The New York Herald Newspaper, February 29, 1856, Page 7

me'tenal character of the Uni‘ed States, and in bis duty te mamtain tt, it he did not dective to s :oeot, as a eacis- fection for the wrongs compainad of, Lord Ciareadon's FE i of were @oj iaed a strict oh- and that hy dos not believe that Citrezerded the inj racioa. t believes, and has dant prov! to , that her Britannic jesty’s officare Dave tracrgressed our laws and dis ded and thet its solemn daty reyuires thet i Hicate bith by insistieg upon & proper nati+ Presinent indulges the hope that this de. for redress wi'l be deemed reasonadis, and will be to by her Britannic Mojesty’s government. government has iniicated the satisfaction whieh wer it bas a rigat vo ciaim frem the Bri ish it in my despatch to yoa of the léth of July ‘The President directs me to urge upon a her, Britannic pjesty’s govermmunt ‘t! jews conteing 12 a ee and (o read this to Lord Clarendon, and deliver Beopy if he abou'd desire it. 1am, sir, very respectfaily, your obedient servant, Li, Makoy. Jamm Bocnanay, Eaq., &¢., &9., &0. MR. BUCHANAN TO ME. MARCY. (Extract. Legation oF Tas Unitep Sates, Loxpos, Nov. 2, 1855. Se: of. & hd a Acsording to ‘the appointment mentioned in my last despatch, I met. ord Clarendon yeeterdsy afernooa at the Fureign Office. Atter some unimportant con 7ersation, I told him that ea yetarn to the legation on Monday last I found a des from yourself on the recrurt ment question, whieh J een instructed to read to him, and furnish bim » if requested. He said he haa also deepsiches from Srampton haviog promised, Is hiosmote ot the Teo of Sop: Dg promive note of tember; to nr gad rou again after hearing trom his lord- sbip, I should’ aa to know whetner he had furnished fastivetions to Mr. Crampton for tnis purpose. He told me he had not; that he had pursued the usual diplomatic course in such eaten, in addressing me a note in answe: te the note addressed by you to Mr. Crampton; 1 said pogt Apel then your note to me of the 27th of september ts answer to Mr. Marcy’s note to Mr. Crampton of the SM ofthat month, and the despatch whieh I was anout to read to him was your aniwer to his note to me of the ‘Mth of September. ‘To this he assented. I then read to him your despatch te me of the 13tn of @stoder, to which he listened throughout with great ap- perent attention. After i he requested » copy, and | delivered him the duplicate which you had for- . He then asked wiat was the nature of the satisfaction from the British D i i i un f ern nent to which you had referred in your despatch just read. 1 said tha’ the Dest mede of giving him the information was to read to Bim this despatch of yours to me, whicn I accordingly did, * * * of which he also desired a copy, and I pro- mixed to furnish it. Ihad prepared myself to state in conversation the substauce of what thiy despatch re- quired from the British government; but having the cespetch with me, I thought it better at the moment, in order to prevent all misapprehension, to read it to him, se hed evidently been prepared with much care. { have sent him acopy of it to-day. * og ies * Athen stated, his lordshtp would observe that the go- vernment of the United States had two ciusea of erom- plains; the cne was sach vielations of our neutrality laws se might be twied and punished in the courts of the States; the other, to which I especially desired to direct his attention, consisted in a violation of our neu- ‘trality, under the general law of nations, by the at- tempts which had been made by Britieh ‘officers and ‘agents, not punishable under our municipal law, todraw mibtary forces from our territory to recruit their armies in the Crimea. As examples of this, I passed in review the eonduct of Mr. (ese te! of the Lieutenant Governor of Rova Scotia, and the British ecnsuls at New York and Philadelphia. i ‘observed that, in his note of the 16te Jaly, he had aswured me that the individuals eogaged in recruiting in the United States acted upon their individual responsi. , and had ‘thority for their proczediags trom apy British officials, by whom their conauct was con- Gemred. In addition, he hed stated that instructions had deen sent out to Sir Gaspard le Marchant to stop all enlistments in North America. fee his lordshtp observed, they were sent out on the June aed I maid I had expressed the eatisfaction which I felt in twonmmitting this note to Mr. Marcy, and was, tnerefore, werry to say satisfactory proof existed that Mr. Orampton aud other Brilish officers had before and since been al and coun! these proceediogs @nd_ recruitment Tn fact, We had been convict.d at New York fora violation of our neutralicy law, com- maitted at ‘0 late a period as the 3d of Av, Lerd Clarendon rat cilent and attentive whilst I was remarks, and then took from his drawer sheets of paper, containing extracts from a de- ot Mr. Crampton, A repeiee. as 1 understood, by last steamer,) some of which he read to me. ‘Mr. Orsmpton emphatically cenies the truth of Stro- bel’s testimony and Hertz’s confession, as well as all oom) ty in the recruitmenta. I expressed my surprise at and said that Strobel’s character’ was respect- able, so feras I had ever learned, and that his testimony was confirmed several documents implicating Mr. which been given in evidence on the trial ef Mertz. I teld him he would see this ons perusal of ‘the trial iteelf, of which I gave him @ copy. L asked him whether he intended I should communica'e ‘you my recoliection of the particular extracts he hed vead wme from Mr. Crampton’s despatch. He said he would prefer I should not; that he would examine and +: the subject with great care, and preferred to present ‘these to you in his own age. In concluding this part of the conversation, Lord Cla- wendcn declared, ins sincere and emphatic manner, tha: nothisg had been further from the intention of the United states, or to give them cause of offence. wiso declare, in to himeelf personally, that he ‘weuld not act in such a manner towards one of the weak- est Powers—not even towards Monaco—and cer: ‘would not do so tewards the great and powerful republic of the United States, for whicn he had <ver entertained the warmest feelings of respect and friendship. I presume you may expect, ere long, to hear from Lord th a note addressed tw Mr. Crampton, ac- eording to what he sags is diplomatic We afterwards bad some conversation about the inva- sten of Ireland, which I never treated seriously. in re ‘to the Russian privateer all to be fitting out at port of New York, { told him that since our last con- vertation I had seen two gentlemen who had just ar- rived from New York, who assured me they would be Mkely to know or have heard otfit were any such steamer Duilaing, and they treated the report to that effect on ‘this rice of the Atlantic as idle and unfounded. in re- , he informed me that the fact was substantiated and steamer described in a particnlar manner, which he by three cepositions which had been forwarded by the bri ish Consul at New York to Mr. Crampton, who bad brought the subject to your notice, and you hed promiees to inquire into it. eae ogre * * * Yours, very res sake f AMES BUCHANAN, Bon, Wnuax L. Mancy, Secretary of State. MR. BUCHANAN TO MR. MARCY. fExtracc.] LeGaTION OF THE UnrTED States, Loxpos, Nov. 9, 1855. S&m—I bad am interview with Lord Clarendon on yes- terdsy, by appointment, und shall now report to you, as ‘as ican recollect it, our conversation. Aiter the salutations, I said to him, ,“* Your lordship, when we last d, asked me to help you to kesp the peace between two countries, which I cordially promised to do; and I bave come here to-day to make a suggestion to you with this intent. * Yeu have now learned the prompt and energetic ao- tion of the government of the United Stutes in caasing the seizure and examination of the vessel at New York, whieh you had dearned was intended for # Russian pri- vat.er. Upon this examination she bas tarned out to be the bark Maury, built for the China trade, and bound to Shanghae. The ten iron carnon in the bold and four ‘on deck, r with the other arms on board, were designed to furnish arms to the merchantmen in the Chinese seas, to enable them