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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 2, 1856.

any cause of complaint has been given to the Government
of the United States, then I think that we may fold our
arms in despair and say, "Even in this imperfect world
some things have hitherto been held to be real, and beyond
the possibility of a doubt, but henceforth nothing is cer-
tain, there is nothing upon which reliance can be placed,
there is nothing which may not be made a subject for cap.
tious disputation:" It is said that there is nothing in the
instructions of the British Government to cause a wrong
to the American Government. Now, what is the real
fact ? Lord Clarendon says that anything short of the con-
clusion of an actual contract to enlist within the limits'of
the United States may be clone, and innocently done.
Now, that is one way of avoiding responsibility, because a
contract is governed by the lex loci, and therefore a con-
tract to enlist could not be concluded at all; and lie then
goes on to say to the agents of the Government, "Yon may
persuade persons to enlist, you may assist them in so doing,
you may pay their passage to a place where they can be
enlisted," although such an opinion was contrary to the
opinion of the American courts, contrary to the opinion of
his own law officers,fand contrary to the declaration of Mr.
Lumley himself, the agent of the British Government. Well
but, says the hon. member for North Warwickshire, " the
American Government has accepted the apologies which have
been made." Now, sir, I cannot admit that such is the case,
although Ido not seek to detract from the force of what they
have done. AA most extraordinary state of things has been
brought about. (Hear.) The American Government
acquits the British Government, but at the same time
punishes Mr. Crampton and the three consuls, while the
British Government maintains and acquiesces in the acts
of its agents, and yet accepts with satisfaction its own
acquittal. (Cheers.) This is a simple, unadorned state-
ment, it contains no heightening epithets, and, indeed, I
do not think any epithet could heighten it. Mr. Cramp-
ton has been made a scapegoat—by whom is a question I
will not discuss—but I want to know whether it would
not be contrary to the character and practice of this House,
when there is no single action of Mr. Crampton which has
not met with the approval of the Government, to allow
any distinction to be drawn between the proceedings of
Mr. Crampton and those of the British Government.
(Loud cries of "Hear;') I admit fully the honourable con-
duct in this respect of those who sit upon the Treasury
bench, because they do not attempt to draw any such dis-
tinction. The dismissal of Mr. Crampton was either
right or wrong. Now the hon. and learned member for
Leominster says that it is the undoubted right of any
State to ask for the withdrawal of any Minister accredited
to it at its own pleasure, and without assigning any rea-
son. Now, lam not, like the hon. and learned gentle.
man, qualified professionally to deal with that subject;
but, from referring to authorities upon the subject, I am
i dined to think that some reason should be assigned, and
in the present instance the American Government have
admittel that principle, because they have assigned a
reason. But, Sir, what an extraordinary course is that
adopted by the hon. and learned gentleman ! The hon.
and learned gentleman says that the American Govern-
ment bad a perfect right to demand the dismissal of Mr.
Crampton, and he- gives that as a reason for supporting
the conduct of a Ministry which, when the demand was
made, refused to comply with it. (Hear, hear.) That,
Sir, appears to me a considerable anomaly. (Rear, bear.)
The Americas Government had either received just cause
for offence or not. If it had not, then it had no right to
make the demand for the recall of Mr. Crampton, and the
dismissal of that gentleman ought not to have been ac-
cepted as it has been. (Hear, hear.) And, whatever
happens, the Government ought not to allow mat-
ters to remain in their present doubtful and
anomalous state ; for to allow Mr. Dallas to remain
hero, and at the same time, by not replacing Mr.
Crampton, to exhibit a certain amount of ill-feeling to the
American Government, does not re lound to the credit or
honour of the country. If we send a substitute for Mr.
Crampton, it is going far towards admitting that the Arne-
licans have received jest cause for offence, and that they
have can any one iu this house doubt? Thequestion is one
which the American Government had a perfect right to
raise. It might have been a more generous course not to
raise it, but no one can dispute its right to raise it. We
seemmenced by a course of concealment, and even now, so
far as the vast majority of the public and even of members
of this house is concerned, the whole affair is so compli-
cated with dates and events, which require great pains and
study to extract from these papers, so long buried in the
archives of the Foreign-office, that very imperfect hirer-
metion exists.' The ultimate judgment, however, of this
hoes° and of the' country is not doubtful, as may be
gleaned from the character of this debate., The hon. gene:
denim' opposite (Mr. Spooner) has deprecated the policy
of raising the present discussion, but he carefully avoided
giving any opinion upon its merits. The hon. member for
Montrose carefully avoids deMnding the proceedings of the
Government, but he says that they do not deserve the
censure of this House of Commons, and he has conde-
scended to throw upon Mr. Crampton the responsibility
which ought to belong to his employers. It is impoesible
that the result of this discussion can be any but one. I
do not deny that it is a question which deserved discussion
in this house. Ido not know what may be the intentions
of the hon. gentleman who made the motion, not being in
his counsels, but he has acted on his privilege as an inde-
pstident member. (Rear, hear.) The debate which has
taken place will, I believe, not be altogether free from in-
eonvemence, but I am certain that it will have this great
advantage, that it will tend to the real elucidation of the
facto. (Hear, hear.) It is for the true, substantial, and per-
manent interest of the. wo countriesthat the facts should
be elucidated. (Rear, hear.) If the American people are
made aware of the facts, they will take care that their
Government does not heedlessly carry them into a quarrel.
The English people, too, when properly informed on the
subject, will also exercise a similar salutary influence, and
this debate is the first effort made to bring a knowledge
of the facts to the mind of the English people. Hitherto,
the facts have never been brought. to the test of argument.
They have been the property of the writers, or of persons
using them for purposes of their own; and they were now
for the first time exposed to free discussion. I was sorry
when the noble lord at the head of the Government at-
tempted to put a close to this debate last night, but I do
not suppose that the discussion is of the most agreeable
character to the Government. I grant that ley noble
friend acts on a round general rule in giving the weight of
his authority against the practice of frequent adj enrnmen ts
of debate; but the importance of this matter is hardly to
be overstated. The facts with respect to American law
are too clear for sophistry itself to disguise. If it were
possible to insure the real study of the blue-book by all
the members of this house there would be no serious dif-
ference of opinion remaining as to whether the American
law had been observed or not. If perms responsible for
the consequences of their opinions were prepared to take
up this question, I should not hesitate to give my adhesion
to an authentic expression of the sentiment of the house ;
but, in an abstract vote of censure, I am not prepared to
participate. When the hon. gentleman opposite said this-
was a party question, I could not help hoping that he
would not give the weight of his character against party
combinations in this house, which are associated with some
of the best chapters in our history.- When I look b Lek to
the period when party combinations were strong in this
house L-when Sir R. Peel was on those (the Opposition)
benches, and Lord John Russell on these, I think, though
many mistakes and errors were committed on both sides,
that, on the whole, the Government of the country was
honourably and efficiently carried on. I believe that the
day for this country will be a happy day when party com-
binations shall be restored on such a footing. But this
question, instead of being a party question, is a most re-
markable illustration of the disorganised state of parties;
and of the consequent impotency of the House of Com-
mons to express a practical opinion with respect to the
foreign policy of the country. Under these circumstances,
the only resource left to me is the undisguised expres-
sion of the opinions, which I strongly and conscien-
tiously (perhaps erroneously) feel after the study of
these papers. I have had the privilege of expressing those
opinions freely and strongly—a privilege which I would not
have waived on any 'account when I' consider the bearing
of the case with respect to the American alliance, which I so
highly prize ; or with respect to that which I still more
highly prize and more dearly love—the honour and fair fame
of my country. (Cheers.)

