The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-03 00:00:00

vernmentes
Mr. 1101• GOOD differed from Alderman Sidney as to
the construction likely to be placed upon the language
and meaning of the address. There was nobody who
would not receive gratification at finding that the hor-
rors of war were at an end, and to express that sentiment
in an address to the Queen would be a singular way of
toadying to the Ministers.
Mrs. Roes said the treaty was a glorious one, and
would be remembered to the credit of the age. He de-
possessed the wonderful material of her greatness in full
vigour, but that very display betrayed by its contrast
;,.the. wretched mismanagement which this country had so
much reason to deplore. The peace would, he readily
admitted, be a subject fit for congratulation if it were a
scribed the effects of the war as having greatly exceeded
the general expectation in the destruction of the alarm-
ing power of Russia and the accomplishment of perma-
nent benefits for the world, and he believed that Turkey,
would, if England did make more haste, aapear fore-
most in the race of religious liberty.
Mr. JONES said he trusted the Court would be unani-
mous upon the subject. It had been the practice of the
Court to address the Crown on the achievement of peace,
and the present was an occasion of sincere congratula-
tion on what was the greatest of all blessings.
Sir P. LAURIE supported the motion. The worse the
war was conducted the greater would be the necessity
for peace. He looked upon peace as a great blessing,
particularly when it put se end to mismanagement
among the other desperate evils attending it. (A. laugh.)
Alderman CUBITT said he was anxious fa. peace in
common with his fellow-subjects, and he was surprised
to bear, as he did sometimes hear, that the peace just
ratified was a sham, a rotten peace. (Hear.) He had
read the treaty. He had read all the protocols with
great attention, and everything was as clear to him as if
he had been present in the room in which the confer-
ences had been held. The treaty was founded upon most
equitable principles. He would not call the peace a
glorious peace. That was not the word, for the word
" glorious," applied to one side, meant " degrading"
upon the part of the other. (Cheers.) It was a fair
arbitration of all the difficulties which surrounded the
conditions of those principally interested, and which
were likely to arise. The allies went into the war with
an avowed object. They sought no aggrandisement,
and they required of Russia what was necessary for the
general security, and they obtained it. Nothing could
be more fair than the spirit with which the important
conferences were carried on and the unanimity which
marked their termination. (Cheers.)
Alderman COPELAND said the proceedings of the
Court were premature. There were some explanations
necessary as to the circumstances of the treaty. His
friend (Alderman Cubitt) said that the treaty was a fair
arbitration. Had the award been made I (" Hear, hear,"
and a laugh.) It would be agreeable to ascertain some-
thing about the commissioners appointed to regulate as
to the important business of the navigation of the Da-
nube and other essential matters before the Court came
to a determisation, such as that which seemed to have a
majority of supporters in the Court. They should think
of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. (Hear, and " No, no !")
The Court might rely upon it that there would be num-
berless disputes among the commissioners. (" No, no.)
Why, be would ask, if the allies had a right to be
offended with Russia, had they not asked the Emperor
to settle the bill ? (Laughter, and " Hear, hear.") He
must declare in conclusion, that never was there a peace
which was looked upon with such apathy as the peace
which had been described as just ratified.
Mr. BESLEY did not understand why people cavilled at
the propositions. He had read the treaty and the pro-
tocols, and he was compelled to cmless that Lord
Clarendon had proved himself, in the whole of the nego•
tiations, a much greater man than he had ever sup-
posed his lordship to be. (Rear, hear.) There was en
untrue of a secure peace ; he would not say a lasting
peace, because who in the present state of t he world
could expect any great permanency I But be looked
upon the mention of arbitration as most propitious to
the great interests of humanity. (Hear, hear.) He
would support the motion, but be would watch the ad-
dress, so that not a word would appear in it in favour of
the bungling of the Government.
Alderman Rose said Alderman Copeland had asked
why Russia had not been asked to pay the bill ; but
the question was, whether Russia, if she had been able
to pay the bill, would have stopped the war. (Hear,
bear.) He argued strongly in favour of the motion.
Alderman KENNEDY'S proposition was then put and
unanimously agreed to, and a c nninittee having pre-
pared the address, it was unanimously and amid loud
cheers agreed to.

