The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-03-12
Ma BucHAsAs's Issrnucr1oss-T The Wash

on' the 9,th nit tie correspondence between
our government and that of Great Britain on
the subject of the enlistment OF recruits 10 TINS
, country forthe English army. was sent INTO the
, senate. Tt shows that no apology or atone
Fment has ever been offered for the offence
! Mr.. Marcy's last dispatch on the subject /
i dated on the 28th of December.
After ably arguing the whole question ane
exposing England's wrong. it closes thus
: f"Some satisfaction for the injury was confident
" expected, but nothing that can be regarded
lin that light has been offered; and this countr,
, is compelled, in vindication Of its rights ane
. laws to take course which is sincerely hopee
her majesty's government would render I'M
necessary $
Her majesty $ minister to this government
Mr. Champion, has taken a conspicuous part II
, organizing and executing the scheme OF re
cruiting for tile British army in the q. States
| Were it possible, with due regard to the cyl
J dence and the disclosures in the case, to assign
f him a subordinate part in that scheme, ever
!. that would not allow the president to change
the course, which he issobliged, under the cir
cumstances, to pursue towards him. Any
participation in the project as it has been de
veloped, Of raising recruits in this country foa
the British service, was Incompatible with his
official relations to this government. His con-
Epection with that affair has rendered him unac-
ceptable as the representative OF her British
majesty near this government, and you are d.
rected by the president to ask OF her majesty
government to recall him. !"
..Mr. Rowecraft, the British consul at Gin
cinnat, and col. Mathews, the British consul at
Philadelphia, are also implicated in the recruit
ing project, and you are further desired by the
presidentt to ask for their removal also for that
| cause. z.gg...5sgzs7 szea gE Ss
1.-THE persons connected with the British
consulate at. New 7 FORK have also been actively
engaged in furthering the recruiting scheme.
Mr. Stanley, the assistant or clerk of the con
sui, has taken more effective part in it than
the consul himself, aud is now under indct-
ment for violation of the law against foreign
recruiting. The consul, Mr.. Barclay. could not
but know of Mr.. SANKEY'S conduct in thatmat-
ter; but he still retains him in the consulate.
Besides the responsibility that rightfully at
taches to Mr.. Barclay for tie improper conduct
of the employee in his service, this govern
ment is satisfied that he has himself not only
favored the recruiting for the British army but
has participated in it,
Moreover, the improper conduct Of Mr.
Barclay in the case of the bark Maury, has
justly given offence to our commercial connec-
tons" 1....
''For these reasons, this government deems
it proper to instruct you to ask the government
of Great Britain to withdraw Mr.. Barclay from
the post of the British consulate at N. York"
This last dispatch was communicated to the
British government only one week before the
sailing of the Atlantic, so that lie has as yet
had no time to answer them.
Our government still thinks that the British
officials above referred to will be recalled
1.-THE president had promptly dismissed the
British minister and his official agents at the
time they set our laws at defiance, the business
would have been amicably adjusted long ago.
The president sent to the senate, on the Goth
ult, all the official correspondence relative 10
the proposition by England to arbitrate the Cen
trail American question.
The correspondence shows that on the 21st
of November, 1854, Mr.. Buchanan advised Mr..
Marcy that lord Clarendon, in conversation
between them, had made the suggestion of re-
ferrng the question Of the construction of the
Clayton. Bulwer treaty to arbitration Mr.
Buchanan playfullv observed that it would be
difficult to find an arbitrator, as England had
Mr.. Buchanan, however, did not regard that
as more than an intlmation.
On the LIST Of November, 1855 lord Claren-
don again suggested the reference Of the mat
ter to arbitration but did not formally propose it,
On the 10th of November, 1855, lord Clar-
endon wrote to Mr. Champion that he had pro-
posed to Mr.. Buchanan o'refer the matter to
the latter had declined doingso
Mr.. Champion was informed at the same time
that England was still ready to submit the ques-
ton to arbitration. and abide the result. This
dispatch Mr.. Champion was instructed to COM
to Mr. Marcy, but failed to do so I'M
til the@2 9Th ofthe current month. He excused
himself for this, by saying he overlooked the
Instructions so to communicate.
A dispatch from Mr.. Buchanan to Mr.. Mar
cy, dated February the 9th, 1856, recites
which he had with lord Caren-
don two days previously, when he asked lord
Clarendon if his statement in the house of lords
on the 31st ult. that the British government
had made an offer to that of the United States,
which they had recently revived to refer the
Central American question to arbitration, was
founded on what had passed between them, or I
whether he had instructed Mr.. Champion to
make a formal proposition to that effect in wri-
ing. Lord Clarendon said that his statement
was founded on their conversation. and that his {
verbal proposition to arbitrate was made after
consultation with the British cabinet. Mr.
Buchanan replied that this factwas now for the
irst time communicated to him, and also that
he proper mode of proposing reference of the ..
question to arbitration was IN writing, which
vas definite and not likely to be misunderstood.
Finally lord Clarendon informed him that he
rad addressed a dispatch to Mr.. Champion on t
he subject, instructing him to read it to Mr.. ,
Marcy. {
Lord Clarendon proceeded to express de- /
,ided opinion in favor of arbitration, and stated
lis firm conviction that the British construction
,fthe Clayton Bulwer treaty was correct, and
re requested Mr.. Buchanan to communicate {
he proposal for arbitration which the latter 6
promised TO do, expressing, however, his OPT {
ZION that such a course could not be consented c
o, both because of the clearness of the question
1t issue, and ofthe difficulty in getting suitable !
lrbItrators. s@
1t will be perceived that no formal PROPOSE
ion for arbitration was previously made.
4