The New York Herald Newspaper, July 18, 1856, Page 2

3 tat they could not give answers which they would otherwise be able t make. Under these circumstances, he must decidedly but respectfully: to his honorable friend, the member for Mayo (Mr. ) not lo proceed with his mouon at the ume, med: oy bs Hs collage tebe je by bis Hn col > wo. je ed that the pegolations CEE. two ono were at the preseit moment in @ favorable comtition, and, as he was sure that the Hon. gentleman would not wish & ar- res the progress of thore negotiations, he (Mr. Cheet- bam) hoped that he would not press his mation. Mir. J. Ewart said thatthere was amoug his consti- tmency a strong feeling that nothing o-ght wo be said or done ip that house which would iu the slightest degree interfere with those negotiations for a pacitic solution of the uifliculties between this couatry and America which were, he be 1, pow going on. He theretore heartily concurred in the apveal which bis Hon, friends near hia had addressed to the Hon. member for Mayo, (Mr. @. re) Mr Spoonkk said that the feeling against a discussion the American question was uot confined to Liver- pot it was very general. (‘‘Hear, hear,’ and a slight zh from the opposition benches.) M’. 8. stroagly deprecated a discussion which he thought could do no good, and might do much harm Mr. Moow ined to ado) t this suggestion, and pro- ceeded t move, by way of wnondment w the order, the ellowing resolution: — That the conduet of her Majesty's government, in the diffe- renees that have risen hatween ‘and the goveroment of question of enlistment, haa not en:i- n of this House. sues, he said, which had been raised He put the very by Lord Clarendou himself, .od uudertook to make it clear—first. the ne ality law of the United States bac been gr a violated by persous uh the Majesty's goverument; acting wi ad eXiracts from the m first to” last, t the duties in. lord Clarendon, and had etation of the American Farl. It wus true, he ob- served, that Lord Cwreudon had deprecated ail’ violation of that law: bet the whole question. he observed, turned pon the interpretation of law, and for its miscon stenction t violation Lord Clarendon was ae much respon Crampton; and, so far from this gentierman having be al nothing from the United State at concealment, he con- lenaed, wax the very Key whoie proceeding. While Mr. Crampton wa «wing up memo Papda a hard aames and bad charaet Me. Lumley, was giving explanations duplicity vo mee load upd when the cot kuown to wdicated their own Majesty's government be permit rpment, the mmenting with some ne of feoling ageinst b ot Mr. ‘oore, observed that siderations (o which that we attention. The I ged, he ¢ ed. with having in- frimped, trst ational law, and, secoadiy, the mani- cipaljew of ibe United States. He joined issue wita Mr. Moore, he said, upon be ts; and, afer @ short axporition of tie foi ming it by reference to the manner government hat acted in relat 1 it to the facts of the case. 1 enlisted, he ov- served, were a the proper sense of the & ‘ho had emi- @armth upon ie bord Clarendon in the spe this questiou inve ed leg poittieal ed to leave the United ol the Staves was ed into oar service no of international law. But it was ted on the American soil, which of the United States. This, how- ode! by the British government, ver. in fact, done. Tne United did not deny that there was nothing law to prevent even American subjects, and @ frien’ persons who were only quasi American aubject®. from g in a foreigaservice veyoud the boundaries of the tal ant be deuied. on the authority @ Mr. Crampten and the Consuls, that any such illegal entietment fad tuken place with the sanction of the British authorities. The allegation tiat the sovereign rights ot the United + had veen violated by enlisting Godjects of the Cnited Stites at all be disputed, conten: tag that the Pritieh ¢ ument were justified in aecept- fag the services of the persons in question beyond the Boundaries of the United States. Sar F. Thmsoen, in considering the position in which we swod owards America, an¢ what had brought us to it, observed that we had the stronge-t could give to her Ubat decided step gratuitous insult bad 1 was, bad that step of the Brush government and General, in his opinion, bad taken very extraordinary and wholly unsound view of ternational law, which bed, unfortunately, been adopt- ed by Mr. Crampton and endorsed by Lord Clarendon. Mir Frederick convepded that any attempt to evade the @opicipal law of a country was contrary to the spirit of tternational law, and that the enticing and persuading Persons to leave the country to enlist in a foreign legion, which was an evasion of their neutrality law of 1815, was & breach of the so gm rights ot the United States. It had been sail that the American government were aware, from the earliest period, that formed at Halifa proceeding s for the purpese ining recruits believe that they were prov Q0t viclated without any erec} regeroig the enlistment, which he thought were oe! strong proofs that th ings were illegal the complaints and ions made by Mr. Buchanan were not distinct and explicit. He cou éemnni what he termed the bold assertion by Lord Cia render of a claim b the American government couid Detroncede, and iusisted that we bad thereby driven that government into a position which rendered it abso. lately n cersary to take steps to vindicate their sovereign epadiate a principie deemed by them If her Majesty’s government, he observ f conclusion, were not justified in the clandestine ax eme they had set on foot and carried oat for the purpore of evacing the neutrality law of the States, the