1, the laws of the United States, and the comity
which ought ever to prevail in the intercourse between
the two friendly Powers."
The undersigned, in reply to this note, expressed to Mr.
Buchanan, on the 16th of July, the regret of her Majesty's
Government if the law of the United States had been in
any way infringed by persons acting with or without au-
thority from her Majesty's Government ; and ho stated
that any such infringement of the law of the United States
would be contrary to the wishes and the positive instruc-
tions of the British Government.
The undersigned went on to explain his reasons for be-
lieving that no person authorised to act for the British
Government had violated the law of the United States ;
and, in conclusion, he stated that the request of the Pre-
sident that decisive measures might be taken to put an end
to these proceedings had been anticipated by the spon-
taneous act of her Majesty's Government, who had, a fort
night before the receipt of Mr. Buchanan's note, sent out
orders to put an end to the arrangement for enlisting
within the North American Provinces persona who might
come there from other places.
Mr. Buchanan, in reply, said, in a note dated the 18th of
July, that he should feel much satisfaction in transmitting
to his Government the note of the undersigned.
So strong appears to have been the impression on the
mind of Mr. Buchanan of the satisfactory nature of thin
communication, that when afterwards he received a de-
spatch from Mr. Marcy with renewed instructions to ad-
dress remonstrances to the British Government on the
subject of the recruiting proceedings, he abstained from
eating upon those instructions, and withheld Mr. Marcy's
despatch containing them from the knowledge of her Ma-
jesty's Government, obviously because he perceived by its
date, July 15, that it was written long before the note of
the undersigned of July 16 could have been received by
Mr. Marcy, and because he concluded that when that note
should have been received the Government of the United
States would b© satisfied with its contents. For a con-
.

siderable time this conclusion appeared well founded. _On
Sept. 5, however, Mr. Marcy addressed a note to Mr.
Crampton, not alleging that fresh subjects of complaint
had arisen since the receipt in America of the British or-
ders of the 22d June, but going back to the same transac-
tions to which Mr. Buchanan's note of the 6th of July
had adverted, and renewing all his original complaints, as
if no notice had been taken of his former representation,
as if no regret had been expressed, and as if no measures
Lad been adopted to put an instant stop to the proceedings
oat of which his complaints had originated.
A communication so much at variance with what Mr.
Buchanan's note of the 18th of July had led her Majesty's
Government to expect might well bo received with some
feelings of surprise, inasmuch as they believed that they
had given to the Government of the United States every
satisfaction which one Government could reasonably ex-
pect to receive from another in a case of this kind.
The undersigned, however, on the 27th Sept., replied to
Mr. Marcy's note, answering the allegations renewed in
it, and repeating that her Majesty's Government had no
reason to believe that any of her Majesty's servants, or any
agents duly authorised by them, had disregarded the in-
junctions to respect and to obey the laws of the United
States.

Nevertheless the Government of the United States still
considered this answer unsatisfactory, and on the 13th of
October, Mr. Marcy addressed another despatch on these
matters to Mr. Buckanan, which was communicated to the

undenigned on the Ist of Nov. Iu that despatch Mr.
Marcy renews his general assertions that her Majesty's
officers in America had violated the laws of the United

States ; he refers to his despatch of the 15th July, which
Mr. Butoharoal howl e.h4t..ined from: ocantmini,nting on the
supposition that the note of the undersigned of the 16th
July had finally settled the question at issue, and he states
that the slid despatch of the 15th of July indicated the
satisfaction which the Government of the United States
believed it had a right to claim from the Government of
Great Britain.

despatch of the 15th of 'July, which was not com-
music sted to the underigneet by Mr. Buchanan till the 2d
of November, concludes by saying that " the President is
disposed to believe that her Majesty's Government has not
countenanced the illegal proceedings of its officers and
agents since its attention was first directed to the subject,
and will consider it alike due to itself and to the United
States to disavow their acts and deal with them in such a
manner as their grave offence merits," but that, " as re-
cruiting for the British army, in the mode alluded to, is
still prosecuted (as he believed) within the United States,
by officers and agents employed for the purpose, the Pre-
sident instructs Mr. Buchanan to say to her Majesty's Go-
vernment that ho expects it will take prompt and effective
measures to arrest their proceedings, and to discharge
from service those persons now i❑ it who were enlisted
within the United States, or who left the United States
under contracts made here to enter and serve as soldiers in
the British army.
This, then, is the satisfaction which, as late as the 13th
of October, Mr. Marcy declared was that which the Go-
♦ernment of the United States demanded.

ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES.

The correspondence relating to the conduct of
Mr. Crampton, the British Minister at Washing-
ton, has been laid before Parliament. There is
nothing in this large volume that has not already
been substantially communicated to the pulelic
through the columns of The Sun. We therefore
confine ourselves to the reproduction of the last
despatch from the Earl of Clarendon, which closes
the correspondence :

With respect to tho first part of this demand, her Ma-
jesty's Government deny that any illegal proceedings were,
so far as they knew, committed by its officers or autho-
rised agents, and therefore they have none to disavow,
and no officers or agents to deal with as offenders. With
regard to the other points specified by Mr. Marcy, the un-
dersigned on the 16th November, deeming it respectful to
the Government of the United States to do so, entered
into a detailed, and, as he had hoped, a satisfactory reply
to the arguments and statements contained in Mr. Marcy's
despatch of the 13th of October. In that reply the under-
signed stated that the most material point, that of the
alleged recruiting, had been already disposed of; for, nearly
four months before the date of that despatch the recruiting
arrangements and proceedings had been abandoned by
orders sent by her Majesty's Government on the 22d June;
and that the second part of the satisfaction required it
was not in their power to give, because no person had to
their knowledge been enlisted within the United States, or
left the United States under contract made therein to
enter into service in the British army. And he further
added that if it could be shown that any men had been so
enlisted, they should immediately be discharged and sent
back to the United States.

No. 81. LIE EARL OF CLARENDON TO MR. DALLAS.
Foreign-office, April 30,185 G.
_

The undersigned, &c., had the honour to receive, on the
29th of January, from Mr. Buchanan, Envoy Extraordi-
nary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at
this Court, a copy of a despatch dated the 28th of the pre-
vious December, addressed to Mr. Buchanan by Mr.
Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States, containing
observations on a despatch which the undersigned had di-
rected her Majesty's Minister at Washington to communi-
cate to Mr. Marcy. Mr. Marcy's despatch was in continua-
tion of the discussion which had been some time pending
between the two Governments, on the subject of the con-
duct which was alleged by the Government of the United
States to have been pursued by certain of her Majesty's
officers in giving effect to the intentions of her Majesty's
Government to receive into the military service of the
Queen auy persons who, coming from any quarter into her
Majesty's dominions, might there be willing to engage in
that service.

The undersigned thus showed that the satisfaction
claimed by the Government of the United States had long
since been given as far as it was in the nature of things
possible to give it, and, in addition to the satisfaction asked
for, he expressed the regret of her Majesty's Government if
anything had been done by any person, authorised or un-
authorised, which could be considered an infringement of
the law of the United States.

The undersigned has hitherto deferred replying to Mr.
Marcy's despatch, net only because it was more consistent
with the respect which her Majesty's Government enter-
tain for the United States, thoroughly to inquire into the
allegations contained in it, but also because it was just
and right towards her Majesty's officers whose conduct was
impugned, to put them in possession of the charges brought
against them, and to give thorn that opportunity of expla-
nation and defence which was then for the first time af-
forded them.

It might naturally have been supposed that the corres-
pondence would here have ended. Regrethad been expressed
for any infringement of the law of the United States, if any
had taken place, notwithstanding the positive and repeated
orders of her Majesty's Government to the contrary. The
satisfaction which the Government of the United States,
after mature deliberation had demanded, bad either been
spontaneously and by anticipation granted, or had been
shown to be impracticable because there was no man in the
British service whose enlistment, or contract to enlist, had,
to the knowledge of her Majesty's Government, taken place
in the manner specified by Mr. Marcy in his despatch of the
15th of July, and whose e ischarge, therefore, could form
part of the satisfaction indicated by Mr. Marcy. Her Ma-
jesty's Government, however, expressed their readiness to
give that satisfaction alsci, if any case should be established
to which it could apply.