Mt:. JOHN M`GREGOIi hers caused much merriment by
attempting to address the house during the absence of the
Speaker, who quitted the chair for a few minutes for the pur-
pose of obtaining some slight refreshment. The hon. mem-
ber on having his attention drawn to the face of the chair
being cant resumed his scat amidst roars of laughter.
On the return of the SPEAKER,
Mr. J. PRILLIMORE explained that when he alluded to
Judge Kane's change of opinion, he meant not to imply any-
thing but the change was conscientious.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was then about to address
the house. when

Mr. JOHN M'GREGOR, amidst general cries of " Order 1"
interposed. He said he rose to order, and moved the adjourn.
ment of the debate

The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that, according
to the rules of the house, a member rising to order must
speak to order, and could not move the adjournment of the
house, (" Hear," and laughter.)
The SOI ICITOR-GENE RAI., said he felt it to be an im-
possibility to believe that the right hon. gentleman (Nlr.
Gladstone) was in earnest in the arguments he had brought
forward. In what way the right hon. gentleman connected
his arguments with his conclusions it was utterly impostiMe
for him to understand. He said he could not vote in the same
lobby with the hon. member for Mayo ; and he (the Solicitor-
General) could not but think, therefore, that they had heard
a mere intellectual exercitation. It was undoubtedly thre
he- had proved, very well and very truly, what he should
wished to have seen. He complained of angels on the oppo-
site side being afraid to tread where the hon. member for
Mayo had rushed in. But that was not all. The right hon.
gentleman had been bold enough, in his view of this subject,
to tell the house that the American Government did not know
their own case. He told them that the American Government
ought not to have arrived at the conclusion at which they
had arrived at, and that they ought to have been s Wafted
with the termination of this matter. By some wonderful and
mysterious manner he told them he would make them a pre-
sent of the evidence of Strobel and Hertz. He had taken a
view of this matter in which he at once pronounced that the
American lawyers did not understand their own business,
and that, in point of fact, there were materials here for ar•
riving at a conclusion. Ho (the Solicitor-General) meant to
follow, as well as he could, the arguments and process of ra-
tiocination of the right hon. gentleman. And, first of all,
with regard to the position in which this matter stood. He
. . .

was surprised that the right hon. gentleman, who had studied
this matter evidently with great care, should not have ar-
. .

rived at that con,lus- ion at WhichMr..Marcy hims3lf had al,

h
the American Government placed
arived,accept
and should
interpretation
wt
htohl
ley
at Housevuopn
variance
etehaeowmil atmhs totnhdsae that
shouldpwaht despatch.
(To
Tsv, ,r
nl
le
e(ti
th (the
nSeowl
theirol,
oGeneral)wo ground app
or of heeeni epdl a
ithhte, aand
iAmericantf soe,
all who attended.to the last despatch of Mr. Marcy, of h
27th Iday, 1856, would find the most clear and satisfactoryeitisfie
announcement that the American Government whaehree
of
thde
with the explanations they had received at the d
that
ttistl hieGre waoverenmeeeintth,ear tenidethoattiothe nor
ywr design
nfecoh thetlyco part o
convinced
the British Government either to offend the municipal law or
the sovereign rights of the United States. BUt the real state
of the ease was this :- The American Government said to us
in that despatch—" It is perfectly true you have abunda.dly
exonerated yourselves but your agents have acted unwisely,
nod have been led into the commission of acts which we see
are foreign to yotti notions ; but, inasmuch as they have done
so, you are bound to refuse your sanction .to acts by which
they have transgressed the limits of discretion." But the
British Government said, "Upon what grounds have you
arrived at the conclusion that our agents have trans-
gressed the limits of discretion ?" And what was the
evidence which the American Government brought for-
ward ? Precisely that which the right hon. gentleman hint-
self admitted to be totally unworthy. (Hear, hear.) Mr.
Marcy did not complain that we did not accept the Ameri-
can view of the matter. Mr. Marcy said that different
views might, and would, be entertained, but he admitted
that the American Government were bound to accept the con-
elusion at which the British Government had arrived, and to
abide by the opposite view they entertained ; and as they
would not withdraw their Minister, they (the American Go-
vernment) were bound; to dismiss him. (Hear.) Now, was it'
possible to construe that into an insult?. Could anything bo
more natural 1 The American Government say, " We are