to defend themselves ainst the pirates, so numerous in that quarter. The ise of her sailing had been announced for three weeks in five daily journals, snd sbe was to take out four Christian missionaries. So satisfactory did the examina- tien prove to be that Mr. Barclay, the British consul, had himself aseented to her discharge. “Your lordship stated to me at our last meeting that the season why the British fleet hai been sent to the vieiniiy of the United States was the information you had received that a Russian privateer had been built in New York, and was about to leave that port to prey upon your commerce with Australia. You have now re- cel ved the clearest evidence, not only that this was all a mistake, as I predicted at prove ‘to be, but also that the government of the United Staves has acted with the time it would energy and good faith in prom; causing the vessel to be eeized and sxamtued 4 my lord, the eause having proved ‘aly without pore poy the jee or phe we cease, and I earnestly su to you propriety ek an order t> Mhorew the fleet. bs! Times accom} ed the annunclation that this fleet had seen sent with the most insulting and offensive be rigs of tne reasons for this act, and several jour- friend'y to the present government followed in the same spirit. When we take into view tne existing differ- ence between the two governments about enlistments, and the still more dangerous questions behind, concern- ing Central America—all of which are well known to the people «f the United States—what will be the inference naturally drawn by them when the news shall first burst upon them? Will it not be that this fleet has reference to these questions, and is intended asa menace? 1 need not say what will be the effect on my countrymen. They ‘well know that no reason ever existed in point of fact for apprehension on account of Russian Joes, if that be possible, for an expedition to Ireland; and they will not attribute the sending of the fleet to these @auses. The President, in his message to Congress early in December, will, doubtless, prosent to that body the present unsatisfactory condition of the Cen- tral American questions; and itfMfwill require the cool and clear heads ofthe public men of both countries Bobs Septet restate low, bad tl news 6 nent ie British fleet will arrive in the United States but a short time before the date of the meant) and will aimost ne- cossarily be connected in public opinion with these dangerous questions, thus rendering more compli- cated. If you will at the present moment, and before we cam hear from the Unit States, voluntarily with- draw your fleet upon the principle that the danger trom Russian privateers, of which you had been informed, did not in point of factexist, and at the same time do jas- tice to the government of the United States for having eo faithfully preserved its neutrality, this would be to pour oil upon the troubled waters, and could not fail to presues, the best results. You might address a note either Mr. Crampton or myself stating that the fleet had been withdrawn; and Iam persuaded that this act of justice ‘would have a most happy effect.’’ His lordship, in reply, said, in substance (for I will not undertake to repeat his very words), that he thanked me for my suggestion, and would take it into serious consi- deration; but, of course, he could do nothing without con- sulting the Cabinet. Of this, however, he could assure me most positively, as he had done at our former inter- view. that nothing could be farther from their intention than apy, even the most remote, idea of a menace in send- ing out the fieet. Immediately atter our conversation on ‘Thoreday last, he had rent to the Admiralty and request- ed that orders might be issued that the vessels vent out NEW. YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1856. should not go near the coasts of the Charles Wood ard Admiral him thst tt was Lever ther iuteutfon the: they should approach cur coast. ana he could assi tbe e vesrels would ever H i F Wes & mirtake, but I would not interrupt him.) He repiied, this was the iniormation be had rezeived from Sir Charler. LORD CLARENDON TO MR. ORAMPTON. Forman Orvics, Nov. 16, 1856. Sin—In my derpateh to you, No. 250, of the 24 fast., I enclosed the copy of @ despatch trom Me. Marcy, which had been 1ead to me and placed in my bands by Mr. Buchanan, Be‘cre'1 proceed to offer any remarks wu, this de:- pateb, it wilt be proper to state that when it was read te me by Mr. Buchanan I had no cognizance ot Me. Marcy's despateh <t the 15th of July, to which it alludes, of which a copy was aleo transmitted to you; and upon my observing this to Mr. Buchanan he said he had not thovgot it necessary to communicate it to me, as before it nad reached him he had received my note of the 16th of Jnly. which he thought wouid finally settle the ques- tion that had arisen between the two governments. Her Mejesty’s government shared tue epinian of Mr. Buebapan, They did not doudt that the frank exproval of their regret for sny violation of the United States la: which, contrary to their instructions, might have taken plece, end of their determination to remove all cause for turtber complaint Kf paviag an ead to sit peace: ings fr enlistent, woul ve satisfactorily and honorably terminated @ difference between two governments whose duty 1¢ waete raintatn the frieadly relations which have hitherto, end to their great reci edvyantaze, bay ly subsivted between Great Britain “and the United tates. But 98 this expectation has been diva ted, abd as a — altogether at variance with it has been mani ested by the government ot the United States, her Majesty's gfe verament, while they fully appreciate the jendjy motives which ted Mr. Ba- chanan, are now disposed to regret that he withheld the despatch of Mr. Marcy, as it wonld have called their atter tion to proceedings against which the United States government thought itself callea upon to remonstrate, and which would at once have deen in- quired into, a8 her Majesty’s government, ia a matter which concerned thé law of the United States, were scrupwiously destrous that no jest cause for complaint should arize. ‘Whis despatch, however, of which Mr. Buchanan has given me a copy, together with Mr. Marcy’s despatch of the 13th of October, have now been considered with all the attention that is due to them; and, in conveying to you the opinion of her Majesty’s government, I shal ea- leavor to exclude from discussion the sunjects whieh are foreign to the question immediately at issue, and whicn might lead to irritatéon; and this course will be the more roper as her Majesty's government observe, with satis- ection, that Mr. Marcy’s note of the 13th Ostober ia not framed in the tore of hostiltty which characterized his note of the bth of September bd inte It appears that two distinct charges are made against the officers and agents of her Msjesty’s government: First—That they have within the United States terri tory infringed the United States law; and secondly, that they have violated the sovereign territorial rights of the United States by being engaged “ in recruiting” for the British army within the United States territory. Now, with respect to both these charges, I have to ob- serve that the information Posseased by hor Mojesty’s government is imperfect. and that none of a defiaite character kas been supplied by the fdespa’shes of Mr. Marey, inasmuch as no individual British officer or agent is vamed, and no particular fact or time or place ia stated, and itis therefore impossible atthe present to know cither who is accused by Mr. Marcy, or what is the chsrge he makes, or what is the evidence on which he intendato rely. Her Msjesty’s government have no means of kno who are the persons really incicated by the gener: words “officers and sgenta ot her Majesty's government;?? whether sueh persons as those who [have] been under trial are the only persons meantito be charg:d, or it not, who else is to be incluced, or what evidence against them is relied upon by the Untied States government, It is true that you ahd her Mejesty’s Consuls are per- ncnally charged in Mr. Marcy’s note to you of the 6th of September; but neither you nor they are alluded to in Mr. Marey’s despateh of October 13 to Mr. Buchanan, which might not unreasonably have been expested, if It rta)ly be the fntention of the United States government to charge you or them with boing ‘ malefactors sheltered from convietion,” (to use the official language of the United States Attorney General.) ‘hey must, therefore, request the United States gov- ernmént to make and establish more distinct charges, with proper epecification, against particular individuals by name; and that government will, I am confident, not deny the Justice and the necessity of giviog each person implicated the opportunity of knowing what is alleged against himeelt, and of dealing with the evidence od which the charge may be supported. 