disiniesai of our Mivister was perfectly r © American government, aad we r the wets of He would vate for the resniution. Mr. J. Pu observed, with reference to the clove “Sir FT hh, that there was no part of pao the law than that y 8 nee bad w right to i & pretence The law of the Unit indepen the recall of an ambas«ador: Rater, therein dift-ring from the Englieh law, allowed the enlistinent of Ame ican subjects in foreign servies, if the euutract was net made om American sell. and be insisted dir # from the be that ali Lora Clar T Ato infringe the law of the arguments upon which the question ifany wrong ws der was without { Lord Clarendon; sec wd bowed that any offence bad dence whier ted wae tte ther publicists, wa ews 61 nation«: ax eet be ignorant of emounted w an ad cemen that be Mr. Cramton of retained men withia the United States. bet no one 1 acoused him of dotug ©. The instructions of Mr. Crampton, however, were, tn hiv opinion, written for the express purpose of evading the mnictpal law ot the United States. The law of na remay ked, had been violated by the B itich mn Prussia, Switzertand and the Hanse towns ut their remonstrances were treated very dilfereutiy from thoee of the United States. air 6. Guey—t pocupy only a «hort portion of the fame of the House ry w make some fetmrk« upon t i been delivered Te ie ¢ rtain what is the preeise aatare of the ebary porabie gentiemen ovpeste intena to prefer honorable gentie ma i a resolution on thie question, after ion on the subject bad been abandoned or given up by the honorable gentiemaa, the member for Inverne=s-shire, from considerations of regard Ger the public interest, and in concert with that party with whieh he acts. The bonerabie member for Mayo har shown too clearly that he has bot one © @ahonor and depreciate the character of Lord ( which stands too high in the estimation of Europe to be Qflected by the surcaems of the hono able gentieman eu ) My honorable and learned friend, the mem for Hamford, bas pwinted a shaft at the government Por another reason—namely. because be thinks an indie has been cast upon the government by the removal of Mr. Crampton, and he says that if the government were fatixfied with hie conduct they ought to have resented his diermssal by the diemieeal of Mr. Dallas, the United States Minister bere. He says that, in not doing so, the govern- ment have stooped to an indignity that compromged. oe honor of thie country, and did not deserve to meet with the approbation of the House. But the honorable gentle. Mav the member for Inverness-shire bas taken diffecent grownd. Hie ground of attack is the whole Ney and epirit the Foreign Eatistment act. The orable en nm has, indeed, made a speech that might have made with force and effect, and which Tam not sure war not made. at the time of the Foreign Rolistment ect. (A laugh.) He has laid down distinctly the post- Gon tht no foreign country can allow ite subjects to en- ter into the service of @ country engaged in a war with a State with which that country ls at amity. He aaye that te civitas nom carcer est is incorrect, and that the United States have no right to allow their subjects to en- ter the service of a State at war with a country with which they are notatwar. (Mr. Bnillie—‘ Not without the permission of their government.”’) But what did Mr, | ’ Mr. Marcy, writing to Mr. Molina, April 25, 1866. = bey AT 9! T believe, withheld from 4 of any free gow jt, or from under The laws of either country (Costa Rica and the ‘Staten, it is . have conferred the authority pT I ES one to exer: cine expatriation where oe may entice them belongs vo Keemen, and von ccompiaion try ihat pera inthe exer, ane country i one exer foive of thie right bave left it, and have been afterwards found fn the ranke of the army of a belligerent State, The President, pin em < La be A In these circumstances of the political debility of the re je a Nearagen, and when He inhabitants were exhau wy long continyed ei neither of them strong enough to over permanently main- tain igfernal tranqul nin Of rep invited " of a douy of eitizens fi ‘ain, Whose pre us Ikappears, put am and resior, the Territory of parent order throu ua. ‘Thus the bono? eptlemen the member from [uver- neseshire has laid ve in Gefence of the Unite-t =rates a doctrine which the United States do not lay dowa in taéir own detence. (Hear, hear.) He asserts what has been disclaimed beth by Mr. Marcy and the President. The law of the United States has been, I apprenend, clearly laid down by my bonorable and learned friend the At torney General—except that he did not state it so high aa e might have done—that it is within the competence of a cinzen of the United States to leave the territory of that country with tbe avo wed object of taki g service in the army of a foreign State, provided be does not enlist o- engage himself within the territory of the United States, Hear.) With regard to the Foreign Enlistment act, the o-orable gent eman has adverted to the army which this country had in its pay in 1813, at the close of the great war, and when our mili ary force was very great, and he has argued that it was quite unnecessary to have recourse to fcreign soldiers to recruit our ranks during the war wih Russia. But it is at the beginning of a war much more than at the end of a war that the difficulty in recruiting a British army is found (Hear, hear.) “The overument of that day thought, aud f think justly, that, ing at the difficulty of raising our English forces with the rapioity that was necessary, it was desirable not to bave recourse to any new’ method of recruiting but ‘o resort to a mode which