The undersigned, before he adverts to Mr. Marcy's last
despatch, must expre,s his deep regret that the Govern-
ment of the United States should have deemed it necessary-
to continue a controversy on a question which Mr. Buch-
anan considered at the time would be finally settled by the
note of the undersigned of July 16, 1855—a note which Mr.
Buchanan said ho would transmit with much satisfaction
to his Government. The undersigned had, indeed, hoped
that that note, together with his subsequent communica-
tions of the 27th of Sept. to Mr. Buchanan, and of the
16th of Nov., through Mr. Crampton, to the Government
of the United States, would have been accepted by a
friendly Government such as that of the United States,
as a satisfaction for any offence which that Government
might have been led by circumstances to think had, though
unintentionally, been given.
For what has been the course of the transactions which
hare given rise to this correspondence ?
On the breaking out of the late war between the Western
Powers and Russia, the British Government was informed
that many persons resident within the United States—
some natives of the continent of Europe, and emcee natu-
ral-born subjects of her Majesty—were desirous of entering
into the military service of Great Britain. The British
Government, believing the information they had received
on this matter to be well founded, took steps to avail
themselves of this disposition, and gave directions that
any persons presenting themselves within the British North
American Provinces, willing to enlist and found fit for
service, should be engaged for the British army. But her
Majesty's Government gave the most positive orders that
in making arrangements for this purpose nothing should
be done to infringe in any manner whatsoever the neutra-
lity laws of the United Altos.
It was not doubted that such arrangements might be
carried into execution without any violation of those laws,
because those laws prohibit enlistments or engagements
only within the territories of the United States ; they do
not forbid citizens of the United States or residents therein
from leaving those territories, nor do they forbid such
citizens or other persons from engaging or enlisting in mili-
tary service elsewhere, when of their own free will and
without any previous contract or engagement they may
have left those territories.
The intentions of the British Government, end the ar-
rangements made to carry those intentions into execution,
were not concealed from the Government of the United
States.
Those intentions and arrangements were frankly states'
by Mr. Crampton to Mr. Marcy in a conversation on the
22d of March, 1855, and the only observations which Mr.
Marcy made in reply were, that the neutrality laws of the
United States would be rigidly enforcedu, but that any
ber of persons who desired it might leave the -United
States, and get enlisted in any foreign service.
Up to this point, therefore, there was no misunderstand-
ing as to the purpose of the British Government, and no
difference of opinion as to the legality of the course which
that Government intended to pursue.
gut the grai4l3, GIOTernMOAt 15094 taw; by Acoounta

Her Majesty's Government wore, however, disappointed
in the confident expectation which they had entertained
that this further explanation would prove satisfactory, for
on the 29th of January of the present year Mr. Buchanan
communicated to the undersigned a despatch from Mr.
Marcy, dated the 28th of December preceding, recapitu-
lating the complaints of the Government of the 'Milted
States, and making a demand in the way of satisfaction
different from those which were mentioned in Dlr. Marcy
.'s
note of the 15th of July, and which were referred to in hnt
despatch of the 13th of October as the satisfaction which
the Government of the United States believed itself en-
titled to claim. This demand consisted in an application
for the recall of her Majesty's Minister at Washington,
and of her Majesty's Consuls at Philadelphia, New York,
, or whether
na ne
wd
gro Cincinnati.und ha d b Ie
et
nw
foundtlnaturallyfoned bre between
twheibes end
teahms ketwenld3a
twh hoe
ft hoe:
oabneyr
any new event had happe
Deceaniccheurs,atinionwshimchadteheasegaoinfasetertsheoirf
ohffier.
and. the 28th of
Majesty had been concerned. Nothing of the kind had
within the know-
ledgetaken place, and the
cors in Mr. Marcy's despatch of the 28th of December rest
cewe
umhnebdneernr
so2i
gBs
nu:ch(hie
proceedsdmemu satnd was
upon
ostfatthorGenot:erwnmhi:E.htwoefrteheeqUunallityed States on the 13th
made.
noticeto re t
an oM
erroneousr .3.ia recoyn'
s
strnction which Mr. Marcy has there put upon a passage
in a despatch of the 12th of April, 1855, from the under-
signedof October,pthe
to Mr. Crampton, which was communicated to him
by Mr. Marcy. The passage is as follows :—" I entirely
noßtoefoofre
approve of your proceedings as reported in your despatch
No. 57, of the 12th lt n withrespect to the proposed
enlistment in the Queen's service of foreigners and British
subjects in the United States." Mr. Marcy assumes, and
argues upon the assumption, that the meaning of this
passage was, that the enlistments of the persons mentioned,
and which were approved of by her Majesty's Government,
were to take place within the United States; whereas, the
sentence, according to its obvious meaning, relates to
foreigners and British subjects resident in the United
States. The word " in" has reference to the place where
they resided, and not to the place where they were to be
enlisted ; and if any doubt could arise on this point that
douht must have been removed by the concluding passage,
which adverts to the neutrality law of the United States,
and says that her Majesty's Government would on no ac-
" count run any risk of infringing that law. This construe-
ant/tien Of the rese Ceneigeatioll does itppear to

