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

PAPER
• .
41'14.C2
444: /ele
• A:l4
fl S
• -
oeourred to Mr. Marcy at the time
(MI • •
-ndersigned of tb. in.'
_
~•ke,
. 4
Sil/4
•ik 4, `4.-Vii I At) - 't•n, c)
`r
ob'V '^.-1 -41L1- 7., •0, "-;;;0 '1 Ron..

have occurred to Mr. Marcy at the time when the &spat&
of the undersigned otthe 12th of April was 00=11-1A0.044
to him by Mr. Lumley. So far from it, Mr. Marcy et.
pressed to Mr. Lumley his satisfaction with that despatch,
and desired that he might be furnished with a copy of it,
in order that he might show it to his colleagues.
The undersigned must also farther observe that Mr.
Marcy, in the same despatch, has misconceived the mean.
ing of an expression used by the undersigned in making
an offer, above referred to, that any man who might have
been enlisted within the United States should be ithmedie
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 supposed.
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 bo paid, in the discharge
of men, to the Iri iciples of the law of the United State;
alone, should that law appear to have been violated in a
single case.

[PRICE 4D. STAMPED SD•

which reached them from the United States, that it would
be difficult to prevent the execution of the contemplated
arrangements from being attended by circumstances which
might give rise to discussions between the two Govern-
ments. It was seen that, however strict might be the order
of her Majesty's Government that nothing should be done
ih contravention of the laws of the United States, and how-
ever Ecrupulow her Majesty's officers in America might be
in obeying those orders, yet a misconception of the precise
bearing of those laws might lead some of those officers un-
intentionally to overstep their limits, while other persons,
'either from honest zeal or for the sake of gain, or from a
desire) to entrap her Majesty's officers, might do things at
Variance the provisions of those laws. Her Majesty's
Government, therefore, being most anxious that nothing
should happen to disturb the good understanding between
the two Governments, and being desirous of showing
unequivocally their respect for the laws of the United
States, at once, and of their own accord, determined to give
up the further prosecution of the arrangements in question,
and they accordingly sent out to Canada and to Nova
Scotia on the 22d June, 185, orders to discontinue all
further proceedings in the matter of enlistment for the
Foreign Legion. . .
A fortnight after these orders had been sent out, the
undersigned received from Mr. Buchanan a note, dated
Jelly 6, alleging that the neutrality laws of the United
States had in many instances been violated by punch's tak-
ing steps, either with or without the approbation of the
British Government, for the purpose of engaging or enlist-
isg within the United States recruits for the British ser-
vice ;- and Mr. Buchanan, in the conclusion of his note,
stated that " the President would he much gratified to
learn that her Majesty's Government had not authorised
the proceedings complained of, bat hut condemned the
conduct of its officials engaged therein, and had visited
them with its marked displeasure, as well as taken deci-
sive measures to put a stop to conduct contrary to the law
Of nations, the-laws of, the United States, and the comity
which ough' 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 he stated
that any such infringement of the law of the United States
would be contrary to the wishes and the positive instruc-
twos of the British Government.
The undersigned went on to explain his reasons for be-
lieving that n 9 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 oat
orders to put an end to the arrangement for enlisting
within the North American Provinces persons 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 Zif Mr. Buchanan of the satisfactory nature of this
communication, that when afterwards he received a de-
spatch from Mr. Marcy with renewed instructions to ad-