prevailed during the wi to which the benorable gentleman has re- lerred, and w see whether we could not draw w our standard those subjects of other countries who were ( posed to make common cause with us, I Delieve that was sound policy, and 1 became the duty of the government after that at was passed, to take those measures whic they thought most exped carry into effect the inten tion with which the act was passed. The hon, gentleman the member for Mayo says that the Giret step in this en listment question was taken by the Colonial Secrewry in his cespatch, dated ary, 1855, and addressed to Sir G. Le Marchant, in which he suggested thata depot shou! t be opened ut Halifax for the reception of volunteers. But that was an incorrect description. The first movement was made by parties who resided within the United States, many of whom were British subjects, o'hers being Germans who bad taken part in the Schleswig-Holstein war, and others, foreigners who, from the force of politi cal cireumstances, bad taken refuge in that country, who to express their desire to take part in the war. Does the hop. gentleman mean to say that {t was not the vounden duty of the government to write that letter? The government felt that great caution wus necessary in uccepting these offers. They were aware of the neutrality’ laws of the United States, ard they were be done to anxious that nothing shou! intriage them thought it right to secure that the fact of a depot beivg opened at Halifax, where the Brith Crown had an undoubted right to open a depot, should be communicated to Mr. Crampton, at Washington. Mr. Crampton having sent those oilers to which | have alluded w her Majesty’s goveroment, They therefore directed Sir G. Le Marchant to place him. self in communication with Mr. Crampton, so that Mr. Crampton, knowing everyching that was being done, might take care that nothing was done in violation of sovereign mgbts or municipal law of the United States. Both Sir G. L2 Marchant and Mr. Crampton were enjotned twoavoid anything that migat be construed icto a viola- tion of the laws of the United States. In that spirit the government acted, and in this spirit they believed that their officers bad acted, and they therefore believed that it would be an act of baeness and injustize if when they were usked to recall them they had acquiesced in that demand, which would bave amovnted to an admission that, in the opinion of the British government, their offi cers had violated their instructions, and that their asser- tions were uot entitled to credit. They telt that their officers had acted up to the letter and spirit of the in structions they had received, and, therefore, Lord Cla- rendon in the despatch of April 30, said he felt it to he his duty tw abstain from pi aed ¢ officers, because there was nothieg in his opinion w justify their reca\l How did Mr. Crampton act? Mr. Crampton communi- cated to the goverument of the United States the offers made by persons resident in the United States to take service in her Majesty’s army; and here is the answer to the hy case put by the houorabie member for ‘invernesssbire as to what would be thought by this governmeut of the conduct of the French government if, being at war with Russia or any other country, they should, because they were in want of seamen, send steamers to the ports ani rivers of Eng- Janda. cals mabe in 8 wee 1 SANE. re eee Se peer, and ta State wits which we were at amity first answer is, that it would be a direct violation of Bri- tish law. The distinction between the law of England and the law of the United States has been pointed out by the Attorney General. No country could take that course without « direct violation of the law of this country. But suppose that it was no direct violation of the law of this country, and suppose that the French government were do what it is imagined possible thatthey might do, if at the same time the Frepch Ambassador communicated vo ber Majesty's government that the French government ‘Were anxious to obtain the services of British seamen and were taking measures to eslist them in their service, and we said, “So long as they respected our laws any seamen were welcome tu enli#t,”” the case would be wholly dir ferent. (Hear.) That is precisely what was done by Mr. Crampton with respect to the Univec States govern- ment. He mate no concealment of the offers of service, be made no concealment of the desire of her Majesty's government to avail themselves of those offers; aad if he di potepter minutely into all the arrangements, with the view of respec ing the laws of the United States, in Cotainng the services whetier of British subjects or o foreigners, it was Ddecaure ue was impressed with the cenvietion, that while Mr. Marcy assert nd very 1y asserted, the determioa- tion of the United 8’ government to enforce the veutrality laws, be would not be auxioas to inquire as to what was going on relative to persons like those who went to Nicaragua, wbo were induce! leave the coun try for the purpose of entering the service of the British Crown That was the spirit in which Mr. Crampton acted, and when criticym is passed upon # single passage of Lord Ciarendon’s despatches, or on the fact of Mr Cram, ton being in communication with persous whose chia tere are most disre putable. the Hloure will do tnjastice if it overlooks the genera! spirit of moderation aud friewdtl bess, as well as fairness, which characterized the des- patches of Lord Clarendon, and the friendly spirit ia whieh Mr. Crampton acted througt out these transactions. (Hear, bear.) When it was found that persons we ta gaged’ in acts which