ape srycp yoa ce ext ,
•
f
*r,: ER
apthonraediessidno:ccurred to Mr. Marcy at thelitne when the des. ae .719
•
of the
_edsuibntryoed
des
frfstrrhi
..gaLLnt undersigned
Lumley
oflimoe
Lumley.
g.hhhe
ssl 2obs
atehtf
jar of fra
finished
siophomrnei
withi was a communicatedsti ra.
thatcludo
' -/
t
•
Ye,
,4
M. 41
in order that he might show it to his colleagues. ez,
The undersigned must also further observe that MasS'e/
Marcy, in the same despatch, has misconceived the znewere-,
ing of an expression used by the undersigned in making a
an offer, above referred to, that any man who might have
been enlisted within the United States should be immedi-
ately discharged and sent back. The reference there mad
to British law was merely intended to indicate that if per
sons had been enlisted under the circumstances aupposedi
such enlistment would have been at variance with British,
as well as with American law ; but the undersigned did
not mean that respect would not be paid, in the discharge
of men, to the rrirciples of the law of the United States
alone, should that law appear to have been violated in a
single case.
In reply to the general statements of Mr. Marcy's de-
spatch, the undersigned must repeat that hog Majesty's
Government gave the most positive orders that no man
should be enlisted or engaged within the territory of the
United States, and that the neutrality laws of the United
States should be strictly and scrupulously respected. But
Mr. Marcy now contends that this was not enough, and
though in conversation with Mr. Crampton, on the 22d of
March, 1855, he said that he could not object to any num-
ber of persons going to Nova Scotia, to be there enlisted,
provided the Neutrality Laws of the United States were
not infringed, he now argues that the enlistment in Nova
Scotia of persons coming thither from the United States
was a violation of the policy of the United States, and that
not to respect that policy was an offence on the part of
GI eat Britain against the sovereign rights of the United
States.
Now, in reply to this, the undersigned begs to observe,
that the policy of a nation in regard to its internal ar-
rangements must be sought for in the laws of that nation;
and what those laws forbid it must be understood to be
the policy of the State to prohibit, and that what those
laws do not forbid it must be understood to be the policy
of the State to allow. In every State, whatever may be
its form of Government, there is a sovereign power that
soverei p ,wer may impose upon the subjects or dtizens
of such State what duties, obligations, and restrictions it
may think tit, and it is a necessary conclusion that when
the sovereign power puts a limit to its enactments, whether
of oeligation or of prohibition, it means to leave its sub-
jects or citizens free in regard to all matters not within the
onsets:mats of the law. This principle is, indeed, admitted
by Mr. Buchanan's note of the 6th of July, wherein he
lays it down that the neutral policy of the United States
Is •` defined and enforced" in the statute of 1811
Different a untries have different laws in regard to the
enlistment of their subjects and citizens in the military
and naval service of other States, and these laws vary ac-
cording to the different policy of these countries with re-
spect to such matters.
In Great Britain the law not only prohibits recruiting
or enlisting within the British dominions for the service
of any foreign State, without the permission of the Sove _
reign, but it goes further, and prohibits any subject of
her Majesty from so enlisting, even elsewhere, without the
royal permission. The policy of Great Britain hence ap.
pears to be to prevent British subjects from entering at
all into the service of foreign States without the permission
of the Crown.
The law of the United States appear totes different. Her
Majesty's Government understood, and that understanding
is confirmed by Mr. Buchanan's note of the 6th of July,
that the law of the United States onlyforbids enlistments,
ecruiting, and contracts or engagements within the United
States, and hiring or retaining persons to quit the United
States with intent to be enlisted elsewhere, but it does not
forbid citizens of the United States, who may have used
their natural right of quitting the United States, to enlist
into the' service of a foreign State when they have left their
own country. The sovereign power of the United States
might, if it had chosen to do so, have followed its citizens
with a prohibitory enactment beyond the territory of the
United States ; but it has not thought fit to do so, and tho