perfectly satisfied, and have no complaint against you, but it
is different with regard to your agents; and, therefore, we
arrive at an opposite conclusion in our views with regard to
their conduct." Now, that was the whole state of the matter
as placed by the despatch of Mr. Marcy. Now, he (the soli-
citor-General) must submit to the house that that was one of
the very things that were deprecated by the hon member for
North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and, he thought, most
wisely. He thought the mischief that would be produced by
that discussion in the House of Commons would be ten times
as great as any despatch of Mr. Marcy's. (Hoer, and laughter.)
He observed in the course of the despatches, and of the argu-
ments used by hon. members, that there was a great deal of
misapprehension, and a great want of precision in their views
as to the law upon the subject. At one time the eomplaint
was that there had been evasion of the muuic pal law—(hear,
hear)—at another time the American Government gave up
that ground of complaint, and rested their case more parti-
cularly upon what they called an evasion of the rights of na-
tions. Then there was a third argument and a third view of
the case put forward, especially by American writers and the
American Attorney-General, that the offence committed by
this country consisted not in a direct evasion of the municipal
law, not iu a breach of international law, but in an attempt
to evade, and by that evasion to violate, the municipal law.
He more particularly referred in these observations to the
opinion of Mr. Cushing, the American Attorney General,
which somebody had printed and circulated, he (the Solicitor-
General) supposed with a view to the present discussion. The
argument of Mr. Cushing was founded not so much upon the
language of the municipal law as upon the language of the
international law; and he (the Solicitor-General) would in-
vite the attention of hon. members to the citations which
were made from the jurists, which it would be desirable to
examine in the original language, and not to trust to the
translation given by Mr. Cushing. The result of those ci-
tations will be found to bo that international law went only
to the extent of forbidding one nation actually to enrol or to
enlist soldiers in the territory of another nation. (Hear.)
The offence, therefore, was the actual enrolment or enlist-
ment of soldiers. That was the fell extent and limit of inter-
national law. It prohibited nothing more. In order to put
the matter beyond a doubt—and be would take the whole of
the materials furnished by the American lawyer—he would
refer hon. members to the great pamphlet of Mr. Cushing's.
which had been so generously circulated, where they would
find that the American Attorney-General specially referred
to two works - namely; a treatise by Mr. Wheaton on inter-
national law, and the admirable Commentaries of Chancellor
Kent. Mr. Wheaton's treatise contained this passage :—" Tne
authority both of W. llfius and Back goes to show that the
levying of troops is a prerogative of the sovereign which no
foreign power can lawfully exercise within the territory of
another State without its express consent." That was the
only principle of internationd law upon the subject. The
municipal law of the United States went further ; for it not
only embodied the rule and principle of the international
law, but it also prohibited any person from hiring any citizen
of the United States, within the territory of the United
States, for the purpose of being enlisted in foreign service.
(Hear.) It was to be observed that, to commit a breach of
the municipal law, the offence must be committed within the
terri ory of the United States. (Hear.) With respect to the
evasion of this law, it was to be borne in mind that an Ame-
rican citizen might expatriate himself with perfect liberty;
there was no such principle as that which pervaded the law
of England, and which was embodied in the Act of 1819,that
no citizen should engage in the service of any foreign nation
without the consent of the Sovereign. When, therefore, thee
were speaking of the Government asbeing eaposedto censure,
because the whole of their proceedings were admirably
adapted to enable parties to evade the law of the United
States, it must be remembered that there was no principle
embodied in the municipal law beyond the strict letter of the
enactment. The law was in restraint of natural liberty. The
spirit of such a law could not be violated without at the
came time its letter being violated also. That law which
restrained the natural liberty of the citizen was one which
could not be extended by construction; it must be
construed strictly. Hon. members must bear in mind, there-
fore, that it was idle to speak of a breach of internationallaw
where there was no breach of municipal law, because the mu-
nicipal law went beyond the international law. If there was
no breach of the municipal law, d mulio fortiori, there was
no breach of the international law. As he had said, interna-
tional law peohibited the enrolment or enlistment of soldiers
within the territory of the United States for foreign service ;
those rights were embodied in their municipal laws ; and
therefore the question simply was, whether the English Go-
vernment had violated the letter of those municipal laws.
Those laws must be construed strictly. The right hon. gen-
tleman who spoke last began by a reference to the handbill
published by Angus M`Donald ; and if the right-hon. gentle-
man had understood that document he would' have abstained
from the arguments which he founded upon it. He had
charged against Mr. Crampton that lie was guilty of a species
of fraud in respect tothat document. The right hon. gentle-
man would observe that tbat was a handbill published in the
United States, pretending to issue with the authority, and to
speak in the name of, the British Government, and holding
out au offer in the name and in the behalf of the British Go-
vernment to every one willing to accept a commission in her
Majesty's service ; so that it became the foundation of a con-
tract the moment that any individual acceded to the offer it
contained. If that handbill bad been circulated by Angus
M'Donald with the authority of Mr. Crampton, it would
amount in the case of any individual accepting.the offer to a
hiring and retaining within the territory of the United States.
Sir F. THESIGER pointed out that the handbill described
what the British Government had done.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the language was the
language of a present offer. But by the letter, a very proper
document, which was addressed to Mr. Marcy by Mr. Crampton,
enclosing a copy of that handbill, Mr. Crampton stated that
Angus M'Donald had no authority from the British Go-
vernment to issue the handbill, or to proceed with any
hiring within the United States. (Hear, hear.) It was
quite clear that Mr. Crampton put the • interpretation on
the document which he (the Solicitor-General) thought the
language of it naturally bore, and that he repudiated it