her Majesty's Minister at Washing- top and her Majesty's government were boan’ to dita vow—when it was found that persons, profersing to act with authority they never received from her Majesty's government or Mr. Crampton, her Majesty's Minster at Washington, were doing acts tending to comoromise friendly relations between the two couutries. vi whieh it was impossible strictly to defend, whatever the leter the law with regard to enlistment might be, ber Ma jesty’s guvernme: wowed their determunation to p’ obtaining the services of those d to the Cojted States gv cousidered satisfactory, The apology said to be no apology does not admit actg to Lave been done by persons acting under the authoAty of her Ma jeaty’® government, because they felt no act had been done under the authority whieh gave just cane of com- plant ; but the terme of the apology Were these cm The undersdgned must, in the first instance, expres the re her Majesty's government if the iaw of the Unite! nin any Way infringed by persons acting with which could be ere states h or without a1 ¥ authority from then; and it \¢ hardly wecessar y for the undersigned t assure Mr. Bachanss that auy aucliti fringement of the law of the United States ts eutirely contrary wishes and to the positive instructions of her Majesty government. (Hear) It was impossible that apology should distinctly ad mit that the acts done were contrary to the laws of the United States, because we had no evidence to satisfy us of the fact ‘But we eaid, the fact may be #0, and, if #0, #e re- gret that euch acts have been dove. But was that the only passage calculated to remove aby dissatisfaction ia the United States wih regard to these transactions? I think the concluding passage of this despatch is of a character which the House ooght to mark in exteenti rit by which the goverument bas been influence tren ghout this affair — 4 has, however, the hon in conclusion, ‘0 government, having “¥ mexeures, with they might be carried out, comul efectnally guard Aguinst some real or apparent in fringement of the law. which would give just cause for com the government of the United ststes, determ: provestincs for enlistment sboult be na to that effect were sent ont before the un signet had the honor to reerive Mr. Buchanan's note. as t undersigned need hardly say that the advantage which her derive from enistmen' in North Ame for by her Maesty « government if it in divregard of the respect due law of the United States, (Hear, hear) Now, I ask the House whether the whole tone an! rit of that decpateh is not an apology for any acts done in conwavention of the law of the United States, though we were ne re of any such act; and whether the con clusion of it did not intimiste that we woul! forego all the advantages we were likely to obtain from th» zeal of cer. tain persons in the United States, to enter juto our ser vice, and take part in the contest ia which we were en. gaged, rather than risk occurrence of auy circum stance which might just cause of dissatisfaction to the United States? ( ) A good deal has been said fs to the effect of that despatch on Mr. Buchanan. and my noble friend has been accused of misrepresents.g the feeling produced by that despatch. What are the facts of the ease? Mr. Buchanan, to whom that despatch was addressed, made but @ short answer. He did not enter inte argement whether the line taken by her Ma jety’s government was likely to give satisfaction, nor did he controvert the statement of Lord Clarendon, but he answered thas — The unde Fm the receipt of the note whi esty's principal Secreta: dremed to him on the 16th inet, 6th inet... on the subject of the enlistment and emp coudivers for the Britieh army within the Unwed States nndersigned will have mueh satisfaction in ‘rancmitting a copy of Nis lordabip’s note Wo the Seeretary of Suste by the next steames If that stood alone, I should say Mr. Buchanan wae en tistied with the explanation given by her Majesty's gow ernment—with their apology in case acts lad been done in violation of United Slates law. and the derision they had ceme to to abandon all these proceedings, to avoid any cause of offence. Put it did stand alone } lS Hd ay by one on Paseage to thie y from Mr. Marcy to Mr. Bochanan, ting on Mr. Buchanan received that seesparch of Mr tos has the honor to € Clarendon, her canwe he felt that the despatch, which, ax he frost satisfaction m transmitting to his * qa likely to terminate, and, as we terminated the whole atfir. ' (Hear, which could give just canse oh of Lord jovember, in ansiety to avoid ine of offence, I will read a few lines of the Cierendon to Mr, Crampton, an the 16th of which he says Refore T proceed to offer any remarke upon thie demparch. it ver to xtate that when it Was read to me by Mr. WL de pi had no cognizance of Mr. Marcy's despatch of the Bordatan WEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, JOLY 18, 1856. 