1 shall accordingly abstain from offering the remarks which a perusal of theevidence at the recent trials and the character and conduct of the witnesses have natu- raliy suggested; nor will I obwerve upon the temper and spirit in which the officers of the United States govern- ment have throughout proceeded, and which displayed their desire rather to inrtuence the public mind agaiost her Msjesty’s governzent, than simply to prove the facts necestary to convict the accused parties; this tone avd spirit being the more remarkabie when it is remem- Dered that the proceedings comp'ained of had been tor nome time defimtely abandoned, out of deference to the United States government. and that the question to be determi was the character and complexion of acts s ne man) one Previously under a state of things no longer existing. ith reference to the second eharge made by Mr. Marey —vomely, that of ‘‘violating the sovereign territoria’ rights of the United States, by recruiting for the British simy within their territories’’: I have to observe that apart from axy municipal Jegislation in the United States on the subject of foreign eplistment. or in the ontire absence of any sush legislation, Great Britain, as a belligerent pation, would commit no violation of the ‘‘so n ter- ritorial rights of the United States” simply by enlisting 48 60 Idiers, within British territory, persons who might leave the United States territory in order so to enlist. The violation alleged'is the recruiting within the Untred Btates; but to assume that there was in fact any such “recruiting,” (that is, hiring or retewmiog by British officers,) is to beg the question. It appears to her Majesty’s government that, provided only no actual ‘‘ recruiting” (that is, enlisting or hiring) takes place within the United States, Britisn officers who, within the United States terricories, might point out the routes which intending recruits should iollow, or explain to them the terms up. n which they would be ac- cepted, or publish and proclaim such terms, or even de- fray theic travelling expenses, or do similar acts, could not be justly charged with violating such sovereipn ter- ritoria) rights. It has been legally aecided in the United States that the payment of the passage from that coun- try of a man who desires to enlist in a foreign port, does not come within the neutrality law ot the United States, and that a may go abroad, provited the enlist- ment be in reign place, not having accepted and exer- cleed @ commission. It would, indeed, be a violation of territorial rights to enlist and organize, and train men as British solaiers within the United States—and whether or not this has been done by British authority is the question involved in the first of Mr. Marey’s chargea—but 1t is decideily no violation of such rights to persuade or to assist men merely to leave the United States territory and to go iato British territory, in order, when they arrive there, either to be volrntarily enlisted in British tervice or not, at their own discretiop. There cen be no question that the men who went to Halifax were free, and not compelled to be roldiers on their arrival. Upwards of one hundred Lihmen in one body, for instance, if her Majesty’s gov- errment are rightly informed, refused to enlist on ar- riving there, and said they came in order to work on a railway. Tuey were, therefore, not enlisted, hired or retained a# soldiers in the United States; no attempt wan made to enforce egainet them any svch contract or en- gagement. Mr. Marcy cites no authority tor the position he has as snmed in relation to this particular doctrine of the effect of foreign enlistment on eovereign territorial rigats; but the practice(ot nations has been very generally adverse t the doctrine, as proved by the pumerous instances i. which foreign troops ave been, and still are, raised and employed. Ie connot therefore be said that Mr. Marcy’s doctrine is in accordance with the general practice ot nations; and high authority might be quoted directly adverse to #uch doctrine as.applicabie to tree count: “ubi civitas non carcer est.”” But even admitting the alleged doctrine as to the bearing of the principle of territorial sove- reignty, its appiication must obviously be subject to macy limitations in practice. Her Majesty had (for instance) internaticnanlly @n unquestionable right to recall to her standard displayed upon her own territory those of her own subjects capable of bearing arms who might be slentiy or temporarily resident in a foreign country, and her Majesty would not thereby incux apy rirk ot violating the ‘territorial soveceignty”’ ofauch country. Again, in the care of political refageos driven from their own, country, an ersentially migratory class, cwing @ Lak f I and qualified allegiance to che United States, it is to be contended that to induce such persons by apy fair means short of “hiring” or enlisting them to Jeave the United states in order to enrol them- selveson British territory as volunteers in a war in which many of them feel the strongest and the most na- tural desire to engage, is to violate the territorial so- vereignty cf the United States, t, of course, competent to any nation to enact a municipal law, such as actually exists in many eoun:ries, for its rubjects to leave its territory, but in such cares “cwilas carcer est;”” and it may be the daty ofother countries vo abstain from actively assisting the captive+ to escape from the national prison in order to serve ano- thermaster; but the government of the United States haa enacted no such law—it justly boasts of its complete freedom in this respect, ‘‘civitas non carcer est;’’ all reai- dents therein, whether foreigners or citivens, are per- fectly free to leave its territory without the permission of the government, at their own absolute discretion, and to enter the service of any other State when once within its frontier, To invite or persuade them to do what is thus lawful oan constitute no violation of the territorial rights, which the sovereign power has never claimed or exercised. It is, moreover, to be observed that in this case no United Stat citizens, as tiaras her Majesty's tn- ment are a’ were engaged; ‘but those actually eniist- ed within the British Nortn American ) and those expected, were, to the best of our belief, exclusive- ly foreigners, and not citizens of the United States. Without entering further into a diseussion of this pe- cular doctrine, | will only remark that, at all eventa, it was not proclaimed or i upon by the United Staten, either at the ecmmencement of the war, or when the de- sire of her Majesty’s government to raise a foreign iegi ‘was first published, or when a reoruiting station was first opened at Halitex. ‘The United States, therefore, although always and moat properly insisting on their right and intention to puntah violations of their municipal law, took no step to pro- claim or vindicate the particular doctrine now set forth until » very late ft: of the discussion, and after the time for giving effect to it bad gone by. The charge of “violation of sovereign territorial rights’? connot, therefore, in the opinion of her Majesty’s government, be fairly urged ase separate and diferent charge from that of violation of the municipal law of the Unitea Staves. But the municipal Jaw was certainly not vio- lated ty the orders, nor, aa far as they believe, by the cficers of her sty’ government; and both her Ma- Jesty’s goverrment and her wwgton gave reiterated orders to u 10 abetsio from such viclatacn; and it the British goveen- ment did not purposely cause the then the territorial rights of the Univea whatever they may be, were not, as has been said, 10! tonally vioiated by Great Britain ‘an a metion,” it should be shown that the municipal law of ¥ Belore 1 conclude this despatch It may be weful te piace op record certain fsets o.mnected with she question will, I doubt not, be by Mr. Marey; and I wil observe first: That the United States government fiom the first pertectly well aware that her verpment peed "eat of recruits and were desirous of iaising & B. Secondly: Tnat preparations were making to receive reeruiis in a British North Ame- cap eclopy for such a legion. Thirdly: That her Majes- * gevernment Cae to receive recruits there tor ich @ legion from United States, altho: whilst »> » they were anxious not to violate the United States w. Four'bly: That many British sta and fi ra in the United States were bona fide ‘‘yulun:eers,”? de-irous {ccm vasiour, but natural ana powerful motives, to ealist, Numerous offers to raire men within the Uuited Stetes were made, but were consis ently and honorably refused by her Msjesty’s min‘atere and consuls, in order to avoid violating the United Brates law. Hifth)y: That Mr. Marey was in confidential commuci- cation with you on the subject tor mouths without ever. that 1 am aware of. warning you inst attemptiog anything of the kind, or stating that tbe United States ‘wotld resist or resent it, opers from Mand queation of municipal lew; thus, fo it aeqal and insis'iug that whe United States law should be res} tixthiy: That an soda se ft became apparent that the United States government wan adverse tothe scheme, and that it mignt lead to violations of the United “cates lew. the whoia project was abandoned out of deference to the Untied Siates; but thie conclusive proof of the oa ae ela will of Ber Rr ea aommesy not been noticed or apprecia overninent of the United States, ae is Seventhly: That the whole question in dispute now turns, rot on what is doing, or sball or may be dove, by ber Myjesty’s government, but on what was done many months ago under a system which is not continuing nor about to be revived, and which has been voluntarily and debmrtively abandvned, in order to satisfy the United States, and to prevent the occurrence of any just ground for complaint. ‘The foregoing ‘acta and considerations, which demon- strate that no offence to the United States was offer-d or covtemplated her Majesty's ment, r, per- bape, have weight with Mr. Marcy, it the macter at isane in to be settled in a mapner becoming the governmeats of Grest Britain and the United States, and with a deep sense ot the respensidility which weighs on them to maintain univterrupted and unshaken the relations of friendship which now exiat between the two countries; and her Majesty’s goveroment, fully reciprocating the feelings of we United States government, expressed 1n Mr. Maroy’s despatch, with regard to the many ties and sympathies which conuect together the people of the two ccentries, do not permit themselves to doubt that such farther discussions aa may take place on this quesiion ‘will be conducted in a spirit of conciliation. It only remains for me to state that no enlistment io the British service 1s valid hout attestation ; and that, according to British laws, a reerulc canuot be at- tested in a foreign country, nor even in the British colo- nies, without a specially delegated authority for that purpose. No binding contract could, therefore, ba made with apy man within the Unived States—promizes might be so made; but any money given t» men to enable them te repair to places beyond the Unived States territory, for the pr of being enlisted, would be advaneed at a risk, nevertheless, it it can be shown that there eons now in the foreign legion who have been enlisted or hired in violation of the United States law, as well as of the British law, her Majesty’s government will be pre- pared to offer them their discharge, and to give them free parsage back to the United States, if they choose to re- turn thither, ‘You are instructed to read and give a copy of this de- spateh to Mr. Marcy. Iam, &., CLARENDON. Jou F, Crampton, Raq., &c., &c., &e. LORD CLABENDON TO MR. CRAMPTON. FOREIGN UFFicE, April 5, 1855. Sin—I entirely approve of your proceedings, as report- ed in your despatch, No. 57, of the 12th ult., with respect to the proposed enlistment in the Queen’s service of foreigners and British subjects in the United States. ‘The instructions which I addressed to you upon this subject, and those which wore sent to the Governor of Nova Seotia, were founded upon the reports trom varions quarters that reached her Majesty’s government of the desire felt by many British sudjects aswell as in the United States to enter the Qaeen’s servies, for the porpere of taking part inthe war in the East; bat the w of the United States with respect to enlistment, how- ever conducted, is not only veryjust bat very stringeat, according totie report which is enclosed in your despatch, axd her Mejo:ty’s government would on no account run avy risk of intringing this law of the United States. CLARENDON. J. F, Crampron, Esq., &c., &e., &o. MR. MARCY TO MR. BUCHANAN. DEPaRTMENT oF Sta’ Washinaton, Dec, 28, 1856. Sir—I bave received from Mr. Crampton, her Britaunic Majesty's Envoy Extr ‘and Minist-r Pleni poten. tiary to this government, a despatch addressed to him by the Earl of Ciarendon, her Mejesty’s principal Secretary ot State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to my despatch to you of the 13th of October. ‘This document has been carefully conridered by the President, and I am directed to present to you hts views thereon, for the purpore of having them laid betore her Mayesty’s government, fs perceived with deep et that there exuts a very wide difference of opinion between this government and that of Great Britain in regard to the principles of law involved in the penaing discussion, and a still wider diflerence, if possible, as to the material facts of the case. It 18 Gue alike to the serious importance of the ques- ticns under con: tion, and to the sincere respect en- tertsined for the ‘ted charaster and. position of Lord Clarer don, that opinions and views #o much ia conflict with his ebould not be merely announced. but sustained. To do this I shall be obliged to occupy much space, and notice several delicate topion; but, in performing this un- avoidable duty. I shall refrain, as far as practicable, from any allusion to subjects which may lead to irrita: tion; und | hope te remove the impression feom Lord Cia- rendon’s mind that zy, previous despatehes have mant- fested a *‘tone of hostility,”” and have been framed ina spirit incompatible with the duty which I feel as sensibly as he oan of maintaining friendly relations between the two countries. Tam quite certain that Lord Clarendon is not aware of the serious im which the Unt:ed States attach to the questicn under diseussion; otherwise he would not hsve so harshly characterized the conduct of the United States officers on whom the duty to suppress recruiting. for the British service was devolved; nor would he nave so freely arreigned the motives of this government for requiring ecme satisfac'ion for what it regards as agrave vations) wrong. ‘The variant views of the British government in rela- tion to recruiting for ite armies within the United States render the precise position it intends to main‘ain so ne- what uncertain. To present the different sspects in which the two g»v- errments view the case, and to show the reasous for dis- senting from some of the statements and the main con- clusions contained in Lord Clarendon’s despatch of the 16th ot November, a recurrence to the prominent points appeara to be indixpenrable. ‘he claim put forth in that despatch of the right of a fore'gn belligerent Power to resort to the territories of a neutral State to recruit ite armies, and for that purpose employ such means as he justifies, raises ore of the gravest international questions which can