the Govern-
anent in conferring commissions in the Qnean's service.oo
gentlemen of this not verydoebtful character. (A laugh.)
But, treating as you pleue tbeevideueeof Hertz end Stro-
bel. is it true thatthe clvtrgeiure denied by Mr. Cramptob
and the three consnls ? With regard to these three consuls,
I may observe that the evidence is not equally full as t:)
all. I have read a most manly letter written by Mr. Bar-
clay, and looking to the character of the allegations made
againgthat gentlman whether as regards the barque dlanry
or as respects recruiting, I think it is clear that Mr. Bar-
clay was free from all complicity. I should also give en-
tire credence to theassertionsof Consul Mathew, but those
assertions prove the very worst part of the ease. The At-
torney-General says there has been no breadi of the mu-
nicipal law of America. lam clear, then, that his studies
must have stopped short of the 34th page of this blue-book,
or he would have found ihere evidence which, to my mind,
is conclusive on this case. In the first place, I think there
is no doubt that Hertz was erig.gmil in breaking the law.
In the second place, there is no doubt that lltiwe was the
r amain agent in conneotion with Hertz, and if Howe

C. I),;_

was found supplying Hertz with money it must be pre-
sumed that Howe was cognisant of the use which Hertz
was about to make of it. That principle, at least, would
apply to such a case occurring in this country. I have
heard the Attorney-General speak most ably in this house
with respect to a charge of bribery at an election. If
the name of Howe had been Frail—(laughter)--and it had
been proved that Frail had handed money to Hertz for
certain purposes, theAttorney-General would not, I think,
have had much difficulty in identifying Frail with
those purposes. But between this Howe and Mr. Hertz
comes in a third person, and that third person is Consul
Mathew. He says, in the 34th page, that Hertz's confes-
sion was a tissue of falsehoods, and he was determined to
know nothing about Hertz or anything of his proceedings.
Well, that is the kind of answer we sometimes receive in
committee-rooms in this house when inconvenient questions
are put to witnesses about acts done at elections and money
misapplied there; in that case they tell us they know no-
thing of the use to which that money was applied. Consul
Mathew says:—" At his (Hertz's) earnest request I trans-
mitted a sealed letter to Mr. Howe, and handed him a
reply, containing, I believe, money." Well, that is very
cautions on the part of Consul Mathew, when we re-
member that his belief was not formed without good and
sufficient grounds, for this reason—that he took a receipt
for the money, "for which," he says, " Hertz gave me a
receipt, made out to Mr. Howe, and inclosed by me to him."
Mr. Mathew was always very judicious; the receipt was
not made out to him ; Hertz swears wrongfully that the
receipt was made out to Consul Mathew; but it was made
out to Howe. Mr. Mathew handed money from Howe to
Hertz; he took a receipt from Hertz and sent it back to
Howe. "On a second occasion (he says) I decliutel to give
him the money, though merely the channel of transfer ;
and the amount was sent to the proprietor of an hotel,
from whose bookkeeper he received it." These are net
chance or casual expressions, for much further on in the
book Consul Mathew travels over the same ground. He
twice handed money from Howe to Hertz; he sent the
money by a circuitous channel ; and there is no doubt he
sent it in that way in order that it might be the more dif-
ficult to trace. Can there be a doubt as to the character of
that act? Is there any lawyer who will say that in a com-
mittee of this house Consul Mathew would not have been
held to be implicated in the proceedings of Howe, or that
the American Government were not right in the view
they took upon this point? (Hear.) Then shall I be toll
that this was the proceeding of Consul Mathew—that the
British Government had nothing to do with it ? Now,
Consul Mathew, upon the whole, behaved with considerable
prudence and propriety, for although he had done these
acts, yet, at any rate, he was determined that the respon-
sibility should not rest with him' and therefore he took
took very good care to inform Mr. Crampton. Mr. Cramp-
ton, at page 35, acknowledges the receipt from Consul
Mathew of the letter to which I have just been referring,
and says :
" I have in the meantime forwarded a copy of your de-
spatch to her Majesty's Government, and I have satisfaction
in assuring you that I can see nothing in any of your pro-
ceedings in regard to this matter which appear to me to be
incorrect, or derogatory to your office."