1sth of July, to which it alludes, and of which a copy was also transmitted to you: and, upon my observing this to Mr. Bu 4 0 had to unicate me, as before sit on Of the Toth of July, wh iy question that r, bear.) ow, think this ‘clearly the im- sion made upon MP. 8 by the receipt Of the despatch from which T have quoted was that it ought and would terminate the whole affair, and that he concurred in thinking the coneitiatory course we had taken out of deference to the opinions of the government of the United States would be entirely satis ‘actory, and remove all cause of complaint or remonstrance. I kuow it is said subsequent tranaactions oceurred, but the whole rests on no other foundation than that some per- sons were paid who bad gone to Halifax with the expecta- tion of being received 4s recruits in her Majesty’s service, aud were pot so received in consequence of the determina- tion to abandon the scheme altogether, in deference of the feeling of the Unite: States government. Money was paid to them, not for the purpose of enlisting them in her Ma- jesty’s service, or for the purpose of inducing them to go anywhere, but merely to reimburse them for their joss of time and | xpenses incurred in a fruitless journey. ar.) | will not read the despatch which coun- that ‘ead by the Hon, and learned member tor Stamtord, an | which he thinks not at all calculated to maiutain friendly relations; but I may say that it was an upswer toa cesp'eh of @ character not very ‘riendly to her Majesty's government, (Hear, hear.) Looking at the despatch of t« 80th of April and the despatch the other day sent to Mr Dallas, I think that while her Ma. esty's government have been jealous of the honor and dignity of this country, they have shown an earnest de sire to maintain unimpaired the friendly relations of the wocourtries. (Hear, hear.) They bave done nothing by any barty, harsb, or even unguarded expression which places them in the wrong, iu case any of these f all not be brought to # satisfactory and peaceful Leers)—and T believe that the eitect of the despateb of the 80h of April was most satisfactory in be United States, although it did not produce in the mip t the Presicent the effect which it was hoped the asser tions of Mr. Crampton and the Consuls, a: to their not having violated the laws of the country, would have been received. Her Majesty’s government that those ertions were entitled to int greater weight than the evidence adduced against th gentlemen. That evidence has been comple ly thrown over to-night. Every gentleman has that the characters of the witnesses were such that they couid not be beiieved upon their oaths, and no gentleman has vertrred to quote anytning said by them, uniess it was corroborated by some evidence of ah unimpeachable character, (Hear.) It bad been exuluingly etait that the evidence connecting Mr. Crampton with these pro ceedings showed that hé had been in comnnuinication with Strobel and Hertz. No doubt the fact was so; those persons, when they first came forward ty luterfere in this matter, were utterly unknown to Mr. Cramtou and the other officers of her Ma mmepe They professed to be in pursuit of a leg ject; and as there was no Immediate means of avcertaining therr character, their integrity was taken for ¢ and it was bever suspected that they would turn out to be men gn- deserving of credit, whoxe object was to entrap the Exig- lish Minister. The friendly feelings ot the British govern mert, and their unwillingness to do anything that could give just cause of offence to the Americans, were evi Gent on the face of every despatch that had issued from the Foreign Office—(hear, hear)—and in none were they more conspicuous than in that despatch ie which Lord Clarendon intimated that if any recruits had been en. Nieted in a manner contrary to the laws of the United States, they should be sent back withoutdelay. But it did not appear that, in point of fact, there were any such recruits; for the few who had had been enlisted were men who had come forward freely and of their own accord, and without persua-ion or compul sion trom any quarter. The inten ions of her Majesty’s government throughout these transactions, and the mo tive of their conduct, should be inferred from the general tone and spirit of thei’ correspondence, rather than from particular passages, carefully selected to make out a case against them. (Hear.) A candid review of all the cir cumstances of the case would not fail vo lead to the conclu- sion that they had been animated throughout by the best intentions, and that thev had no deliberate purpose of violating either the municipal laws or the sovereign rights ot the United States. (Hear, hear.) It was to be hoped that the House would view the question, not with passion or prejudice, but rather by the calm, clear light of rea son; and if they did so, they would scarcely be prepared to condemn the government for not having taken the ex treme course recommended } the houpravle member for Stamford and others—that of dismissing the American at the Court of St. James, a gentleman with whom we had no cause of and whose presence was desirable to the interests of countries, inasmuch as he was suthorized to enter into negotiations with ber Majesty’s government for the settlement of vari- ous important questions. No doubt it was the bounden duty of the Ministry to uphold the honor of the country, but they should also act with forethought and iy prudence; and it would {il become them to plunge two Eindrea nations in the horrors of war ny, nf aod iil considered notions of dignity. (Hear, .) The House would mest faithfully interpret the feelings of the country by declaring that the national honor was entirely untouc! (hear, ), aud that the government, in adopting moderate counsels, had acted in the manner best calculated to promote the interests of both nations. (Cheers) Sir F. wR, in explanation, observed that the right honorable Baronet was mistaken in supposing that he a F¥. Thesiger) had urged the dismirsal of the America. inister. What he had said was, that ia consequence of the government being entirely in the wrong throughout these proceedings, they bad compelled the English pe spie to submit quietly, and without the thought of retaliation, to the indignity offered to them by the dismiseal of the Britich Minwter. (Hear.) Sir J. Warsi moved the