eome uader cenrideration. It that right be conceded, then any foreign Power can justifiably resort to measures for recruluing ite armies within the jurisciction of this country almost co-extensive with those which can be employed by this government. Before sdverting to the conduct of the officers and agente of ber M: jesty’s government in reoruitiog within the territories cf the United states, it will be necessary, not only to define our own rights, but to asco:tain the precise limits of British pretensions. aebeteable ground sball be clearly asser- ge of Giscussion will, it is hoped, be re rrower limits, and the probability of an amica- bie adjustment of the present difficulties increased. When the Parliament of Great Britain autoorized PL = enlistments, there was no appreheasion here that the Unitea States would be resorted to for that pur- pose. ‘This g nment had what was regarded as the assurance ef her Majesty’s government that ealistments in this country weuld not be attempted by Britun au- thority unless notice was given and tts consont obtained. While the bill for foreign enlistments was unce: oonsi- sideration in Parliament, her Majesty’s ministers were warned against resorting toa measure which woald be Cangerous to peaceful relations with other Powers. When the Duxge of Newcaatle, her Majesty’s Secretary of War, and a member of the Cabinet, iniroduoed: that Bill into'the House of Lords, he was asked to stave from what country the foreign legion was to be obtained, and he re- piied that the question could not be answered anti! com- munications were hai with Fo ltteer vo tuch communication has ever been to this govern: ment; but, on the contrary, much was dove here, after the plan of recruitment was in full operation, to allay the suspicion that the British government was in anywise copnected with it, After her Mojesty’s ministers came to the determina tion to raire recruits within the United States, it is much to be regretted that their purpose, together with the in structions to their agents, was not made known to thi- gcvermmint. There is some vague language used in the Jast despaich cf Lora Clarendon, which seems to imply that this bas been done; but it is not positively asserted, nor could it be. The first intimation which reached thi- government that recrui'ing within the United States bas the sanction ot Britwh authority, was derived trom the preceeoings which had taken place in execu the plan ofeniistment. The first step taken by the British go vernment, or ny of its officers, in communicating with that of the United States on the subject, was onb which impled an assurance that the British ment not «my hed no connection with, but actui ¢isoounte nexced, the scheme of recruiting tor the Beliish army although it subsequently a that the proceeding were supe: vised by British rs and conducted by thei sgents. This assurance was derived from a letter date« the 22d of March, addressed by Mr. Oram; to the Bri ‘ish Consul at New York, and about that time read to me. I ehall have oocaston hereafter to bring that letter under particular consideration. Withcut apy notification trom the British government of such an intention, it would have been extremely illi- beral to indulge suspicion that her Mejesty’s minis- ters or ¢flicers had been so unmindfui of what was due to courtesy as to authorize, or even countenance, the un- friendly procedure of send: agents into the United States to raise recruits for British army. The offen: Gere sgainst the laws of the United States were therefore treated as individuals unconnected with the Briuah go- vernment, and unsustained by its authority or means; but the judicial proceedings ‘t them soon disclosed fee's which established s obmplicity of her Majesty's cfticers in the Britith provinces in this scheme ot recruit- ing Within the United States, The next le de the progress of events was the de- livery in May, at the Department of State, «f a copy of acerpateh from Lord Clarendon to Mr. Crampton, Rated the 12th of April last, relating to that subject. This paper demands special attention. It conveyed the first : i dis\inct intimation that Mojesty’s ministers hed fnstructions for enlistiseuts tn the ‘United Stata, with the tact ‘the British Minister, bir. deen nemo Seis Vacate Srevies. co be or a8 reported in Plenipotent ent to aid in under! When deepatch was received at this Campton was im the British provinees. ‘eect reference to the enlistmens, hr the of foreigners and Bri'ish subjects in the The object to be scoomplished was law; and it ie difficult to conceive what one step Mr. Crampton could have taken in furtherance of it without puting at de- flaneean ast ot Congress which prohibits, tm explieit terms and under heavy pennies, such » proceeding. Being satiefied that the government of Great Britain reciprocated our friendly sentiments, and that it would not celicerately and aut! within the jurisdicti m there nad been some strange on the subject by her Ms jesty’s Cabinet, and toat the inadver- tent mir step would be as soon as i} was per- ceived, with sueb ex; tions to this government as acoount run infringing this law of the Unived btates.” But, as that risk would be inevit- ably ran, if the design should that the original echeme of recrui Statens should be promptly and wholly abandoned. After the lapse of some time, gove: covereé that it had looked with a mistaken confidence to aresult fo much desired. Throughout the months of April, Mey and June the business of recrui‘ment pre- ceeded upon a wider field, and with increased vigor; it was extenced to regions which it had not hitherto reached; the efforts of cur magistrates and tribunals searcely checked, but could no; arrest it; and proofs were éaily brought out which show that the recruiting business derived vitality and nance and means afforded by h g provinces. To arres? the evil, an appeal to the British government, unp/easant as such a step was, became , and in the early part of June you were directed by tne President to present the case to the notice of the 1 of Oiaren- don, Jn your note to Lord Clarendon of the 6th ef ay clearly and ably laid before his lordship, assured that t! aie cea had reason to bei! 4 did beheve, that itish officers were et in car- rying out a scheme of recruiting for the Brttiah army within the United States in contravention of their laws and sovereign rights; and you were iustructed to ascer- tain frem the British government how far these officers bad acted with or without. its @pprobation. and what measures, if any, had been taken to restrain their un- justifiable conduct. Lord Clarendon was assured that the President would be gratatied to iearn that her Mejes- ty’s government had not authorized the procee¢ings com- plained of; that it had conderned the conduct of its cffl- eials engaged therein; had vinited them with tts marked displeasure, and had ‘taken measures to arrest the pro- ceedings complained of. The reply to this note deserves particular notice on reveral accounts,;but especially for the difference between it and the despatch of the 16ih of November, now under consideraticn. In the xote of the 16th of July Lord Clarendon seems to admit that the restraining effect of tue law of the United Statesin regard to recruitiog is such as this government snwserts it to be; but, by bis exposition of ‘that law in his despatch of the 16th Novemper, i: 1a be- reft of the very stringent character he had before as- cribed to it, and itis now so construed by him as toafford justification for such acts as, in his former note, he con- ceded to beillegal. In the note to you ef July, the’ British gove-nment only claimed the right to make generally snown to British subjects and fa the United States, who wished to entér her Majesty’s service and take part in the war, its desire to-aecept there volunteers, and to re- ceive such as. should present themselves at an appoiat- ed place in one cf the British i That Lord C'arendon in bis note of the 16th July, to exclude all to'a right to publisn hand- ‘ville offering inducements, and to send agents iato the Pte sed for Rapiice Lies map i by the op paseage:—''¥f oan scarcely be ma! ‘surprise thet, when it. became