openly, instead of trying to throw dust in the eyes of the
American Government, as it was alleged, and sending his
agents throughout the United States to do the same thing
as Angus M'Donald professed to have authority to do In
fact, if they discarded the evidence of Hertz and Strobel,
which the right lion, gentleman said he gave up, there re-
mained not a particle of testimony anywhere throughout these
proceedings that any authority had been given by Mr. Cramp-
ton at all approaching to the authority alleged by Angus
M'Donald to have been given to him. Now, with regard to
Judge Kane, he trusted that in that house they would give
all credit to American judges, and accept their interpreta-
tion of the law of that country, without attempting to bend
it to their own purposes or conclusions. He agreed in the
eulogy which was pronounced on the learning and upright-
ness of those judges by the right hon. gentleman, and from
that eulogy he would not except Judge Bane. But it was
too much for the right hon. gentleman to censure the Attor-
ney-General as he did for the quotation which he made of the
opinion of that learned judge, ascribing ignorance to the At-
torney-General of what the opinion was of the judge whom
he quoted. But the representation of that opinion, given to
the house by the Attorney-General, was affirmed by the re-
ference made to the same opieion by Mr Cushing, the Attor-
ney-General of the United States. The opinion of Judge
Kano was delivered in May, 1855, when he laid it down as
the law of the country that the words " hiring or retaining"
included mutuality of engagement ; and that no offer of a
passage to those who were desirous of enlisting in a foreign
port, provided there was no enlistment in the United States,
came within those words to make such' an act an offence
against the law. That now being the state of the case, what
became of the charge that money had been spent by Mr.
Crampton ? Where was the allegation that money had been
spent by Mr. Crampton for the purpose of hiring or retaining
a single individual ? There was no such a'legation anywhere
except in the testimony of Strobel and the confession of
Hertz. But Mr. Marcy made no complaint against the pro-
clamation of Angus M'Donald. That was left to the right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to do. Neither did Mr. Marcy
complain of Mr. Crampton having practised concealment
upon him. In the last despatch which Mr. Marcy wrote,
he distinctly said that ho believed the agents of the British
Government had no communication with these parties, or
that they were in any way concerned in sending agents into
the Unitel States for the purpose of recruiting. Now the
word recruiting appeared to have been used by Marcy in the
most general and indefinice manner. The word was not to
be fou id in the American law. True, the complaint of Mr.
Marcy was that Mr. Crampt, 1 never represented to him thet
agents had been sent to recruit, but that begged the question
—that was the point for inquiry, and where was the evidence
applicable to prove it? If they took the word recruit as mean-
ie,** to enga e, where, lie would ask, was the evidence to show
that agents were sent to engage or hire men ? There was not
a particle of evidence to support the charge which was made?
Could the house, in a matter of this kind, and in opposition
to its accredited Minister, accept such evidence and say that
they lied arrived at a satisfactory conclusion? The house was
called upon to say that the means of obtaining this evidence
of the American Government was satisfactory to them He
would now refer to the trials which took place, the evidence
then taken, and the manner in which the jury were said to
bare been influenced. These things deserve the greatest con-
sileration of the house, and the real question was, whether
the British Government ought to have been satisfied with the
American inquiry, and have allowed their Minister to be sent
away condemned by %nob, a jury. In the last despatch of Mr.
Crampton, the manner in which the evidence wan brought be-
fete the jury was stated, but lie would now read the report of
the ease from official documents. The hon. and learned gen-
tleman then read the speech of the district attorney for the
prosecution, and referred to the testimony given by Hertz
and by Strobel, and asked the house whether such evidence
could be received with credit He had no hesitation iu saying
that if such a case had occurred in this country, in a prosecu-
tionby the Government, greater pains would have been taken
not to give offence to the United Kates than had been shown
by that country. That was the issue. The inquiry was, ought
they to have consented at once to the recall of their Minister
at the request of the American Government, in opposition to
the opinion of all with whoin he bad acted in this country.
The American Ministry had accepted their assurance, as
they were bound to do. Tice Foreign Enlistment Act must
be taken as the law of this country, and that being so, to
what country in the world, he would ask, could her Majesty's'
Government with greater propriety go than to the United
States of America, to which a great number of our natural
born subjects owed no other obligation than that of resi-
dence ? There was no place where they could seek with
greater confidence to carry out the Foreign Enlistment Act,
the municipal laws there being more easily relaxed than in
any other country. And such being the state of things, he
tr%sted that the British House of Cceemons would believe
that the Government were under no obligation to recall Mr.
Crampton upon the representation of the American Govern-
ment. (Hear, hear )
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he would leave it to the
house and to the country to determine between the hon. and
learned gentleman the Solicitor-General and the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for the University of Oxford
(Mr. Gladstone) whether the right hon. and learned gentle-
man was in earnest in the very able and eloquent speech
which he had made. After that speech, which ho might say
had almost exhausted the subject, he would willingly give a
silent vote on the question, were it not for the circumstance
of his having been accused of using strong expressions on the
subject upon a former occasion. In those expressions he be-
lieved he had been fully supported by several hon, gentlemen
who had addressed the house during this debate. For his
part, he (Sir J. Pakington) newt confess himself desirous to
assume the responsibility of stating frankly his opinion—an
opinion in which he was supported by the right hon. gentle-
man the member for the University of Oxford— that tee time
had now come when the House of Commons might fairly and
properly address itself to this painful subject. The papers
before them were now complete, and a most discreditable
tale they disclosed, rendered even worse by the last docu-
ment added to them. He could well understand that her
Majesty's Government desired to avoid discussion on the

