The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-01 00:00:00

him had no complaint against him personally. Lord
Clarendon went on to declare that—
"lf the Governm en tof a reign country were capriciously
and without any apparent belief that it had good ground for
doing so to break offits diplomatic relation s.wi th the Minister
accredited to it by her Majesty, her Majesty's confidential
servants, answerable for maintaining the honour and dig-
nity of the Crown, could not hesitate as to advising her
Majesty equally to break off all diplomatic intercourse
with the Minter of such Government accredited to her
court. But in the present case her Majesty's Government
are bound to accept the formal and repeated declars.tious
of the President of his belief that these officers of her Ma-
jesty have violated the laws of the Union, and are, on that
account, unacceptable organs of communication with the
Government and authorities. of the United States; and her
Majesty's Government cannot deny to the Government of
the United States a right similar to that which, in a pa-
rallel case, they would claim for themselves,—the right,
namely, of forming their own judgment as to the bearing
of the laws of the Union upon transactions which have
taken place within the Union. -
In other words, the Government had received a gross
offence from the United States, accompanied by serious
imputations upon them.. As that offence was PO accom-
panied, they were content ; hut had it been offered by
itself, then the spirit of the British Lion would indeed
have been roused. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord con-
cluded as follows :
I have, therefore, the honour to inform you that, how.
ever deeply her Majesty's Government regret a proceeding
on the part of the President of the United States which
cannot but be considered as of an unfriendly character,
they have not deemed it their duty on thet account to ad
vise her Majesty to command me to suspend my diploma-
tic intercouse with you ; and I have to assure you that the
high personal esteem which is felt for you by all the mem-
hers of her Majesty's Government a ill render it most
agreeable to myself to have the honour of entering into
communication with you upon all matters connected with
the mutual relations of our two countries. You will be
certain of meeting, on the part of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, the most friendly feelings towards the United States,
and the mostanziouS desire's° to arrange all questions of
difference as to reconcile the just rights anij real interests
of the two countries with the maintenance of those ami-
cable relations, the preservation of which is of such great
importance to both.
Well, he (Mr. Moore) thought he could find another
parallel to this case, in the life of Lord Clarendon. On
one occasion a gentleman in confidential intercourse
with the noble lord wrote to him a letter in which he
declared that a certain right hon. baronet was a " deli-
berate liar ;" whereupon the noble lord's private secre-
tary wrote back acknowledging the receipt of a commu-
nication containing those offensive words, and demand-
ing a retractation, adding " if you will write me a line
to that effect you shall receive a hundred pounds."
(Laughter, and some sensation.) Her Majesty's Govern-
ment, certainly did not send Mr. Dallas a hundred
pounds, but they sent him what Sir John Falstaff de-
clared to be " worth a inillion”--they sent him their
love. (A. laugh.) The question the house had to decide
was a very simple one: Lard Clarendon had been en
gaged in a petty intrigue in America ; he had been found
out, as he a+ ways was; he had persisted in his schemes,
act' he had disgraced not merely his own character, but
his country. The house had to decide whether he had
been right or wrong—whether or not they mould ap-
prove of his conduct in these proceedings, and adopt his
chastisement as their own. That was the issue trey bad
to try, and let them remember that in the verdict they
would pronounce, they would judge net Lord Carendou
only, but themselves. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman
concluded by moving " That the conduct of her Majes-
ty's Government, in the differences that have arisen
between them and the Government of the United States,
oa the question of enlistment, has not entitled them to
she epprobetioe of this house."
After a little delay,
Mr. MAGUIRE seconded the motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he thought the hon.
member for Mayo would have exercised a sounder
discre-
tion had he yielded to the appeals which had been wade
' to him t postpone for the present the discassiou of this
question. (Hear.) The significant delay which had elapsed
before the motion had found a seconder must, in some de-
, gree, have shaken his confidence in the expedieucy of the
course which he had taken. It was but on Ft iday last that
the First .Minis:.er of the Crown had intimated that, in
his opinion, this question could not be discussed consistently
with a due regard to the public interest, anti it had always
been usual, even in times when party feeling ran highest, to
treat such a statement, made at a period of public (ma-a-
gency, with proper consideration. The hon. member fur
Inverness-shire (Ar. Baillie), who might be said to have a
vested interest in this question, since he had given notice
at an early period of the session of his intention to call the
attention of the house to it, acting in concert with those
among whom he sat, had thought it proper and necessary
to postpone his motion ; but the hon. member for Mayo,
uninfluenced by the appeals made to him by members re-
presenting constituencies of all others most interested in
the maintenance of a good understanding with the United
States, had declined to follow that example. The hen.
member for Mayo told the house that it was to treat this
question judicially, but had the hon. member himself
treated it judicially ? (Hear.) It was impossible nut to
see that the hon. member was animated by-some feeling- of
personal animosity towards Lord Clarendon. (Hear.)
[Mr. Moore—" No, no."] - Certainly he had never heard
a speech which led so strongly to such a conclusion.
(Hear.) Was it judicial, was it just, was it even coin-
moil fairness, to drag into this debate allusion to a scanda-
lous newspaper—(hear)—to refer to some obscure-trans-
actions the import and history of which not a single mem-
ber of the house was acquainted with ? (Hear, hear.)
