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

^f
~. ..i

• icsr

•
by engaging their arms, had violated the sovereign right*
of America& that it had actually recognised the government
which had been established and subsisted entirely
,by the
assistance of American subjects. That being the state of
- the law, he. would bri.ey state the facts to which it was to
be applied. A fact wieh ought never to be lost sight of
was, that it was never intended in this scheme of recruit.
ing to enlist American subjects properly so called. At the
time when the Foreign' Enlistment Act was passed there
were in the United States large bodies of persons who
were anxious for military service. They were of two classes
—British subjects who had emigrated to America, and who
being disappointed in their expectations, were anxious to
return to their own country, and avastnumberof political
refugees whom the revolutionary movements of 1848, and,
above all, the counter-revolutionary movements had'driven
into exile, together with other foreigners who had served
in the Schleswig Holstein army, and who, on the disband-
ment of that army, had found refuge in America.' With
regard to the first class of persons, it was quite clear that,
if they desired to enter the British service, so long as we
did not violate the law of America, no man could say
that we had not a perfect right to enlist them. The
law of England was that no British subject could throw
off the allegiance which he owed to the Government of
England, Hear.) His country or his allegiance he could
not put off. A principal maxim of law was "Nemo pang
exuere patriam." A man might expatriate himself, he
might change his atmosphere, he might stand ou another
soil, and look at another heaven, but he would not put off
his allegiance. Therefore if you had, as was the case at this
time, offers from British subjects who had not found in
America the house which they had expected, who had not
put off that attachment to their native land, which he be-
lieved a British born man could no more put off than the
law would allow him to put off his allegiance, and who
when they heard that the oil country was at war and
needed the services of .her sons naturally felt an incline-
von to enter int, her army, you could, without violation
of the municipal law of the United States, take them into
your service, and there could be no consideration, moral,
social, or political, which could interfere with your doing
so. The other body of men, the refugees, were not Ame-
rican subjects, in the proper souse of the term. They had
taken refuge in America, but did not desire to remain
there. They had fallen upon a period when there was
great distress iu that country. At the conclusion of the
year 1854 trade was in a state of universal stagnation, em-
ployment was scarce, wages were low, and provisions dear.
These men could not find employment ; they had been used
to the army and preferred military service to any ether otis
cupation. They, therefore, proposed—and proposed in
considerable numbers—to take service in the army of this
country. The whole question was this :—Could we, con-
sistently with the laws c f the United States, take those
persons into our service? If we violated the laws of the
United States we were rissponsi'ole ; but, considering that
the laws of the Union allow persons who owe allegiance to
it to take foreign service beyond its boundaries, he said
that there was nothing iu the law of nations which prohi-
bited us from receivirg those persons into our service.
We were not bound to carry the obligations of American
citizens one whit beyond that which their own laws im-
-posed. We were entitled to take that as the measure of
extent to which the American Government desired to carry
its sovereign rights. We had a right to look at the muni-
cipal law, and if it did not forbid the enlistment we were
justified in proceeding with it. But then it was said
that ee lieu violated the law by enhsting men for
the service of Great Biitsin upon American soil. He
thought he could show that this had never been done by.
those for whom the British Government were responsi-
ble. He begged to call the' attention of the house to the
original instructions sent out by her Majesty's Govern.
merit. These instructions were sent out on the 16th Feb.,
1855, while Mr. Syduey Herbert was at the Colonial-office,
and were to be fouud in the following despatch from Mr.
S. Herbert to Sir Gaspard le Merchant, Governor of Nova
Scotia :