just and inevitable conclusion is that what it might have
forbidden, but has not forbidden, it has designedly allowed;
that is to say, in other words, that it is the policy of the
United States to prevent foreign enlistments within the
United States, but that it is not the policy of the Unitel
States to forbid the citizens of the United States to enlist,
when out of the United States, into the service of foreign
states, if they should choose to do so.
Such being the state of this matter, it is obvious that the
British Government cannot justly be charged with any
disregard of the United States, nor with any disrespect to
their sovereign rights, by taking into the Queen's military
service any persons who, having come from the United
States, freely and without contract or engagement, into a
British territory, might there be willing to enlist.
The real questions at issue between her Majesty's Go-
vernment and that of the United States are, whether the
British Government ordered or contemplated any violation
of the neutrality laws of the United States'; whether, if
the British Government did not order or contemplate such
violation, thpse laws were nevertheless violated by persons
acting with the authority or approbation of the British
Government ; and lastly, whether if any violation of the
law of the United States did take place, sufficient satisfac-
tion has been given by the Government of that country.
In regard to the first point, the British Government nei-
ther ordered nor contemplated any violation whatever of
the laws of the United States, but, on the contrary, issued
the most positive and repeated orders that those laws should
not be infringed by any persons acting under their autho-
rity.
In regard to the second point, Mr. Marcy alleges the
notwithstanding the orders of the British Government ;
,fficers and agents of that Government did within the
United States do things which were a violation of the neu-
trality laws of the United States; and Mr. Marcy specifi-
cally makes this charge against her Majesty's consuls at
Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York.
With respect to Mr. Crampton the undersigned has to
state that Mr. Crampton positively and distinctly denies
the charge brought against him ; he declares that he never
hired, or retained, or engaged a single person within th.
Upheld Mates for the servicevf her. Majesty, and that he
never countenanced or encouraged any violation of the law
of the United States. The charge brought against Mr.
Crampton is mainly founded upon evidence given by Stro-
bel on the trial of Hertz, and on the so-called confessionof
Hertz himself. One of these persons, Strobel, was, in con-
sequence of his misconduct, dismissed from e‘ndoyinent
by the Lieut.-Governor of Nova Scotia, at Halifax, and
afterwards applied to Mr. Crampton, and endeavoured to
extort money from him by a threat, which was of course
disregarded. The undersigned has the honour to transmit
as inclosure to this note documents which sufficiently prove
that both Strobel and Hertz aro wholly unworthy of cre-
dit. It is impossible for her Majesty's Government to set
the assertions of such men us these against the declara-
tion Mr. Crampton, a man of unquestionable honour.
The undersigned must, indeed, remark that the whole
Troceedine•b in regard to the trial of Hertz was of such a
nature that, whilst her Majesty's Minister and horMaiesty'a
Consuls might 13?, and indeed were, inculpated by the evi-
dence of unscrupulous witnesses, that Minister and those
consuls had not any means or any opportunity of rebutting
the charges which were thus incidentally and indirectly
brought against them.
With regard to her Majesty's Consuls at Cincinnati,
Philadelphia, and New Yerk, they all equally deny the
charges which have been brought against them, and they
declare that they have in no way whatever infringed the
laws of the United States.
With respect to Mr. Rowcroft, her Majesty's Consul at
Cincinnati, the undersigned has to observe that legal pro-
ceedings against that gentleman are still pending. As to
the origin, character, and nature of those proceedings, the
undersigned might have much to say ; but, as they are
still pending, ho abstains from doing so. He must, how-
ever, be permitted to remark that iewould, at all events,
be inconsistent with the plcinest principles of justice to
assume as estable hed, charges wl ich I re still the subject-
matter of judicial investigation.
The accusation against Mr. Mathew, her Majesty's Con-
sul at Philadelphia, rests entirely upon assertions made by