the care he ’ known that her Majes'y’s govern- | ment was prepared to accept these voluntary offers, many persons in various quay shoald give themselves out as agents employed by the British government, in the hope of carzing reward by promoting, though on their own ces sere am object which they were aware was Javoral iy looked upon by the British government. Her Majesty’s government do not deny that the acts and ad- Vertisements of these selt-constituted and uvauthorised rare were, in many iustances, undoubtedly violations of the laws of the United States; but such persons had no authority whatever for their proceedings from any British agents, by al of whom they were promptly ani unequivocally disavowed.” There posi‘ions taken by the Earl of Clarendon brought the matter to a definite point. This government took is- sue upon his tion that the persons en, ia re- crusting in the United States were self-constituted, usau thorized agents, whore acts bad been disavowed; and it maintained, om the contrary, that the 18 perform. ing them were authorized agents, and embarked in that ce: vice in consequence of inducements, stronger than the mere hope e{ uncertain reward, held out to them by Britiah officers; that they were promised commissions in the British army, and some of them were actually receiv- e@'and treated as fellow officers, and as such were paid for their services, received instructions from her Msjes- ty’s servants for the guidance of their conduct while within the United States, and were furnished in the same way with abundant fands for carrying on their recruiting operations in this country. The persons engaged in the United States in recraiting were, in tact, the agents and instruments of eminent British fanctionaries resident here and in neighboring Britiah ous judicial investigations and trials have brought out « mass of testimony too strong to be resisted, implicating tome functionaries and sustaining the foregoing allega- lors. When this state of the ease was presented to Lord Clarendon, with the designa ion by name of some of the higher British cfficers, and with the assurance by the President tbat the information he possessed did not al- low him to doubt their participation in the offence against the Jaws and soverngn rights of States, bis lordship did not then call for the evidence, as he has since done, but disposed of it by the general de- claration ‘that even the extraordinary measures which have been adopted, in various parts of the Union, to ob- isin evidence against her Majesty’s servants, or their agents, dy practices sometimes resorted to under despotic institutions, but which are disdained by ail free aad en- lightened governments, will faii to establish well founded charge against ber Majesty’s servants.”” It is presumed that his lordahip’s misapprehension as to the character of the evidence, and the means by whien it was obtained, has been since corrected; because, in his last note, he not only calls for the names of-the British officers implicated, (though some of them had been be- fore given,) and the specific gore against them, but for @ particular statement ot the evidence by which these charges are sustained, professing to have very imper‘ect inform: in regard to the matters complained of, al- though full four months had passed since his a tention ‘was first called to them by tyis government, ° The exposition he has given to the statute of the United States sgainat recruiting, and the restrictions he has placed upon onr sovereign rights, show that his views en that subjeet have been greatly modified since his first de- spateh was written, ‘Aa that law is now construed by him, ssarcely any evi- dence, however obtained, or whatever be its character, will be sufficient to implicate any one in the offence of re- crvivirg within the United States. It the views of Lord Clarendon as to that law and the sovereign rights of the United States can be maintained, the Ter itories of this couatry are open, almost without restriction, to the recruiting operations of all nations, pd for that purpose, any foreign power may sustain vigerous competition with this government upon its own weil, ‘This government does not contest Lord Clarenden’s two propositions in rei to the sovereign rights of the United Stares—first, that, in the absence ot municipal lew, Great Britain may enlist, hire, eee as soldiers, within the British territory, persons who have left the United States for tbat purpose. Tais proposition is, inces. The numer- however, to be understood as not sppiying to pe been enticed away from the country y tempting offers of rewards, such as commissions in the British army, high wages, liberal boun’ \- sions and portions of the rey: domain. erged ear aes while within the United States, by the officers and agents of her Majesty’s government; and secondly, n> foreign Power bas @ High “to enlist nize and train men as British soldiers within the United States.” The right to do this Lord Clarendon doos not claim fer his govern- ment; and whether the British officers ha¥)<done so or not is, a6 he appears to understand the case, the only question at Jeane, 10 far as international rights are in- voived, between the two countries. In his view of the question as to the rights of territory, irrespective of municipal law, Lord Clarendon is under- stood to maintain that her hiajerty’s fevernment may authorize a to do anything within the United States, thort of eniisting and organising, and training mon as soldiers for th: itish army, with perfect respect to the sovereign rights of this WR Nr oak exactly the ee ee maintain- overnment, which holds that no a Power whasever ban the right Ge devices at the peaked acts without its consent. No Pan lores can, by its sgente or officers, Jawfuily enter the tory of another to en- lat noxdiers for its services, or organize or train them therein, or even entice perrons away in order to be on- listed, without express permission. ‘This, ase rule of international law, was considered #0 ho Cogpaee ae pada deemed beenae Canis authorit; to supportit. Iam not aware that any mover writer on fnvernational law has ques- tioned ite soundress. As this important principle troverted by Lord Clarendon, and as {ts maintenanoe is fatal to his defence of British eg one! here, I propose to establish it by a reference to a few elementary writers of eminence upon the law of nations:— Since a right of raising soldiers is s right of majesty which cannot be wointea ey foreign nation, fete ot permitted to raise soldiers on the territory of another without the eonsent of ite sovereign.— Wolfiue, Vattel says, that— ‘The man who undertakes to enlist soldiers in @ fore'gn comm- try without the sovereign’s aston, and. in general, who: ever entices away the sub; of another state, vi sone of the most sacred rights ot prince and the nauion. He designates the orime by harsher names than I choose to use, which, as he says, ‘is punished with the utmost severity in every well regulated State.” Vattel further observes, that— It in not presumed that their sovereign bas ordered them for elgn recruiters) to commit a crime ; and aupporing, even at bad received sueh an order, they ought not to have sry tb telaw of stare ee Hantefeuille, » modern French author pdt any recralta in tories, unless it was allowed in to be an act of bad faith, which compromite its neu! ry: There can be no well founded distinetion, in the rule of gerenvs army ani ‘alors for" ts" aaty athis's neva country. Hautefeuille sayes— PRE ‘Ibe neutral rovereign gation rent sitievsioe of sare ‘spon a errors ‘Again he says :— The neutral must probibit, in an absolute manner, the levy- ing of sailors its territ 4 at pean ry to complete « abip’s company The prohibition to sailors rinse unt exicad to foreigners Who are icant i the Potts of Sas staky Sons Sve nese, ren’ or ship’s company. r Reference to other writers might be made to sustain the position contended for by this government, and to overtbrow that advanced by Lord Clarendon, but the au- thority of those preeented is deemed sufficient for that mT is view of the Jaw on the subject was presented to Parhament when the foreign enlistment bill was under