Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1856-05-30
Lord clarendOn's Reply to MIR. Marcy.

Lord CIarendon's Reply MIR. Marcy.
Our nelghbors OF the National Intelligencer have
been kindly favored by fellow townsman with
copy OF the reply of Lord Clarendon to Mr. Marcy's
last despatch on the enlistment question: which, to-
gether with Mr. Champions letter on the same SUBJ
ect to Lord Clarendon, is published in that journal of
yesterday. AS we are not fortunate to have SO
kind fellow-townsman from whom we can procure
advance copies of British documents we freely ten.
der 10 our neghbors our thanks for the opportunity
of reading The document referred to before il has re-
celVed the action oil our own government. If we
are unable to coincide with them in our views as TO
the policy which the document ought to induce our
government to pursue, it will not be the first time
that we have had the misfortune to differ with our
neIghborS on questions of dsag between the
two governments.
The htelligencer regards Lord Clarendor's letter
as so concilatory and apologize in its character,
that It patlonizingly hopes that " our government
Will, In spirit Of frank ness and courtesy, Crego the
farther prosecution Of this vexaous controversy
and accept the profered hand extended to il by the
British government" AS we are unable 10 concur
fully in the suggestion promptly made we will
proceed, in brief way, to express the impressions
made OH our mind by the letter of Lord Clarendon,
without intending 10 be understood as intimatng Ell
Their what our government ought to do will do in
the premises.
The substance of Lord Carendon's letter may be
stated in a very few words:
1t expressly dsclaims any intention on the part of
the British government to infringe the neutrality
laws Or the rights of sovereignty of the United
States in it's late enlistment proceedings.
1t gives credit to the denials of guilt by the Brit
sh officials implicated in the proceedings, ami dis
credits the evidence which our government charg-
ed the British Official with guilty completely in
the enlistment of soldiers for the eastern within
our jurisdiction.
With the exception of certain indications of woun-
ded pride in consequence OF the overwhelming de-
spatch of Mr.. Marcy, we fully concede that Lord
ClaGendon's reply is couched in language sufficiently
respectful and concilatory. We know reason for
rejecting the disclaimer OF the British government
and if there nothing else in the case, might
unite with the Inteigencer in hoping that this vex-
atious controversy" would But there
are other considerations connected with the subject,
which, in our Judgment, forbid so summary tsrmi
nation of the difficulty.
Upon evidence on which our government relied,
Mr.. Champion charged with completely with
designated parties in systematic violation Of our
neutrality Jaws and our sovereign rights, and tor
that cause his recall demanded 1t does not
seem to that the disclaimer Of the British cabinet
of any intention their part 10 violate our laws re-
ieves our government from the necessity of taking
further steps in the case. The government may We
ry we'll he chargeable with no such illegal intention
and yet the minister may be guilty, charged. We
cannot see how it is answer TO the allegation a.
gainst Mr.. Champion to say that his government in
tended no violation of our laws rights.
But the British government goes further, and re-
fuses to recall Mr. Champion because she denies that
he is guilty. as charged and, in doing sets aside
and discredits the proof of his guilt on which our
government relied In other words, Mr.. Champion
puts in the plea of not guilty, and his government
chooses to take his word in excul patton of himself
rather than give credit to the testimony on which
our government is convinced of his guilt We sup
pose that Mr.. Champion has all the time stood upon
the common right Of the accused to plead not guL'
ty - but in our government, such plea, although put
in by British minister is not recognised as proof
to oughtweigh the testimony admitted as legal, and
sufficient for conviction in our courts of justice. The
proposition therefore, to stop the further prosecution
of the matter amounts TO a suggestion that the charge
was made on incompetent, incredtabIe, or INSULT
Gent evidence. AS we know reason why our gov
eminent should make such admission, we take II
for granted that the proposition will be rejected. We
certainly do not think that the late Developments to
Mr. Champions credbility witness in his own case
are calculated 10 give any special weight to the plea
of not guilty. We conclude, therefore. that the I'M
preston sought to be made, that Lord Clarendon's
letter is likely to relieve Mr.. Champion from the
charge made against him, and to induce our govern
ment to change it's policy indicated by demanding
his recall, is without any foundation. Whatever
course our government may deem it proper to pur
sue under the circumstances it is gratifying to know
that as the case now stands the British government
can have no preteXt for being seriously offended. L
can surely be no cause of hostes if our government
chooses to adhere to its conviction that the evidence
is conclusive to Mr.. Champions guilt and tol
that reason, whilst it may accept the disclaimer a.
to any intentional violation of our laws or nghts oy
the British government, should determine that MT
CramptonS continuance here as minister would b'
incompatible with proper regard tor our nauona
selfresrect. We do not know what may be the course
of the administration, but we have deemed it proper
TO make these suggestions the result of our read
ing of the reply of Lord Clarendon Un1or