sul;jeci; the crisis, however, was one of no ordinary interest,
the circumstances attending it were peculiar and most im-
portant... Tho question was whether discussion ou the sub-

ject could be prejudicial to the public interests ? (Hear,
hear.) He believed that, so far from being productive
of any ill effects, it could do nothing but good, tend to aid
the syttlemeut of our delicate relations, and assist in the ne-

gotiations now pending—(hear)--if it were shown to the pub-
lie and the American citizens that there was an independent
party in that house who dispassionately raised their protest
against the rashness and imprudence by which the peaceful
relations between the two countries had been disturbed. With

when e view', he thanked the 1c.4.2 member for Mayo (UT.

Moore) for the decision with which he resisted the efforts
made to induce him to withdraw his motion, and if that hon.
member pressed the question tel division he would support
his motion. No one, he thought, could ride ftom a carefu
perusal of the blue book witho •t feeling that the conduct tlf
her Majesty's Government had ben such as to compromise
the character of the Government of this country, endanger
the peace of the world, and bring us to the verge of a war with
America— and conduct which had obliged us to make very
humiliating aparegies to the United States, and to submit to
the indignity of having our ambassadoe dismissed. That, he
thought, a most painful state of offai, s, to which he felt con-
vinced her Majesty's Government, would never have sub-
mitted had they not felt conscious that their conduct had
been such as to show that they had deserved it. Too Govern-
ment had involved them iu this dilemma by showing a most
unwise and imprudent disregard of the most obvious require -
ments, both of the general international law and the munici-
pal law of the United States. He was amused by the extra-
ordinary ingenuity with which the Attorney-General last
night drew the house away to the 0, ly part of the American
law on the subject which had nothing whatever to do with
that point. The Secretary of State fir the Home Departme .t
had followed in precisely the same endeavour, and the Solici-
tor-General was not altogether free from the same attempt.
They had all endeavoured to fix their attention on the part
of the American law under which, no doubt, American citi-
zens were perfectly free to enlist in a foreign service when
they were not of the American States, but that was not the
real question; and they would have dealt more ingenuously
with the house if they had explained the municipal laws of
the United States, as well as the general international law, as
laid down by the best translations. He thought the Govern,
ment had made a serious mistake in entertaining the idea of
drawing recruits from the United States for the army—but
if they had determined to adopt the plan, there was only
one mode in which they could carry it out with prudence
viz., by limiting their efforts to our own colonial possessions,
and neither attempting to draw troops from the United
States nor communicating with any of her Majesty's officers
within the States. If they had open ed recruiting offices at
Halifax and Quebec, where it was well known loyal colonists
were anxious to enter our service—colonists whose services
were unwisely rejected--and 'if they had abstained from com-
municating either with Mr. Crampton or any P.:ritish consuls
in America, they might possibly have succeeded in their
efforts; and if citizens of the United States had voluntarily
come to enter our army, there would have leen no ground for
quarrel; but the very last persons they ought to have com-
muuic ,tcd with on such a subject were Mr,. Crampton and
our consuls, because they were certain to be involved in the
difficulties to which such measures might be expected to give
rise. He could not conceive how the Government, after receiv-
ing the legal opinion which was sent by Mr. Crampton, to-
gether with his intimation of what the feeling of the Ameri-
can Government was, could have persevered for another day
in the irrational course which they had adopted, He had uo
intention of referring to the Earl of Clarendon in t, s slightest
degree in terms of personal disrespect; but no member ought
to be induced by personal feelings' to compliment away the
• interests of the country, or to abstain from expressing opinions
which, as public man, he conscientiously entertained, It was
only the other evening that the noble lord the member for the
City of Leaden, with a kind of rhetorical flourish, said he hoped
the same statesman whose name was connectedwith the aci-
fieation of the East would also have the honour of concluding
the disturbances in the West. Now, he could not subscribe to
the justice of that sentiment. As regarded the East, they
found the Earl of Clarendon's name attached to a resolu-
tion which he conceived no English Minister ought to have
signed. Last night they wore toil the fortifications of Is-
mail were to be dismantled—a measure against which the
noble earl had directed his efforts in Paris, but had entirely,
failed. And then, again, in the West, the name most con-
spicuously connected with these transactions was that of
the Earl of Clarendon. Ia the despatch of the 12th of April.
the Earl of Clarendon, although warned by the despatch
of Mr. Crampton and the enclosed legal opinion, gave no
intimation to our agents in America to alter the system which
they had pursued. In the meantime the American Govern-
ment had taken alarm. It was urged by hon. gentlemen at
the other side that the American Government had not inter-
fered ; but it was shown that the moment they were apprised
of Mr. Angus Macdonald's proceedings they gave instructions
to have him prosecuted for a violation of the neutrality laws
Practically the American Government had been deceived, and
it was impossible to read the papers published by the autho-
rity of Parliament without coming to the conclusion that they
had been misled by Mr. Crampton and the other agents of
the British Government, The hon;and learned gentleman the
member for Aylesbury had said that the American Govern
~went had made no complaint, but it was evident that the hon.
and learned gentleman had no more read the blue book than
the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney-General, who
had argued the previous night in the same strain, for if hr
had he would have seen that Mr. Marcy, oa three occasions,
wrote a strong and indignant letter, expressing the feelings
of the American Government at the proceedings of the British
Government in America. There were two facts in connection
with the subject which he asked her Majesty's Government
whether they were prepared to deny—one, that a cipher was
drawn up in order to enable Strobel and others to communi-
cate with Mr. Crampton; and the other, that whoa Strobel
went to the United States to enlist troops he adopted the
name of " Smith" for concealment ? If these facts were not
denied, what became of the assurance of the Government that
there should be no evasion of the law and no concealment?
Was it true that these men had been engaged under the pre- '
tence of being employed to go to Halifax to work on railroads,
and that a cipher had been used for that purpose ? He was
ashamed, as an English gentleman, of such practices. lie would
touch for a moment on that part of the subject which related to
the conduct of the consuls. He thought that these gentlemen
had been most unfairly treated. He had been struck with the
reluctance of these geutiemeu as well as that of Mr. Crampton
and of Sir G. Le Marchant to interfere in this matter. They
all wished to be out of it ; but they were afraid to act upon
the advice given by Vattel, that public officers under such cir-
cumstances ought to disobey the orders of their Government.
Mr. Mathew, who had paid money for Mr. flow° to Hertz,
evidently wished to disconnect himself from the transaction.
The house had heard a great deal of the bad character of
Hertz and Strobel, but it was obvious that no honourable
man would have undertaken the duty which those men had
been asked to discharge for her Majesty's Government. Mr.
Marcy said that the acts which had been complained of,
though disclaimed by the British Government, had been com-
mitted by British agents. The hon, and learned gentleman,
the Solicitor-General, had stated that the charge against Mr.
Crampton was one of indiscretion and inadvertence. Instead
of being a charge of indiscretion and inadvertence, Mr. M ircy
stated that it was not the least of the acts of omission on the
part of Mr. Cramptou that he had recklessly endangered the
friendly relations between the two countries. He (Sir .1.
Pakington) could not understand the distinction which the
American Government had drawn between the conduct of
the Government and that of Mr Crampton,. But what was
the plea urgol by the Government 7 It was that they had
offered the most ample apologies. The right lion gentlemen
(Ur. Gladstone) doubted whether aoy apology had been made
at all. He (Sir J. Pa,kington) thought that Parliament and
the people had a right to complain that the Government had
placed the country in a position as to require humiliatin
apologies to be made on their part to the Government of the
United States. He could imagine nothing that either country
could gain by such a calamity as war. Both might gain tem-
porary triumphs, and glory might be achieved ; but what
compensation would that be for the interruption of social
progress, the wasting of millions of treasure, the shedding of
blood, and the animosity that would inevitably succeed any
such contest? 'lf the national honour, or the interests, of the
country should ever lead to such a struggle, ro doubt the
people of this country, and our loyal colonists, would rally
round the Crown, but they must all hope such a day was far
distant—(hear, hear)—and this, lie thought, was the feeling
of every well-re ,ulated mind on both sides of the Atlantic.
Mr. BENTINCK rose to move the adjournment of the
debate.