Hertz. Those assertions aro positively denied by Mr.
Mathew; and her Majesty's Government can scarcely be-
lieve that the Government of the United States, with the
knowledge which it will have obtained of the character of
Hertz, will hesitate to concur with the Government of her
Majesty in giving credit to Mr. Mathew.
With respect to Mr. Barclay, her Majesty's Consul at
New York, ho declares that he neither favoured the al-
leged recruiting nor participated in it, nor was informed
of the hiring, retaining, for engaging any man for that
purpose.
Her Majesty's Government cannot but accept the denial
of these gentlemen as more worthy of belief than the as-
sertions and evidence of such men as Hertz and StrobeL
But Mr. Marcy considers that the conduct of Mr.
Barclay in the affair of the barque Maury ought to be an
additional reason why her Majesty's Government should
recall him. Upon this the undersigned must observe that
Mr. Barclay received information on oath from persons in
the service of the United States, leading to the belief that
the barque Maury was fitting out with designs hostile to
British interests, and at variance with the neutrality laws
of the United States. It was Mr. Barclay's bounden duty
to communicate that information without delay to her
Majesty's Minister at Washington. Mr. Barclay did so,
.
and his direct action in the matter was then at an end
propere
'ght
authorities
Cramptonoft
he unsubmittedted this
States
g be righty t o
determine what proceedings,
hthe .Maury to be sufft-
dered the prima facie case againstpart. Such proceed-
eient to call for proceedings on their
instituted by them, and not by Mr.
ings were accordingly .
take thereupon. The officers ioffatny; Unnitied Stateseonsi-
informationi
in or der that they the m
d regarda nd received the approval
strict performance of his duty,
of her Majesty's Government.
Barclay, whodsetocoondeulactstipnotint etountdheersMignanedrymwusats
re-
fer to the offers of satisfaction, and to the explanaticis
already made, and to the repeated expression of sincere
regret of her Majesty's Government, if, contrary to their
intentions, and to their reiterated directions, there has
been any infringement of the laws of the United States.
The undersigned has now had the satisfaction of com-
municating to the Government of the United States the
statements and declaration of her Majesty's Minister ut
Washington, and of her Majesty's Consuls at Cincinnati,
Philadelphia, and New York, as to the conduct imputed
to them.
The Government of the United States had been led to
suppose that the law and the sovereign rights of the United
States had not been respected by her Majesty's Govern-
ment, and relying upon evidence deemed to be trustworthy,
they believed that that law and those rights had been in-
fringed by British agents. If such had been the case, the
Government of the United States would have been entitled
to demand, and her Majesty's Government would not have
hesitated to afford, the most ample satisfaction, for no dis-
credit can attach to the frank admission and complete re-
paration of an unquestionable wrong. Her Majesty's Go-
vernment,oran
toury
tooc adlil
disregard
edgias
re
tlia disclaim any intention
no
t
"'WA. the 4
torespee the sovereign lights of the United
have ntooteem-
first time, learn that her Majesty's Minister
q'United States will
either
the
G Government
infringernmentotth however,et
hilsaenwe
woedighlAng the decla-
rations any of 'the acts that have been imputed them.
and Cincinnati, solemnly affirm that they
ton, and her Majesty's Consuls at Newyork, Philadelphiga,
The Government of the United States
.now, also for
now.a --ashin
ronour and
cairn th. express the ear-
nthteiofinrsstotime,
rhgaevnetalennoepnpooritiuinniinatypoefach
in-
tegrity against evidence upon whicho ziontre lance ought to
vernment that these explana-
tionsnest hope of her Majesty's
Prove satisfactory to the and assurances may p
be placed. The undersignaedo
Go-
vernment of the United States, and effectually remove
and he cannot doubt that such a result will afford as much
any misapprehension which may have hitherto existed ;
pleasure to the Government of the United States as to
that of her Majesty, by putting an end to a difference
which has been deeply regretted by her Majesty's Govern-
ment , for there are no two countries which are bound by
stronger ties or by hi
higher considerations than the United
States and
Great Britain to maintain unbroken the rela-
tions of perfect cordiality and friendship.—The under.
signed, 1(4.
(Sigma) CUJIENDON•