lii reply to the general statements of Mr. Marcy's
de-
spatch, the undersigned must repeat that her 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 bo 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, be now argues that the enlistment in Nova
Scotia of persons coming thither from the United States
was a violation f the policy of the United States, and that
not to respect, that policy was an offence on the part of
G. sal 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 GON•ernment, there is a sovereign power that
sovereign p )wer may impose upon the subjects or citizens
of such State what duties, obligations, and restrictions it
may think fit, and it is a necessary conclusion that when
the sovereign power puts a limit to its enactments, whether
of Oligation or of prohibition, it means to leave its sub.
jects or citizens free in regard to all matters not within the
en. ct Dents of the law. This principle is' indeed, admitted
by Mr. Bnchanan's note of the 6th of July, aherein he
lay 4 it down that the neutral policy of the United States
is defined and enforced" in the statute of 1818.
Different c nintties 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 ao-
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 to be different. Her
Majesty's Government understood, and that understanding
is eenfirmed by Mr. Bachanan's note of the 6th of July,
that the law of the United Stateionlyforbide enlistMents.
recruiting, and contracts or engagements withinthe'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 the
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, bat that it is not the policy of tie Unite
States to forbid the citizens of the United States to enlist,
whin out of the United States, into the service of foreign
etal es, 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 parsons who, having come from the United
States, freely and without contract or engagement, into a
British territory, might there be willing to enlist.
The I oat questions at issue between her Majesty's Go-
vernment and that of the United States are, whether the
Br.tish Government ordered or contemplated any vidation
of the neutrality laws of the United States ; whether, if
the British Government did not order or contmplate such
violation, those 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 authos.
ritr.

dress remonstrances to the British Government on the
subject of the recruiting proceedings, he abstained from
acting 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 cmcluded that wlvn that note
should have been received the Government of the United
States would be 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 lesol been expressed, and as if no measures
Lad been. adopted to put au instant stop to the proceedings
out of which his complaints had originated.
A communicatiosi 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 be 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-
junctioas to respect and to obey the laws of the United
States. _

In regard to the second point, Mr. Marcy alleges tha
notwithstanding the orders of the British Government
officers 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
stiev that Mr. Crampton positively and distinctly denies
the charge brought against him ; he declares that he never
hired, or retained, or engaged a single pers.. within the
United States for the service of 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 "confession of
Hertz himself. One of these persons, Strobel, was, in con-
seq.:Junco of his misconduct, oisinissed from ewployment
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 are wholly unworthy of cre-
dit. It is impossible for her Majesty's Government to set
the assertions of such men as these against the declara-
tion of Mr. Crampton, a man of unquestionable honour.
The undersigned must, indeed, remark that the whole
rr iceeding in regard to the trial of Hertz was of such a
nature that, whilst her Maj esty's Minister and herMaiesty's
Consuls might be, 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. _

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. Buchanan, which was communicated to the
underAgned on the let of Nov. In that despatch Mr.
Marcy renews his general assertions that her Majesty's
officers in *maxis& . had violated—the—law& of_the.lTnited
States ; he refers to his despatch of the 15th July, which
Mr. Buchanan had abstained from communicating 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 said despatch of the 15th of July indicated the
satisfaction which the Government of the United States
believed it had a right to claim front the Government of
Great Britain. •

This despatch of the 15th of July, which was not com-
municlted to the underigneol by Mr. Buchanan till the 2cl
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 duo 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 ho 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 in it who wore enlisted
within the United States, or who left the United States
under contracts made hero 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-
vernment of the United States demanded.

With regard to her Majesty's Consuls at Cincinnati,
Philadelphia, and New York, they all equally deny the
charges %%hie' 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 the first part of this demand, her Ma-
jesty's Government deny that any illegal proceedings wore,
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 recruitin 7, 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 ou 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 be 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.

- -
With respect to Mr. nowcroft, 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, us they are
still pending, ho abstains from doing so. He must, how-
ever, be permitted to remark that it would, at all events,
be inconsistent With the phinest principles of justice to
assume as cstali hod, charges wl it:3h sr., 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, he declares that ho neither favoured the al-
leged recruiting ner participated in it, nor was informed
of the hiring, retaining, [or engaging any man for that
purpose.

The undersigned thus showed that the satisfaction
claimed by the Government of the United States had long
since been gi, en 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
aiything had been done by any person, authorised or un-
authorised, which could be considered an infringement of
the law of the United States.