Lord •PALMERSTON—Notwithstanding the doubt ex-
pressed by the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down,
as to whether the hon. gentleman who made this motion would
press it to a division, and notwithstanding the effort made by
the hon gentleman who has just presented himself, unfortu-
nately for him, I admit, too late, I do hope the house will
feel it their duty to pronounce an opinion upon the motion
whiCh is now submitted to them—(cheers)--which is no less
than a vote of. censure upon her Majesty's Government ; and
I trust the house will feel it their duty not longer to protract
au opinion on that question, and that wo shall not remain in
'suspense as to whether the Government, which has hitherto
enjoyed the confidence of the country, are henceforward to
rest under a censure like this. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman
who made this motion began by stating that he called upon
the house to pronounce an opinion in a judicial Icapacity, and
to conduct their deliberations with judicial calmness ; but no
sooner had he announced that opinion---no sooner bad he
given to the house teat exhortation—than for the whole
course of the time almost during which he enforced his mo-
tion by his speech, he did nothing but indulge in a tissue of
personalities and invective—(hear, hear)—raking up all that
he could find in the treasury of his memory of calumnious
attacks which had on former occasions been made on my noble
friend the Earl of Clarendon, and by dwelling on the name of
the Bari of Clarendon in every alternate sentence of his srfbech
endeavouring to create an impression that there was some-
thing in these -transactions which separated him from his col-
leagues, and that the censure of the house was to fall on ene
member cf. the Government, and not equally to affect the
whole: The tencur of that speech was as unconstitutional as
the object of the motion is, I trust, unfounded. It has been
well stated that there is no individuality in the person of that
member of a Government who is charged, by the office he
holds, to conduct a great operation, but that all his colleagues
are equally responsible with himself, and I can assure the
house that we are, in the fullest sense willing to take entirely
upon ourselves the responsibility of all that the Earl of Cla-
rendon may have said (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman the
member for Inverness began his speech by referring to the act
which was passed enabling the Crown to raise foreign troops for
the conduct of the war. He told us that in 1813 there were
I don't know how many thousand men more than were re-
quired, end yet that at the beginning of the late war we had
not a complete establishment. I will not follow the example
of the hon. gentleman and enter upon a discussion of what
took place when that bill was passed ; but the ground upon
which you proposed to Parliament to give that power to the
Crown was that, especially at the beginning of a war, you did
require, when the army was formed by voluntary enlistment,
and not by conscription, to use all the resources which could
be put in request. That bill having been passed and become
law, it became the duty of the Government to carry* it into
execution. We heard that there were a number of persons re-
saliug in the United States, some of them British subjects,
some of them Germans, who had removed from their own
country and settled for a time in America, who were desi-
rous of joining the ranks of the British army, and taking part
in a war, which they considered rightful and just.. Under
these circumstances, it was determined to endeavour to avail
ourselves of the aid of those persons; and my right hon.
friend the member for Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and those
who sit near him, were parties to that arrangement. (Cheers.)
I cannot allow my right hon. friend to admit himself to have
been a party to the arrangement for the establishment of a
depot in Nova Scotia for the distinct ant avowed purpose of
enlisting persons who came from the United States, and then
to escape from it. (Hear.) The establishment of that depot
was determined upon, but at the same time the Government
determined that nothing should be done which might be at
variance with the municipal laws of the United States. A
distinction has been attempted to be drawn between interna-
tional regulations and sovereign rights, butthat sophistry has
been thrown 10 the winds by the speech of my right hon.
friend the Solicitor-General—ca. laugh) —who demonstrated
that the municipal laws could not be construed beyond their
•enaetments, and that, therefore, it was a fallacy to say the
international law had been violated. Thep the question is,
was the municipal law of the United States violated ? I re-
mainof pinion that it was not violated. It certainly was not
violated by the orders of the Government, or, to their know-
ledge by any officers acting under their instructions. It was
contended that it had been violated by their officers acting in •
di' creetly and with over zeal, but those officers den ed the asser-
tion, and according to their interpretation of the law of the.
United States, it was manifest-that they did nothing at vari-
ance' with that law. But who is to interpret that law ?It 13
said there is a counsel who gave an opinion one way, but
there is a judge who gave an opinion another way, and if
Judge Kane felt that he was acting in accordance w th the
law, in the opinion which he gave, it is parfeetly clear no-
thing Was dm by ow spat in violation of the laws, Judge

