The daily union., 1856-04-09

be took ths ground Of sitting In Judgment upon
our laws; that be ushrped for Great Britain Ap-
pellate jurisdiction law officers and courts
of justice that to the charge Of recruiting soldiers
in the United States he put forth technical dotenocs on
the construction Of statute and that he thus endeay
ored TO make out in behalf of Great Britain justification
Of ehicanery in the place Of manly frank diplomatic
political explanation. When the Times upon some previous
OCCASION asserted that in this despatch Lord Clarendon had
made gentemans apology for gentlemans mistake, and
which, SUCH should be satisfactory to gentleman it failed
TO remember that Of which il begins 70 be conscious
that he did no such thing but the contrary that he
sent in lawyers plea which would have been very fit to
be considered the trial of indictment al the county
asszes at the Old Bailey but wholly unfit TO be
presented nations explanation of unintentiona
public injury done TO friendly nation and Of course
was in sort explanation such passes between
gentlemen in the settlement Of personal msundeT-
standing.
When a misunderstanding between two gentle
men, it would be quite ridiculous say that be of the two
who length contesses that lie the wrougdoe and
who undertakes make satisfactory apology for act Of
admitted aggression aecompsbes this object by writing
letter which, through long series Of wesrisOme sOphis-
tries he argues by help Of lawyer that although he had
49, N~NA~
provisions Of any penal against larceny forgery
When Lord Clarendon allowed himself be betrayed into
this course of argument he guilty of the gatutons
introduction of disagreeAble topic which, the Times
now perceives went very the grace and destroy
the force of The prosed apology for undened and nnde
niable injury done the sovereignty of the United States
AS to the rest the Times bunders again and most of all
in assuming that what Mr. Marcy fact said in reference
lf.l., y,t~ naFa
disagreeable topic" II dsagreeabe enough to Lord
Clarendon, undoubtedly for it exhibited proof of the
legal guilt of his agents Mr.. Marcy did not offer it, as
the Times ignorany and with its customary confusion Of
IDEAS supposes as aevdenee of breach of International
law" but evidence of breach of the municipal
or domestic law--that very act of Congress which
Lord Clarendon, in his despatch of July, admitted eT-
pressly had been violated by of the recruiting
officers while he denied that these official
ployees of Great Britain The recen trials contained
conclusive proof by testimony of witnesses by exhibition
of letters and official acts and by judicial exposition that
the provisions of the act of Congress had been nngd
by official agents of Great Britain and especially BY
MIR. Champion himself, her ambassador in the Uut-
ted States. To that in referring to the trials
and thus touching the place the eoad@Et
of Great Britain and ser public fnCtonaries Mr. Marcy
did gratutously is preposteroas, and implies al
ter ignorance wiful perveEsOu and msrsFEsentat0z
of the whole affair. Mr. Marcy IN his letter Of October
offered the report Of these trials because the state Of the
question rendered it necessary. Lord Careado1 had OF
the outset endeavored to prevent observation Of the ~
national aspect of the subject by Introducing be first
discussion of the meaning and application Of the act Of
Congress. All the scaoldng Of this fabric Of special
pleading Mr. Marcy enabled to knock from under the
of Lord Clarendon by producing the report Of the
judicial conviction of the immediate recruiting agents
which involved the moral conviction Of Mr. Cramptou
To refer the trials therefore the part Of ar
Marcy proceeding in the precise and logical line Of the
gument of Lord Clarendon and constituted the conclusive
response all the apologize usti6catory matter be
had brought forward in behalf Of Great Britain.