Was it arguing the question judicially, was it even in gOod
taste, to compare Lord Clarendon to the malefactor who a
few days ago had paid the penalty of his crimes on the
scaffold ? He never remembered to have seen a notice of
motion so frequently altered as this had beau. The hou.
member for luvernessethire had modified the terms of his
tuotieu from time to time; and the hon. member for Mayo
had twice altered his motion. As it stood now it was
certainly a most strangely worded motion. It did not
ask the house to express its disapprobation of the conduct,
of the Government, but merely to declare that her Ma-
jesty's Ministers were not entitled to the approbation of
the house. That, he believed, was a new form of moving
a vote of censure ; but as the hon. member meant it for a
vote of censure, as such it must be taken. Let it
not not be forgotten, however, that the responsibility for
this discussion rested with the hon. gentleman. He had
risen thus soon in the debate because it appeared to him
that this question involved legal principles and considera-
tions 'which it was most essential should be fixed as wally
as pte.sii.tle, and to which the hon. gentleman did not seem
to have given the attention which they deserved. The
British Government was charged with having by itself or
its agents, infaiuged, first, international law; and, secondly,
the municipal law of the United States. He joined issue
with those who made this charge upon both those points ;
but it was necessary to see, first, what was the interna-
tional law upon the subject, and, secondly, what was the
municipal law. The international law on this subject had
been left very-vague and uncertain by most publicists who
had written upon it. Vettel laid it down that by the law
and polity of nations no state could recruit its forces from
the subjects of another without the consent of the latter.
He would not for a single moment question that proposi-
tion. He doubted whether the authorityof Vatted would be
sufficient to sustain a proposition of any great importance.
Although generally received as an authority upon these
subjects, yet where he could not ground himself upou the
opinion of the jurists he was neither profound nor precise.
(Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, he would take the proposition
which he had quoted as it was laid down by this author.
He admitted that one State could not enlist the sub-
jects of another to serve in its army and navy without
the acquiescence of the State of which they were the sub-
jects. But then he must go back to another proposition,
which was, that that assent or acquiescence might not only
be expressed by treaty, but might be implied; as for in-
stance, by a State permitting its subjects to enlist into the
forces of another country ; because if a State gave to its
subjects permission to enter the service of a foreign Govern-
ment, such permission necessarily carried with it by impli-
cation a permission to foreign Governments to avail them-
selves of the servicesof the persons to whom this permission
was extended. That being established, it was necessary to
see what the municipal law of the United States prohibited
and what it permitted the subjects of the Union to do. In
that law you might find the measure and extent to which
the Union enforced or relaxed its rights of sovereignty
over its subjects. The municipal law of America upon this
subject differed most essentially from our own. The law of
Great Britain claimel and enforced the most complete,
absolute,and unqualified authorityoverits subjects. (Hear,
hear.) It not only prohibited them from enlisting, or
others from enlisting them upon its own territories, but it
prohibited them from enlisting beyond the territories of the
united kingdom ; it prohibited them from serving in the
military or naval forces of any other Sovereign or people,
without the express consent of the Sovereign. Therefore,
if a British subject were to enlist beyond the territories of
Great Britain, he would be liable to the penalties of the
law ; and Great Britain would have reason to complain of
any State which should propose to its subjects to violate the
municipallaw which was binding upon thenl. How stood the
case with regard to Amirica ? Was the law of that country
equally stringent ? Certainly not. The American law said
to its citizens, "You shall not enlist within ;he territories
of the United States." It said to other persons, "You
shall not enlist citizens of the United States within the
territories of those States, neither shall you contract with
them to go beyond the precincts of the States there to en-
list ;" but it did not prohibit American subjects, when be-
yond the boundaries of the United States, from enlisting
in the service of ally foreign State or potentate, nor did it-
prohibit them from serving such foreign State or potet,e
tate. This was a most material and important distinction,
of which the hon. gentleman had entirely lost sight. (Mr.
Moore made a gestut eof denial.) The hon. gentleman sig-
nified he had not, but so far as he (the Attorney-General),
had hearii, he appeared to have done so. If he had not
lost sight of it, he hail certainly forgotten it iu his speech.
This distinction undoubtedly existed, and he (the Attor-
ney-General) could not suppose that it was the result of
accident. Perhaps the American law was so limited that,
while the neutrality of the American territory and the re-
sponsibility of its Government should remain intact,
that tendency which the right hon. gentleman the member
for Buckinghamshire had the other evening very happily
characterised as a tendency to expansion, and which he e-
presented as not only the natural but the legitimatepolicy
of America, might remain unchecked. It might be that it
was intended to leave the citizens of America, who were
not quite so patient of control and restraint as the subjects
of our own country—(heai )—free to expand and to give
vont to that energy of character which particularly dis-
tinguished them ; but that the American I,w pet wit
the citizens of the Union, ao long as they did not enlist
within its territories, to serve foreign Powers was un-
doubted and unquestioned. (Hear.) We hail a grave in-
stance and illustration of td., in what was passing at the
present moment. Not only did the law of America permit
its citizens to engage in the service of a foreign State en-
gaged itelostilities with another which was not at war with
America, but it allowed them to enli- t and take arms in
support of a faction in a civil war. The existing Govern-
ment de facto of Nicaragua had been established with
the aid of the arms of American citizens, who, without
the sanction of their Government, except 5o far as it might
be implied from the existing state of the law, and from
what that Government had cone since, had established a
Government in that couutty, and at this moment main-
tained it. So far was the American Government how
seeking-to punish those citizens—so far was it from cow-
-1 plaining that the State or the Government of Nicaragua,