Katie ilfereil his opinion afterwards, but when f In Septem-
lo. His firetlaida was given In May, and our operations
ceased in July, 'end iiidrefdre so far as the conduct of our
officers was concerned ii 'Wen ho'rree out by the judicial opinion
of the United States during tad teemed it continued. (Hear.)
it is Anted, i)ivertheless, that proof f as given to the Govern-
ment of the L States that things were done which were
1 a violation of their lei'. No.donbt things were done which
amounted to a violation of thelF le'w by peieems not autho-
rised to act by toe British Goverunielek, and peneecutions
took place, and in some cases they succeeded; end in other
cases they failed. It is said, however, that no pitteetetien
could be instituted against Mr. Crampton, because ho Was
protected by his diplomatic character. That exemption did
not apply to the consuls ; and if t eey had violated the law,
why were they not brought to trial? We half° been told by
thoright hon. gentleman the member for Manchester (Mr M.
Gibson) of the case of Consul Curtis in Prussia, but Consul
Curtis was prosecuted. We thought the proceedings at his
trial were not fair and just, and the Prussian Government so
ar concurred in that opinion that, though he was condemn 'd
still the King of Prussia released him. Of the three consuls
not one of them have been brought to trial, and with regard
to Mr. Stanley, proceedings against him have been discon-
tinued by the authority of the United States GoveiMment. I
am therefore warranted in saying that the accusation of the
United States Government agaiest the Government of this
country rests entirely upon the evidence of those men,
who are admitted upon all ban s to be men of vile and infa-
mous character,. and totally unworthy of belief. - are said
to have practised a deceit upon the American Government,
and to have concealed our proceedings from them. Mr.
Crampton however, in his conversation of the 22d of March,
stated to the American Government, what they must long
before have been aware of, that the British Government was,
at Halifax, taking steps to engage men coining there who
might be willing to enlist in our service. (Hear.) But it
was said, why did not Mr. Crampton from time to time in-
form Mr. Marcy of what was going on with regard to enlist-
ment ? Surely if Mr. Marcy was otherwise informed that pro-
ceedings were taking place by &Dish authority at variance
with the laws of the United States it was his duty to have
sent to Mr. Crampton and made inquiries of him as to the
circumstances. Could any one suppose that a Minister of
Foreign Affairs in this country, if he were informed that any
person was acting by the authority of another country in
violation of our laws, would not at once send for the accre-
dited Minister of that country, and sift the matter to the very
bottom, so that there might be no misunderstanding between
the two Governments on the subject ? (Hear.) But was that
the proceeding of the Minister of the United States ? On the
contrary, he allowed the causes of complaint to-accumulate,
in order that when what he considered the proper time ar-
rived he might either take advantage of them or deal with
them as matters not worthy of notice. (Cheers.) I say then
that.there was an absence upon the part of the United States
Government of those steps which it was their duty to take, if
they thought the agents of the British Government were vio-
lating the law of the United States. (Cheers.) Well, then,
when at an early period of these proceedings we found that
they were likely to lead to embarrassments between us and the
United States we stopped our arrangements. (Cheers.) But
an hon. gentleman says that though the letter was dated the
:d of July, it was not sent until the 2d of August. Now
really in a matter of this kind a few weeks' delay was not of
much consideration, and the fact still stood out that the Bri-
tish Government, when they found that these proceedings
were likely to lead to embarrassment, of their own accord di-
rected them to be stopped (Hear.) Then an hon. member
said that no apology was made. But, I ask, what greater or
more acceptable apology could one Government make to au-
other.than at once putting au end to the pound of offence ?
(Cheers.) DJ not tell me of verbal apologies ; I say that an
apology in deed was of infinitely more value, and infinitely
more satisfactory to the Government of America, as a proof
if the sincere wishes of her Majesty's Government to avoid
my rupture of the friendly relations which exist between the
two countries, than all the verbal apologies which ever could
penned. (Cheers ) I say, then, that there is no question
of concealment, and that reparation has been made f r the
offence, if any existed. But then it is said that we ought to
have acknowledged that we had violated the neutrality laws
if the United States. . But we do not believe that we have
I violated them -we cannot acknowledge a wrong which we are
unconscious of having committed. Well, then, we received an
in imation from the United States Government that our agents
should be with Yawn. We replied, as we hoped, satis-
factorily to the American Government, and proving, as
we thought, that there had been nothing done by our
agents which could justify the disapprobation of their con-
Met which the American Government had expressed. In
answer to that the United States Governme t .aid that they
were satisfied with regard to the conduct of her Majesty's
Government; that all questions between the two Governments
-ere closed and settled, but that they still retained their ex-
pressed op nion as to the conduct of our agents, and consi-
dered them as unacceptable organs between the two Govern-
ments. What, then, was the course her Majesty's Govern-
ment had to pursue ? They had to determine whether they
would give measure for measure, and retaliate upon Mr. Dallas
tho step taken with regard to Mr. Crampton, and upon the
American consuls in this country, by sending them their exe-
gnat-ars—that taken with respect to our three consuls in
America. Her Majesty's Government did not think it their
duty to advise her Majesty to take those steps; and, not-
withstanding what has been said in the course of this debate,
I still am of opinion that that decision was a proper one, and
has met with, and will continue to meet with, the approbation
of this house and of the country. (Loud cheers.) It is curi-
ous to folio r the language which has been used by hon. gen-
tlemen in the course of this discussion. All parties are, they
say, most anxious to maintain peace between the two coun-
tries, and abound with the assertion that that wish is at the
very bottom of their hearts, and the chief object of their
lives—(a laugh)—and yet hero happens to be a case in which
a question has arisen between the two Governments—expla-
nations have been made by one Government which are con-
sidered satisfactory by the other, and yet hon. members come
here and publicly declare that 'England and America have
both been insulted one by the other.
An HON. MEMBER—Not England, but the Government
of England.
Lord PALMERSTON —Let me tell the hon. member that
the intercourse of nations takes 'place through their Govern
ments, and that an insult offered to the Government is an