adjournment of the bebate. Lord Pauwxuwron objected. There was ample time to bring the discussion to a satisfactory conclusion that evening. The House then divided, when there appeared— Tor the adjournmem. ABMIDS. ee ee ee no 220 a sesesseeerees seesscessescees BO ment of the numbers was received with loud ch the ministerial benches. Sir J. Waren proceeded to argue, in support of the reso- lution, that the government, by not dismissing Mr. J»! jas, admitted that they or Mr. Cram: tou had been the wrong, ap¢ he thought the defence of that gentleman only went to show that he had succeeded in evading the law. Up the motion of Mr M. Gumon, the debate was ad jourped unt! the next ¢ay, July 1. Mr. Gineos then moved the ad)surnment of the debate. Lord Pauwexstos said that if the movion for an ad jour ment was to be repeated in this way at that time of night, he could have no alternative but to agree to it: yer he would do so on the distinet understanding that We w cussion should be resume? that day, (Tuesday) ‘The debate was then adjourned. SECOND DAY'S DEBATE. In the evening of the Ist inst., the adjourned debate on Mr. Moore's atnendment for goign into the Committee of Supply was resumes by Mr. M. Gawox, who premised that when the papers re lating to the en t question Were laid upon the table, ne no Parliamentary grownd for ebrinking from this discussion THe was opposrd, be seid, to th any Evlietment Act, believing that it Was unsound in prine pie, ond that apy attempt to act upon It, looking at the mupieipal law of the countries where the enlistien would probably take place, would Jead to serious interaa tional disputes; but his opinion as to the conduct of the overbment would Dot be influenced by that objection faving adve ried tocrriain charges brought againet the American government by Lord Clarendon at an early date of the correspondence, which he thoug! were of an irritating character, and calculsted tw woduee feelings ot alienation on the part of th Enitea States, he proceeded to argue that in organise ing an extensive system of asion’ to in doce men to enlist in our army, both the municipal law of the United States and international law had been violate! by the Britieh authorities, whose construction of the Arm rican law, he contended, would render it imoperative. Writers upon interuational law laid it down that one gov ernment could no act in the territories of another with out the full knowledge and permission of the latter: be insieted that there was evidence of more than per sien on the part of Mr. Howe, who had concluded a by ing contract, amounting to the “hiring and retaining expressly forbidden by the American neutrality law. Mr Cramy too, bad admitied that he had furi ished Strobel with money to procure men*\n the United States for the foreign legion, which was an infringement of the letter as well as spirit of that law. It was not his business, said, to defend Mr. Curbing, or evr n President Perce, be bad to pass a judgment upon the Mimsters of his own country, and {t was bia deliberate opinion that they had not done well for the interest of England in picking this miserat le quarrel with the Cited States fur sake of recruiting Ger tnans, Mr Baxter cad a calm and dispassionate consideration of the papers had convinced bim that the House of Com mons bad po grownd for such @ vote of censure upon her Majesty s government as = im the resolution. He was free to admit thet been done by Crompton which be was not prepared to defend. He re eretted that when he learned the construction put upon the neutrality law, he did not at once wash his hands of the business, and that be ¢id not communicate fully and freely with Mr. ay blame rested with him, and not with ber y's government, who, in his opr ion. bad acted in a frank, considerate and moderate spirit towards the United States, Mr. Peacocks argued that the proofof the culpahitity o@ Mr. Crampton revted, not upon the evidence of Herts and Strobel, but upon bis own admis which showed that be had evaded the policy, if not t letter, of the American neutrality law. Nor was this an isolated act of ineleeretion committed by him: it was part of the plan aod policy of the government, who, if Mr. Crampton was right, ougbt to have upbeld him ant dismissed Mg. Dal ja. and, if wrong, should have reeailed him, Mr Srooxee was convinced that the more this subject war di-cussed the greater danger attended the discussion. The American government had acy tte , and if the offer which accompanied the dis | of Mr. Crampton bad heen rejected by our government they would have committed a deeperate crime. and the whole country would bave resounded with disapprobation. He should vote, be said, for the Speaker leaving the chatr, Mr. Gisreroxe—#ir, the epeech which has just been delivered by my honorable friend marks « featare in thie debate so important and so mugh Conner tet with the vote that | shall probably myself at tte clowe, that al- thotgh [am likely upow arty to go into the same lobby with the Lonorable member, yet I think there is bo impropriety in my following him in discussion. It peare to te that the two carrlinal aims which we to keep in view ip the discussion of this question are e and & cordial unde with erion for “re honor and ame of Eng: land fer the other. (Hear) | am bound say that in regard to neither of those points am [ satisfied with the existing state «f th conduct of her Majesty's government, con) understanding the bonor of this country been (Cheers) Sir, Tam not one who will set up the phantasm ci boner in a ease where the plea appears to me unreal, oy who will condepcend to separate | and the homorable