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 barquo 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 mithout delay to her
Majesty's Minister at Washington. Mr. Barclay did so,
and his direct action in the matter was then at an end.
Mr. ezamptou submitted this information to the proper
authorities of the United States in order that they might
determine what proceedings, if any, it might be right to
and
ducnh optrboyeemed-
r.
take thereupon. The officers of the United States consi-
dered the
prima facie easeaognaitnhsetirtlipearMt.sury to be suffi-
cientn proceedings
gn d by them,
proceed-
ings to callwore. for,eordily instituted
Barclay, whose conduct in regard to the Maury was in
strict performance of his duty, and received the approval
of her Majesty's Government.

It might naturally have been supposed that the corres-
pondence would here have ended. Regret had 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
satisfat;iiuu rho o•rorntnont 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 oischarge, therefore, could form
part of the satisfaction indicated by Mr. Marcy. Her Ma-
jesty's Government, however, expressed their readiness to
give that satisfaction also, if any case should be established
to which it could apply.

With regard to the last point, the undersigned must re-
fer to the offers of satisfaction, and to theexplanath
already made, and to the repeated expression of sincere
hs,eranMdajteostYth'seiGr orveei
trenrma
teendt ,
directions,i , co ntr contrary
ht oe r tehhe
si r
intend regret
of
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 tt
Washington, and of her Majesty's Consuls at Cincinnati,
Philadelphia, and Now 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
Goveinment 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, however, unequivocally disclaim any intention
either to infringe the law, or to disregard the policy, or not
to respect the sovereign rights of the United States, and
the Government of the tasted States will cow, for the
first time, learn that her Majesty's Minister at Washing-
ton, and her Majesty's Consuls at New York, Philadelphia,anti Cincinnati, solemnly affirm that they have not com-
mitted any of the acts that have been imputed to them.
The Government of the United States will now, also for
the first time, have an opportunity of weighj,ng the decla-
rations of four gentlemen of unimpeached honour and in-
tegrity against evidence upon which no reliance ought to
be placed. The undersigned cannot but express the ear•
nest hope of her Majesty's Government that these explana-
tions and assurances may prove satisfactory to the Go-
vernment of the United States, and effectually remove
any misapprehension which may have hitherto existed ;
and he cannot doubt that such a result will afford as mush
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 higher considerations than the United
States and Great Britain to maintain unbroken the rela-
tions of perfect cordiality and friendship.—The under-
signed, &c.
(Signed) CLARENDON.

Her Majesty's Government were, 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. Buchan_a;
communicated to the undersigned a despatch from '3l •
Marcy, dated the 28th of December preceding,
ented
recapitu-
lating the complaints of the Government of. t
States, and making a demand in the way .°111„. satisfaction...
different from those which were mentioned Mr. Marcy's
note of the 15th of July, and which weresafieifsefar d
despatch of the 13th of October as the ctio. n whic in h
s
the Government of the United Statesbelieved 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,
and Cincinnati. It will naturally be asked whether any
new ground had been found for this demand, or whether
any new event had happened between the 13th of October
and the 28th of December, in which these officers of her
Majesty had been concerned. Nothing of the kind had
taken place, and the accusations made against their offi-
cers in Mr. Marcy's despatch of the 28th of December rest
upon statements which were equally within the know-
ledge of the Government of the United States on the 13th
of October, when no such demand was mado.
Before the undersigned proceeds to reply to Mr. Marcy's
note of December 28, he must notice an erroneous con-
struction which Mr. Marcy has there put upon a passage
in a despatch of the 12th of April, 1855, from the under-
signed to Mr. Crampton, which was communicated to him
by Mr. Marcy. The passage is as follows :—" I entirely
applove of your proceedings as reported in your despatch
No. 57, of the 12th ultimo, with respect 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. Tho word " It" 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
doubt 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-
I count run any risk of infringing that law. This construc-
tion of the passage under consideration does 110 t appear to