insult to the country itself. • (Cheers.) Well, ,then, it is said
that England has been insulted, has been treated with con-
tumely and indignity. What are such assertions likely to
lead to ? Are they not calculated not to soothe the feelings
of the people of the two countries, but to excite in the breasts
of the people of England a spirit of bitter animosity and re-
sentment towards their kindred people in the United States ?
I (Loud cheers.) Why, any one who knows the character of
the people of England must know that, to tell them that they
have been insulted, treated with contumely and conte.npt,
must excite in them the fee'iugs I have mentioned ; for the
bulk of the nation will take such assertions —coming as they
do from those who call themselves the country party—upon
trust, and believe in their truth without inquiry, and
they will say, " We must have been grossly insulted, and
let us punish and resist the insult which has beer offered to
us." Hon. gentlemen opposite, by using the language they
have in the course of this debate, thus lay the foundation of
enmity between the two countries. (Cheers") Then the
right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Ox-
ford told the Americans that they have been deluded and
cheated, and that their Government ought not to have accepted
the apology which was offered to them. ' He told them that
their law had been intentionally violated by her Majesty's
Government, and that their Government had accepted and
expressei themselves satisfied for that wrong with an apology
with which they ought to have expressed themselves dissatis-
fied, and which they ought not to have accepted. Was that
the way to secure between this country and the United States
the most friendly relations Many hon. gentlemen told the
hon. member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), when he brought forward
this motion, that to persist in that course would be injurious
to the interests of the public service; and certainly the dis-
cussion which had taken place that evening has proved the
wisdom and truth of the suggestions which these hon mem
bers had offered to that hon. member; for certainly this de-
bate, insteiu.o f tending to efface any passion and ill-feeling
which may exist between the two nations, will tend rather to
embarrass their intercourse, and render it more difficult to
bring about au amicable understanding between the two coun-
tries. I will not at this late hour further detain the house, for
I think it totally nun cessary. The house is now called uvon
to determine whether there shall be passed upon the govern-
ment a vote of censure. The hon. gentleman the member for
Mayo should have come forward and expressed that which
was uppermost in his mind by moving a direct vote of cen-
sure on her Majesty's Ministers (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
It would, I think, have been more manly on his part if he
had come forward with such a vote of censure, instead of re-
fusing to us that approbation for the management of our
relations with the Government of the Unite 1 States which we
did not ask. My right hon, friend the member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford says that he cannot refuse us his support,
and I accept his vote, and will not' look a gift horse in the
mouth. (Great laughter.) The .reason my right hon. friend
gives for thus supporting us is, that it is impossible td find
any persons capable of taking our places. (Hear, hear.) That
is, I thinkerather.complimentauyto us. (Laughter.) There
are,- nevertheless,. I. think in the house many gentlemen who
are of opinion that that dill:lenity could. be easily got over—
that half an hour's conversation in private between my right
hon. friend and some of the -gentlemen who sit opposite
would remove every difficulty which at present exists. (Great
laughter.) I would not, therefore, accept from the house a
vote founded .on so great a political misapprehension. Wo
take our stand on greater and higher grognd. (Great cheer
ing.) Wo are of opinion that wo have, during a difficult
period, conducted the affairs of the country with honour and
satisfaction. (Cheers.) We believe that the confidence re-
posed in us by the !reuse is shared in by the country at large.
It'is on this ground we are prepared to go to a division. We
ask Parliament to support us, not because of the difficulty to
find persons to take our places, but because we have done
nothing to forfeit the good opinion of the nation. We trust,
to the good opinion of the house, and to the goodwill felt for
us by the country. It is on this ground I challenge the hoe.
gentleman the member for Mayo to come to a division, and
we are confident that the result will be such as our conduct
may deserve. (Great cheering.)
Mr..JOHN MACGREGOR rose to address the house amid
loud cries of " Divide, divide," and was, from the impatience
of the house, scarcely intelligible. He was understood to say
that the conduct of the Government to a people speaking the
same language as ourselves was highly reprehensible.
Mr. BENTINCK moved the adjournment of the debate, to
give hon. gentlemen on the Conservative side of the house an
opportunity of expressing their opinions on the motion.
Mr. MOORE, in reply, said he had nothing to reply to—(a
laugh)—exeept to say a few words in his own vindication with
regard to the charge of " calumnious imputations" brought
against him by the noble lord the member of that house as
applied to the Earl of Clarendon—
Lord PALMERSTON was understood to intimate that he
only alluded to calumnies against the Earl of Clarendon which
had been made at a former time. (Hear.)
Mr. MOORE continued—With regard to the imputations
of the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary, he could
state that he had not been influenced by any personal feeling
towards the Earl of Clarendon, He could only say that such
imputations were entirely unjust and untrue. (Oh.) He re-
peated they were unjust and untrue. Not 'only had be no ill-
will towards the Earl of Clarendon, but he believed it was
impossible for aoy man who had been brought within
the sphere of that noble earl to feel any towards
him, or to feel anything but respect for him, not only for
the success he bad achieved, but for the many blunders out
of which he had escaped. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He had yet
to learn that lie was not justified in stating the 'public ante-
cedents of any public man when he felt they illustrated his
subsequent career. He bad said nothing but what the noble
lord well knew to be true, and what the Earl of Clarendon
himself knew to be true.
Lord PALMERSTON--I used the word " calumnious"
with reference to those calumnies which were disseminated
against the Earl of Clarendon with reference to a trial to
which the hon. member alluded,
Mr. MOORE—I stated nothing but what was true.
The house then divided on the main question for going into
committee.
Before announcing the numbers, Mr. HAYTER informed the
Speaker that three members were present in the house at the
time of the division, but. had not voted.
The SPEAKER then directed the hon. members to appear
at the table. Thereupon Sir Benjamin Hal, Mr: W. Jackson,
and Mr. Trail!, amid great laughter, appeared at the table ;
and upon being informed by them that they had heard th
„ _