conduct of whieh it o bol. But a= respects the honor aprot but aseent—to the statement of the hon, and lear) ed gentleman who hae alrear'y <poken from ap op- posite bench "that what is considered by the world to an insult—that which, at any rate, cannot but be called been an insult—has it upon England by the government of United (Hear, hear.) Has it beem put or without If with a cause, it to be ed; if acause, it ought to be ted. ( rs.) Sir, bound to say that upon thi tion Bey elles uch @ nature that it would be impossi- Die for me to" ‘with a direct negative *he won of the hon, member for Mayo. Icould not soy “ No’ toa motion which states that the conduct o! her Majesty's go- vernment in ‘d wo enlistmentin Aumerica has not en- titled them to the approval of this Honse. Nor do T mean simply to take ny stand when I say Lam likely to vote with the honorable member for North Warwick shire, upon the circumstance—though it {s an important one—that we are not called upon to say ‘'Aye’? or ‘No’ to that question, The question which you, sir, will put from the chair—that we should go into mittee of Sup. ply—gives to the matter the technical parliamentary as- pect of what is called the pravions question; but at the same time I must say that I do not concur in the cens ures which have been bestowed upon the bonorable member for Mayo, with respect to the time of bringing forward his motion. (Hear, hear.) Yet the question is one of the greatest difficulty. 1 cannot say that there is no in- convenience attending a motion which criticises or a-sails the conduct of her Majesty's government, engaged in transactions with a foreign country; but, before deciding the question whether the benorable member for Mayo is open to the severe censures which have been cast upon him, we must consider whether the papers which have been laid on the table do not make us acquainted with all the fects of the case—whether the misunderstand ing with America has not gone beyond the point of mere diplomatic communication, and has as:umed form and action in the face of the world, and whether the Ho itself, or at least those imdividual mem- bers who bave femiliarized themselves with the contents ofthe blue books, will not, by decluiing to ‘ake this opportunity of expressing their opinion upon them become parties to the approval ot the conduct of her Majesty's government? (Hear, bear.) For myseif, sir, I frankly own that I bave felt the greatest difficulty iv considering the question what yote to give upon the present occasion. T never recollect a question more dillt cult a8 pressing upon my own understanding and con relence, (bear, hear); but, with my Knowledge and ex- nee of this House, lam cenyinced that those who jeel with me cannot do better than throw themselves on the indulgence of the House, stating fully the difficulties which they experience, exposing themselves, if need be, woadyerse criticism, Dut relying with conddence upon the generous forbearance of the House to put a fair con struction upon their language. (Hear, hear.) Ataay rate, after what I have said I shall etate in inteltigible language why it is] expect to tud myself yoting with the honorable member for North Warwickshire, My houcra- ble frierd stated, at the commencement of this discussion, that he deprecated the beginning of it as likely to injure the interests of peace, and he likewise characterized it as a party question, easting some discredit upon it on that want. Is it, then, in poiut of fact, a party quesuon? Why. I appeal to his owa example againet his precept. He him-elf has risen in jus place and declared that he will vote against the mo. tion of the honorable member for Mayo So far that is an indication that it is not a party question, (Hear, hear.) Again, within the last few minutes the right hon orabie gentieman the memb.r for Manchest: who, | apprehend, does not belong to the same political schoo: as the honorable member for Mayo, has deciared his in teation to stipport the motion, But if my right honora. bie friend ana the honorable member for Mayo are mak ing ita party question, or behalf of what party are they raising ity Is tof the party oppositey Does the honor able member for Mayo beloug to the school of the riht honorabie gentleman the men ber tor Buckinghamshire Why, sir, itis quite plain tnis is nota party question. (Cheers.) And, sir, 1 am bound to say that, in my Opiion, that is a vital element in the consideration of the case. Disapproving the conduct of her Majesty's govern ment in the mavagement of the foreign enlistment ques- tion, Jay here that 1 should be ready t» express that disapproval by vote if I saw a motion to that effect made by a party ready to be rexpousible for the consequences of success. (Cheers.) Now, sir. I say to the henorable member for Mayo, without the slightest uisrespect, Wat these questions of voles of censure upon governments ace matters of great importance, and that in considering them we murt look not merely to the terms in which they are framed, but likewise to the quarter from which they emanate. (Hear, hear.) I mean nothing disparaging to the honorable member for Mayo; but are we to regard his motion as a declaration of a party ready to be resposible for the results of .ts adoption, or is it merely the expression of the opinion of indivic ual mem- bers of this House, who can have little influence upon the division, and who, if the resolution were carried, could not themselves be responsible for the conse quences + (Hear, hear.) I think, sir, it is a good prac- tical rule in Parliamentary discussions that we should not by our votes weaken the hands of governments us less