" I transmit to you a cony of the Foreign Enlistment Act,
which has been passed in Parliament in the present session ;
and, Li e.tno..tot: with it, axe autaiousto call your immediate
attention to the following subject :—Her Majesty's Govern-
m.:nt have received communications from the British Minister
at Washington, and also fruni some of the Consuls in Ameri-
can cities, whi.du lead them to suppose that a considerable
number of German and other European foreigners, now resi-
dent in the United Spates, are ready and disposed to enlist
under the provisioas of this act. lu particular, it has been
stated that th-re are, scattered in different parts of the Union,
men who have seeu service with the Sc,,leswig-Holstein army,
and who h we, therefore, the advantage of a certain 4m.nint
of military training, anti who would willingly take up arms
again under the British standard, But supposing these state-
ments to be well foundAl, the men in question could not be
enlisted for Britisii service on American soil with due respect
to the laws of the United States as a neutral Power; and
considering how uncertain it is whether pasties who might
has offer themselves wont turn out lit for enlistment, it is
se,reeiy practicable .to invite them over to this country with
the enanee of rejection. Under these circumstances, it has
occurred to her .4.ijesty's Goverume.:t that it taiig,.t be pos-
,iole for wen who should represent themselves to the consuls
Jr other British authorities in the United States, as willing
to serve, to procee.l to Halifax, if a depot, of which public
notice would be given. in Nova Scotia, could be established
iu that city, under your inspection, 'for the reception 'of re-
cruits for a forei4u legion, where they might be examined,
and if found fit for service, enlisted, and either sent to this
cmintry or formed ou the spot lutes battalion. It is also stated
that a large number or poisons in the United States who are
British suojects would be willing to take service in the
Ltritisli army if au opportunity were afforded them of enlist-
ing it would be necessary to keep the latter class of recruits
if such should offer thee:selves) quite distinct from foreigners
sud they might perhaps be willing to enlist into existing re-
gin:touts of the line."

l'ocse were the tint instructions ,eat out to the United
itates, and wihuut troubling th'e house with the- various
lespatches f rum the Col.nlial-otiice and the Foreign-office,
~e would assert that in every one of these despatches the
mist 'listiuct and emphatic instruciions were to be found
official persons in the Ut.iLd States to take the utmost
and caution not to infi inge the municipal la .e of that
,ouutry. What was i.he view of tile Americansu,ion their
::wu law ant their own riguts? Tue h n. gentieman had
the questiou as it the fact of a depA. having been
tornied at dalifix.for the reception of recruits had never
11,::eu brought to tile kuo wle ige Mr. Marcy. Now, he did
think that the hon.gentleman, actinginajudicialcharacter.
..aght to have stated the whole case. There was the posi-
tive sta..ement of Mr. Cramp:run in two despatches that he
had communicated distinctly and clearly to Mr. Marcy the
fact that a depot been ostablished in Nova Scotia for
i'peeifing recruits tram the United States, nor had this fact
vee been denieo by Mr. 11,,,rey or any one else. Iu his de.
:instal dated Feb. 22, to Lurd Clarendon, Mr Crampton

I told him (Mr, Marcy) that I utterly opposed and discoun-
tenanced any violation of the neutrality law. I also told
him that numerous applications were made to me by persons
here wishing to join the British army, and that my answer
had been, that I could not enlist them here, and that if they
wanted to become British soldiers they must go to British
territory to be enlisted. He made no sort of objection to
this, and entered into no discussion as to its being incon-
sisttnt with international law, ou the contrary, he said that
anybody might go who chose,—" that half the United
States migut go if they chose," were, I think, his very
words ; and he repeated the same thing to Mr. Lumley
during my absence. I certainly, never dreaming then, as I
do not believe now, that any violation of international law
was involved, so long as the municipal law was observed, did
not enter into any discussion of such a question with him.
He did not show the least inclination to enter on the subject
of the recruitment at all; and I thought that, I understood
his motive to• be the natural one, that having, on the one
hand, shown a determination to sustain the law, and, on the
other, a disposition to leave every citizen or resident of the
United States free to exercise their undoubted right, or not,
as they chose, he did not wish to seem to take part, either
one way or the other, in either recommending or discouraging
them from doing so in favour of either of the belligerents.