debate. On that eccasion Lord stanley said that the ob- ject pene Fs) eae ‘(to resort to ® practice which, for hundred years: the of European fee enon not hesitated te lene” and the service of some Measure, upon its munici are bound, not only to abstain from viola Dut to respect the poliey of them. Tne who set in operation the scheme for recruiting country, which resulted in nu merous acts against itslaw, deing beyond itsjurisdiction, did not, a a ed~ ing, expose themrelves to the penalties denor by that law, but they violated Stapaley, ‘and thetr acts, ifdonein obeaience to the orders of their government, or in carry- ing out its Pa cen involved that government in re- sponsibility for their conduct. It is the sovereign right of every independent State, that all foreign Powers should abstain from authorizing or ting thelr offi- cers or agents to do that, even witbin their own do- minions, w) would, as « natural or very probable con- sequence, lead to the contravention of manicipal laws at such State, Some of the proceedings by British officers and agente, in regard to recruiting within the United States, though conducted beyond the limits thereof, were considered by this government an infringe- ment of their soversign rights, and constitated one ground of rewonstrance to her Majesty’s government. But Lord Clarendon’s exposition of the municipal law of the United States, in respect to recrui! therein, has created much more surpr se than the restriction he has Jaid on the sovereign rights of this country. If I do not misconeceive his meaning, Lord Clarendon’s interpretation nearly annuls the clause in the act of Congress which prohibits enlisting within the United States for toreign service, and thus leaves to British offi. cers and agents full liberty to do almost anything for that purpose. He says:— ‘That no enlistment in the British service ts valid without at- festation, and that, according to British laws, a recruit cannot be attented ina foreign country, nor even in the British oolo- nies, without a specially delegated authority for that purpose, The other provisions of the law which forbid hiring or retaining persons within the United States to go beyond pa og ty oof AS epee rervice, are reduced to the same imisecility by a r course of reasoning. Lord Clarendon ee i No binding contract cor therefore, be made with man within the United tet reaciee might be ro madesben Bevan Ug Sie eee serpin Sales ion y e b \ linled, woula be advanced stariak. PP™e% Deine em In order to prevent misconception as to Lord Claren- don’s views on this subject, and to show that the fe. ferences here deduced from them are correct, I add ano- her extract from his despatch of the 16th of Novem. ri her Majesty’s government are rightly informed, refused to en- ‘st on arriving there, and said ‘ame in order to work a railway. were therefore ‘not ‘enllsieds ised or se, contract. Ifthe they have left the United States, to perfect their enlistment, then there has been no violation of the United Staves law. Such a contract made in the United States, being ex- pressly prohibited by law, would. of course, be void. I cae tn a sorte eee from Lord Claren- on’s language, or rather, own eonelusion, stated by bim ina erent masher, = ‘This government cannot concur in these views. They deprive the law of the United States of all as ape and render it a dead letter. The earlier opinion of Lord Clarendon im regard to that Jaw is the one which this government strénucusly maintains, In bis despatch of the 12th of April, to which I have already referred, he admite ‘‘that the law of the United States with respect to enlistment, however conducied, is not only very jast, but stringent;”” but, as I un- derstand his latter opinion, Jaw ed reed, little restraint upon the British officers and who em- barked in the scheme of recruiting in country; ft left them with all the If! they oceasion to use for their purpose; they cculd penetrate every of the @oun'ry; open rendesvous in any city; put hand- bills, ornamented with the emblem of jland’s royalty, ara every inducement for enlisting which a Uni‘ed tes officer out in voncsing ge for his own government co! offer; and yet, in doing all these things, they would comply with the stringent instruc- tiont—so often repeated to them, and now so much relied on for their justification—not to violate the United States law of neutraiity. Under the construction given by her Majesty’s govern- ment to that law, the injunction mot to violate it could have bad very little significance, and is not admitted by this government as an available excuse for what was done by her |y’s officers and agenta. After the most deliberate and respectful eonsideration of Lord Clarendon’s views, in his despatch of the 16th of November, as to the ety 7) rights af the United states, the effect of their neutrality law, and the conduct of the British officers and agents in carrywwg out the scheme of recruiting, this Cab tiaras is constrained to differ most ‘widely trom It cannot but the orginal design, which had the saxction of the British Cabinet, as a dangeroug measure, which should not have been adventured on without the consent of the government. The scheme for carrying out that design, which, it is presumed, was devisei in the United States or the British provinces, was framed in an utter di rd of the act of esa, and almost every step in of executing it was attended by the transgression of that law. ‘The reasons offered by Lord Ularendon for not having acted on the complaint of this government against the British officers who were engaged in recruiting within the United States, and the precedent condition to be per- formed be‘ore that complaint will be attended to, deserve particular consideration. Lord Clarendon says:— ‘The; Majeaty’s Ministers) must, therefore, nest the U ahed Eaten rovernment to pda entad lish ‘more distinet: charges, with proper epecifications against leular indi. viduals by ame; and that government will, | am confident, ving each person im- beens {he justice and the necessity of S the opportunity of knowing w! is alleged against imself, and of dealing with the evidence by which the charge may be supported. In your note to Lord Clarendon of the 6th of July, the charges, as well as the designation of persons, were leas cistinctly preeented than ia the despatches subsequently laid before her Majesty’s government; yet in Lord Ciar- endon’s reply to that note he did ‘not object to the charges for being indefinite, or to the cesignatioa of the persons pees for uncertainty. He did not deny ‘that the United States law had been violat bat in- sisted that it had been done by self constituted and un- authorized persons, for whose acta British officers were not responsible. ‘é In my 4 itch of the Sth of September, Vio, Me, Cramaia,.f. chases Twort te dressed to p' fae with more distinctness, and Mr. Crampton imeelf and Sir Gaspard le Marchant were both named. Lord Clarendon appears to have understood that ber Mojesty’s Consuls in some of the cities of the Usion were included in the British officers residen: within the United States. No! was Clarendon’s the 5th September to teh concerning ip Aedes ber oto on the subject, or his uncertainty as to the persons complained of; nor did he then eall for the evidence by which the pation of the British officials in the infraction of the law of the United States was to be established; but he set aside the whole of the evidence by the «: allega'ion, that the practices resorted to for ot it rendered it in- con petent ‘to establish any well- charge against * ora taken tn Jul that the | genapccben gate ‘The in July — * ‘who had viotated the laws of the United States reerult possession of the British Ministers as to the infringement of the and rignts of the United States, and as to the British officers and agents concerned therein, as called for « full investi- gation of the aubject by her Majesty's government, Such en investigation on its part was, in the opinion of the United States, due to the friendly relations of the two countries, aad would have been {m atrict conformity to established usages; but that t has remain- ed sprarently inactive, and is, it seems, dii 