I apprehend, therefore, that Mr. Crampton is pretty clearly
responsible for the whole of Mr. Mathew's proceedings;
but does the responsibility stop there?. Mr. Crampton
again, with perfect propriety, sent home to Lord Claren-
don Mr. Mathew's letter, together with his own letter of
approval, and on the 2d Nov. Lord Clarendon acknow-
ledges the receipt of that communication in the following
terms :
" I have received your despatch of the 15th ult., and its
enclosures respecting the proceedings which have been taken
in the United States District Court at Philadelphia, in the
case of Henry Hertz, who has been pronounced guiltyof hav-
ing violated the neutrality laws by enlisting recruits for the
British army ; and I have to state to you that I approve the
answer which you returned to Mr. Consul Mathew's commu•
nications to you upon this subject."
Consul Mathew thus identifies himself with Mr. Cramp-
ton, Mr. Crampton identifieshimself with Lord Clarendon,
and Lord Clarendon we can only regard as the organ of the
British Government. What is the explanation of these
facts ? There are plenty more, out I will not weary the
house with going through them, for the length of these dis-
cussions even now bewilders one, and it is necessary to
throw overboard much matter. The acts which I
have detailed were contrary to the municipal law of
America, not only as construed by the executive Govern-
ment, by the Courts, by the Attorney-Generalof America,
but as construed by the confidential adviser of Mr. Cramp-
ton, as construed on the 13th of &fay by the British mission
at Washington itself. Here, however, we are traversed by
the opinion of Judge Kane. In September Judge Kane de-
livered &judgment, in which he stated distinctly that the
payment of passage money, the giving an inducement in
money or money's worth to people to enlist in a foreign
service, was a breach of the American law; but it is seid,
"Oh, that was in September ; look at his opinion in May!
In September the American Government had entered int
a controversy with the British Governmeut; in May it wes
supposed that they were merely persecutinga few wretched
unsupported individuals." It is thus coolly insinuated
that Judge Kane prostituted the judicial conscience, anti
g iv°, in September, a contrary opinion as to the construe-
den of a law to that which he had given in May, in order
to serve a political purpose. I hope that all members of
this house will show some respect for the feelings of the
Americans. There is nothing of which the Americans are
more justly proud, nothing in which they associate them-
selves more closely with the great country from which they
have sprung than the character of th'eirjudicature, and the
character of their laws and their courts is establishedin the
world. How should we look upon a charge against one of our
own eminent j edges, first, of having given two opposite con-
structions of a law within a few months, the secuud being a
false construction, in order to please a Government of the
day? But the charge rests upon a very sandyfounda: ion there
is no evidence of any real contrariety in Judge Kane's opi-
nions. The allegation of the British Government is that in
May Judge Kane said it was not contrary to the American
law to pay the passage of a person going to enlist abroad, but
while the opinion of September is authentically reported
in the official reports of the proceedings of the Court, the
opinion of May is a paragraph out of a newspaper, a
paragraph width grossly misquotes-the American law, by
asserting that it is an offence in an American citizen to go
b -yond the boundaries of the United States with intent to
enlist. Of course an abridgment. a mere synopsis of what
is said , does not contain tho details and explanations with-
out which it is impossible to give judicial force and mean-
ing to the words of a magistrate. But, after all, there is
nothing in Judge K.ine's opinion,, assuming the paragraph
to be correct. He says :—"I do not think that the pay-
ment of the passage from this country of a man who de-
sires to enlist in a foreign part comes within the act."
That is his bare anti naked proposition, but you insert in
it other words—you say that because thel payment of the
eas-age of a man does not in itself constitute an offence,
ergo, the payment of the passage of a man by the British
Government does not constitute an offence. The two
cases are very different. Suppose my right hon. friend
near me and I reside in the United States ; he is rich and I
am poor ; I tell him that my feelings are with the old
country in the war in which she is engaged, and that I will
go to Halifax and enter her service if he will assist me. I
do not apprehend that my right hon. friend would be guilty
of an offence if he complied with my request. Would not
that be a totally different case fromthe payment of money
by the British Government to its agents for the purpose
of inducing men to go? That is not all. Judge Kane's
opinion was given at the end of May, but what were you
doing at the beginning of May, in April, in March? Thee
you had the construction put upon the law by your own
lawyer, yet you fell back for your justification upon an un-
authenticated paragraph in an American newspaper com•
ing long after the acts with which you are charged had
been committed. Such is the celebrated case of Judge
Kane's opinion ! In the beginning of March your own
lawyer told you the meaning of the American law; why
did not you act upon it? Why did you, long after it had
been communicated to you, and long before Judge Kane
opened his mouth, give men free passages and hard cash.
and offer them other inducements to enlist ? (Hear, hear.)