That statement was borne out by Mr. Lumley, who re.
pelted the same thing to Mr. Marcy, while Mr. Crampton
was absent in Canada. The hon. member had spoken of
Mr. Crampton and Mr. Lumley as two mean, dishonourable,
and miserable culprits, to whos3 statements not one tittle
of credence attached. He did not believe that this was a
fair view of the conduct and character of these gentlemen ;
and when he found both these gentlemen asserting that
they had distinctly brought to the attention of Mr. Marcy
the fact that the Briti,h Government had established a
depot at Halifax for receiving men for enlistment. [Mr.
Gladstone—Where does Mr. Crampton state that Y] That
was in page 172, but Mr. Crampton stated the same thing
in his despatch dated March 3, 1856, where he said :

I told Mr. Marcy on the 22a of March that numerous
applications had been made to me by persona in this country
who wished to join the British army, and that my answer
had been, that I could not enlist them here, or hire or re-
tain them here, without 'violating the law, and that, con-
sequently, they must go into British territory, there to be
enlisted. Mr. Marcy made no objection to this, but re
marked that any person might go who chose,' and then
reiterated the expression he had just before used, of his
intention strictly to enforce the Neutrality Law. To this
I, on my part, had no objection to make ; on the con-
trary, the view it disclosed entirely agreed with that I had
myself submitted to Mr. Marcy on showing him a letter I
had written to Mr. Barclay disapproving of the proceedings
of a Mr. Angus M'Donald, because I thought that those pro-
ceedings would or might be taken to constitute a violation
of the act of 1818.

It was clear that, unless, Mr. Crampton had sofar forgotten
his honour and truth as to fabricate that, statement, Mr.
Marcy, on the 22d of March, 18:15, was made fully aware
of the mode iu which the British Government were carry-
ing out the BuliAwent Act. Well, that being the state of
things, upon what ground did the American Government
make their complaint against the British Government for
h.s.ving'infringed their laws? They did not deny any-
where that the state of the American law was as it had
been represented—viz., that, although no one .could be
enlisted on the scil4 the United States, there was nothing
to pveveut the American citizen from going to another
country to enlist there. No one denied this ;:but the
American Government said the British Government had
violated their " sovereign rights" by attempting to enlist
their subjects ist all. The answer of the British Govern-

went was, thA they were no., infringing or violating the
sovereign rights of the Unitrd States if they availed
I h remelves of the pmeission which the law of the United
States gave. There was nothing in that law which pre-
vented an American citizen from going to another country
for the purpose of serving a foreign State. If that were
permitted to the United States' subject, who was thus re-
leased from Iris obligation to give an unqualified and entire
allegiance to his country, it could not be matter of cout-
pbtiut against the British Government that they were wil-
ling to accept the services which the subjects of the United
St4tes' Government were willing to render. (Rear.) This
doctrine of sovereign rights could nut certainly apply
where the British Government had to do exclusively with
British subjects, over whom they had rights which had the
force of lacy ;
and it would apply to persons who
were
States,lY and not of America,
the
subjectsofother
who were only temporarily in America, and did not
make it their permanent place of abode—who had
not taken rout in the soil, and only made it their
temporary place of asylum, with the inten-
tion of returning to Europo. If this permission to go to
the territory of another Power to enlist were allowed to
American citizens, a fortiori it must be allowed to the
quasi subjects of other States and to British subjects ; and,
therefore, the British Government were entitled to take
persons and enlist them. But it was said the British Go-
vernment were not content with enlisting them beyond the
bountaties of the United States, but that they violated
the law by enlisting, or rather engaging them to enlist, in
that terri'ory. Upon what testimony did that rest? It was
denirel in the most emphatic and indignant terms by Mr.
Crampton and the consuls. What was the evidence upon,
which the American Government persisted in saying that,.
although'Alr. Crampton denied his complicity, he was 'a—
lb dyed in these transactions? It rested upon the evident&
given on the trial of Hertz. Was that evidence worthy to-
be belieJettwae it evidence to which the house would at-•
tech the slightest importance, confronted as it was by the
positive statement of Mr. Crampton and the consuls, on,
their words of honour, that it was a tissue of falsehood andt„
misrepresentation? The trial was a very remarkable 0314114

x;

~~~