80 to remain until the American Secretary of Statc shall name the ind!viduel persons accused, describe the particular acts performed by cach, with specification of time, place, and the evidence relied on to sustain the charges; unui the procedings shat] assume, as it were, the form, and he conducted by the legal rales of a criminal trial, 1a which the moment of the United States ts to present itself aa the prosecutor and the accused as defendants. Tt in believed that euch a course is unprecedented in diplomacy, and a dangerous departure from that hitherto perrasd ta similar cases. If generally adopted, it would introéuce @ new element of discord into internetioual intercourre, which could not fail to disturb the peace of nations, and would inevitebly lead to a protracted con- troversy, engendering at each step in ite progress hostile feelings between the parties. Though the examo'e of this goceroment may not be much regarced, will reer an initenct of a recent eb vertacne nicest to its complaint with to that ‘ing, it indulged s confident expectation that ber Majesty’s ministers would take the usual course in such cases. The of the com disclosed; the offence clearly stated; I proofs are laid before them, as prescribed in Lord Clarendon’s despateh. For most control! , which, on reflestion, will rdon, this process of litigating So far as respects the Rritish officers and whose acts in carrying out the project of recruit in disre- d of law were pertormed btyond the limiteof the imited St: anc, also, those persons who acted withi» those limits, but have since left the country, mothing farther remains to be done. This result is Te- gretted; the sense of wrorg which led this government most reluctantly to present their oonduct to the conside- ration of her Mujeaty’s government, as a violation of ie and rights of the United States, survives the hope of redress. Before I present the President’s views in respect to other Britis functionaries who are implicated, and who now hold official positions here by the consent of the Exe- cutive, it seems to be proper that other parts of the cages of the 16th of November should be particularly notioe In that despatch Lord Clarendon has subjected.to un- fair suspicion 1he purpose of this t im seeking rearese, and insisting upon it atter the proceediogs com- plained ot bave ceased, and, as he alleges, by the interpo- tition of the British gove nment. The circumstances which led to the abandonment of scheme will be adverted to hereafter. g oS Saber 5 act is regarded by her ’s goveroment as a favor for whica the United Seureiee oe ficiently grateful. If it be # favor, then the. reeruit- ing, carried on as it was by British’ authoricy in the Tnited States, waa the exercise of a The application was made to ber Msjesty’s government to alzontinue recruiting by its officers beeause it was @ national cffence. This government cannot receive the mere suspension of wrong doing, even it uniatentions!. ie Ser pa. conacaeeat ly, Goon not consider Lord larendon’s reflection upon it for not se receiving it as atalldeserved. As the tor recruits for the British service in this country resulted from in- structions to her Me jesty’s officers here and ta the British Provinces, issued by the minister ef the erown for that express purpose, order to discontinue them is re- ded a4 @ mere act of justice, but in no respect a satia- ion for a This goverpment asked, as a of the satisfaction due to it from Great Britain, that the men who bad been enticed, contrary to law, from the United States inte the Briti’h Provinces, and there, enlisted into hee Majesty's Ul oe, a] charged. Cast reading Clarendon’s denpatch of the 16ih of November may oon- {a1 but ecah is not, its crus import. "the langeags ct Hi it su is not iw ie that despatch is as follows: . 4 Iftt can be shown that ttcan shown th there are Fired ta vi 3 ‘The offer is not to discharge them if it be. hhown that they were enlisted or hized in violation of the lew of the United States. That fact wonld be of no were shown that they were also enlisted or,biredtin vio- lation ot British Jaw. This is no concession whatever to the government of the United States; enlisted or hired contrary né antecedent transaction would The single fact ot oa a E-, e ving violation of the United States available under this offer unless the s E i i i i does not doubt will be admi y Ons of (ai, tenrisg pearcely one o! under Gsouscion, which I cen asit Became apparent that the U: ment was ac verse to the # to violations of the United States law, the abandoned out of deference to the United Statws;” and he adds an expresnion of regret that *‘ this proof of good faith and goc will ofter Sabot government ar not en noticed or approciat government United States.’” fi vad If the fact on which Lord Clarendon relies tor the proof of good faith and good wi. shall be shown to be os. sentially different trom what he conceives it to be, he will understand the cause why this government does not appreciate it as he does. In @ question of this sind, dates are importan'. Waen did it become apparent that tne United States govern- ment was averre to the recruiting scheme, and how soon thereafter was it abancer ed / Thope to be able to conviose Lord Clarendon that they were not cotemporanecus events; that far tae. apparent number of objectionable acts eormitted by the British officers was pertormed long after this governmant had, in the most public and empbatc manner, reprobated the recruitirg project; after prosecutions had been pendiog for mouths against the agents of British oftcers, with the fall knowledge of these officers, and aleo, agit was fair "ay presume, with the knowlecge of their govern- ment. Mr. Crampton’s intercourse with these reeraiting agents commenced fo January. Ux the 4tn of February he notified Strobel and Hertz, by a note sddi to each, that he was then able to give them an. structions on the subject alluded to ia Ps jae per- poral interview, and there can be no doubt sub- ject alluded yr re¢ruiti oes the Uj a ‘nat echeme not significsntly develop hour principal cities until the month of March. thereupon the United States government the most decided, unequivooal and public demoua of averseness and resistance to it. Their a:s at New York was instructed to suppress ¢: ‘that city, and prorecute those ay! Tl ree rae On the, £24 of Maton he called Btates Marshal for his assistance 4 ad- drensed to that officer a G Of the Reena ja otal to execute the laws to ‘Stow extent” In. that letter be employed the wing language:— Aaa RmE a aw torres On the succeeding day this Jeti ‘ts jor i a ove ea tion. and shortly rt in the ) and throughout the country. aaene al Numerous arrente of a charged men for the British service were mace latah + examinations before the mayistrates Publi at that time in the newspapers of the oo were laid before juries and indict against them, Novovly in New York, poops oe and other places, the mout Vigo potter were publicly made by the federal . instructions of the United States 4 these recruitments for the British service aad anaes justice. No local transaction generally known or more fresly provokea much excitement their government, it mi; public ir dignation with{e proper The i of the “first metalment of the legion,”’ as 1t was called, from the United Statesat Ha. exul fax was chronicled with much of dm the Halifax Journal of the 24 of Aprit. Aw that ‘Bettish Journal. in the interest of her Majesty governeient, and published where Sir Gaspard le Marchant, of Nc va Scotis, who is implicated in the Woheme. cruiting, resides, and where the maia depot toriosel. ing the men thus enlisted waa situated, I will one or two extracts from its article of the 2d of ~ The brig America Boston frat instalment of tape, for tie ore ‘S seventy, most ot whom are Hi Miltary beepia) iclowed by Sa iuimenws Geary of ete who were axaious to have 8 peep at va For the purpose of sho: that the of this government to theseieaae bene een ly day was notorious, not only through breadth of this country, but in her Ma! — | rican provinces and to the Brit otictale ‘the scheme on foot and were superintend! executic 1 direct attenticn to the ‘ex'rect from be tom