The two chief points urged in defence of the Government
are the apology and the abandonment. I have already
spoken of the apology—now where is the abandonment?
This is one of the most mysterious and singular parts of a
case which contains much that is singular and mysterious.
The hon. member for Montrose said the mistake was no
sooner discovered by the Government than it was correct-
ed, And last year a question was put by the vigilance of
the hon. and learned member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck),
to which the noble lord at the head of the Government
gave an answer that was very satisfactory to the country.
The noble lord said that, not only had recruiting been
abandoned in the United States, but even our depot at
Halifax had been abandoned, that the exercise of an un-
questioned right had been foregone rather than the risk
should be run of having the slightest misunderstanding
with the American Government. I am astonished to
see the evidence as to this explanation. On the 22d
of June, Lord Clarendon addresses a letter to Mr.
Crampton, which may be construed as an order for the
abandonment of the recruiting scheme. The noble lord
states that the abandonment takes place by the desire
of the Minister for War, and that similar letters will
be addressed to the Governors of Nova Scotia and Canada.
If letters containing those orders had beet, so sent
the proceedings would have been altogether discontinued ;
the ant:elegy:tont correspondence assumes that they were dis-
continued, and consequencly, when the American Govern-
ment at a much later period complained of their continu-
ance, they were taunted with the fact that even before
they had had time to make a complaint namely, on the
224 of June, the scheme bad been abandoned. Was it or
tiwkni;oowrittutnhnoeatteeoau mbraisshnedoned ? Now, I am cenfident that the
letter of the 22,i of June was intended to be sent, but some
iatptoo
ka
,appearstoh aevxep
lbefallenanation it;r
e s
pweec
tdi not
no,, ft
is given. A cereful consideration
no
eratiou of the dates of theeal-
leged abandonment ie important, because the Americans
hive been condemned in thisCou
country as unreaeon-
anb,elenopnutacacununent
do of
to havinglo cfmo
rpel a
ti nheods e ofc olma e tpsl
awi
uhtisc h
werehad
made. That is a most importantng statemeet if true, but a
most extraordinary figment,
vwi Wrongintceh dr
ettgoha
rtt
tdh e
theret to
take
eehenepltnlesa
place,
of Mr.
if not true. and a grievous'
n heer iwca as
timenGao et
v whiche intentionalru nenthtnsesdat
ora.
ntemmelennat misstatement made
tehn
e
recruiting system by her Almaaajneeerstity's Goevaernment took place,
ebut ai tdreetrha same
didlly mst
ae aotrawizh
pa
ttot
dthe i
r Gaspard
mentle Merchant as tottte arrive at that we must
wishes of the Government iny first became cognisant of the
respect. Mr. Crampton
Mates that tohvaetrnhme
efinrtstot becameabandoanwatralt:te
of the desire of, the Bli-
the 2d of August. Sir Gaspard lescAlleamrcelsoftrecrhuitieg on
becanwsealLiwfaxoesveast
posi-
tion was of still more importance,
ns othnatthheo 1
was7th to,f,
great centre of operation, states that it
he cot receive the
.A3au,,gseushtisthpartocheeedfiinregts,reacnediveedveannthinentitnatioe
,
intimation from the Colonial Secretary at home but
through Mr. Crampton. Her Majesty's overnment found
out, therefore, that during this period these P roce
were going on; and were being complained of,
eyeltng to
those 'complaints they retorted that they had abandoned
the scheme of recruiting long ago, and Lord Clarendon, in
a somewhat contemptuous tone, stated that recruiting had
long ceased, at the same time expressing the opinion that
the American Government had not appreciated as they
ought to have done the conduct of her Majesty's
Ministers in abandoning those proceedings. lle
itated that the abandonment of recruiting took place on
the 224 of June I
tym
nt, as I have pointed out to the ho,
the letters ordering a discontinuance of the system reached
Hr. Crampton only on the 2d of August, and Halifax on
the 17th of the same month. It appears to me, then, that
we originally commenced a system of concealment towards
the American Government; and not only did we do that,
but we also adopted measures calculated to mislead them.
(Hear.) It appears that we took the most trustworthy
opinion as to the law of the United States, and not only
acted against that opinion, but continued to do so for
many months after the time at which we professed to have
abandoned the course which we had had commenced. After
this can the house say that the American Government had
no just cause for complaint? Can we refuse to admit a
wrong to America because the Government assert th-t on
wrong whatever has been done ? It appears to me to be
that sort of case Which Scarcely admits of further argument
or illustration, If it is to be made a matter of dispute that