we are prepared to displace them from office. (Hear, hear.) I think it ix not desirable in these foreign tran eactiont that the government should be assailed by votes sbat tend to weaken their influence on behalf of their couptry unless they are moved by those who are respon sible ‘or carrying those opiniors into effect. I therefore should have approved the motion before the House if 1: bad ocep moved by some party who were re yonsiMe tor carrying the resolution of the honor »be member for Mayo inw effect. For a vote of cen «vre op the government, a8 an abstract resolution, | am ret awble to yete, but if the motion bad come «fore me supported by those who were ready tw ity Out the principle it embodied, |] should have fen it my cuty to give effect to my opinion, But then | Why, admitting that we ought not to governinent in carryiug on their dtheult negotiations with a foreign country—why do zou cbter upon this discussion and express opinions contrary ww the course taken by the goverament!’’ My answer ix plain, 1 have no choice, alter the turn this debate ha- taken. [An hou. member made a remark, which wae inaudible} My bon. friend says 1 am going to speak oe way and vote another, (A laugh.) Well, sir, I object ts all votes of an abstract character, and which cannot be cartied toa practical result. I believe it to be a wise rule that votes of censure on the government should only be proposed by those who are able to give effect to the principle contained in those votes. I should not shrink fr i my vote in accordance with that opinion, but as matters stand | sbal! vote for going into Committer of Supply. The state of Wings with which you have t. deal is this Upen the British Minister the penalty o: dismissal from Washington has been inflicted. Ax far as the ponor or this country is concerned, the state o Ubings is therefore unsatistactory. (Hear, hear) As far as regards the American government, what is its condi tion * Was the breach with America closed up by bis dis misval? Will apy man say that he believes itis’ It it were right to retain Mr. Dallas, why do you keep our dip macy in a state of half animation’ (Hear.) Why do you DU appolat a successor to Mr. Crampton? (H: or ) T can conceive no reason for not sending away Mr. la..a, that does not equally prove that you should asue cessor to Mr. Crampton. (Hear.) If the American gov erpment bad no cause to justify them in dismissing Mr Crampton, why do yoo retain Mr. Dallas’ If they bata cause to justiy them, why d> you pot admit that they are right and send a successor to fill Mr. Crampton’s place? (Hear.) 4 right hon. friene the Secretary oi State for the Home Department having spoken last night presume we are in possession of the views of the gov erpment, and the government were not content to debate this question except upon its merits, My hon. friend th member for Warwickshire said he would not enter upon ihe merits of thix question,.and that ls a perfeetiy consist ent course for me to take, or for my bon. iriend to take, But the government have entered upon the discussion npow the merits of the case. That was a manly course, ond | do pot find fault with it. Whether it was a pradent courre Iam not so sure. But they declared their adhe rence to all that has been done and stated during the whole pregress of this painful discussion. Nothing can be more explicit than the declarations they have made tu this effect. . The Attorney General declared that, whereas ‘pg both interpational law United States, be denied both thoee charges, and denied that either law bad been violated. My right honorable friend the Secretary of State foo the Home Department was even bolder in manner of dealing with this sub ject than the Atto: ney-General. He said that the officers of the government had acted up FESSTESE ae z z : a 5 i ; 5S M, d candid i 3 to the further progress of the negotia honorable trend ge G. Grey) stated in mapper @ point I i a the American government tmportanoe. peed aylogy of the Bitch government, Dull thet 7 , because if any wrong hae been done . pi bes ieee ii HA i | 2 ks iit viet fa E i Whether a wrong has been done, therefore, is the ques tion upon which we have to fall back. [ that if 4 Senet ne peberens has nobepeon signed r by a me say two wi wil shartedpimy Part nssion. tne hee % | wi gel quote from these Blue but fi Fam ready, it galled upd, t0 et verse, If I do not quote much, it is becamse it would be Ti ttaomable in me to trespass upon the indulgence of the House. Ip the next iace, I forbear to discuss the question of international law, not I think it un- important, because T hold that no position is iess detensible and 40 pretension less tenabie than that we may exe’ co the question of international law from the co ution of this subject from the frivolous reason that the Americans have a municipal iaw. But as the case is clear upon the municipal jaw, Iam ready to confine myself to that in the practical view of the case which P have preseribed (o myself. I am sorry to say that the propo=itions that Il have to* support, as emboty- ing my conscientious convetions, are unfortunately pro positions which attach very rtrong blame to the conduct of the government. Sir, I srall not attempt to qualify those opinions by any expressions of regret. ‘These things are of little vaiue in hostile discussion, [t is bet ter for aman to speak out what he has to say, and to trust to be contradicted, corrected and exposed if he has pot spoken the truth. fiear, hear.) What T have wo say is this: In the tirst place, coucealment was practised owards the American government ; 4nd, in tae sevond place, pot only was concealment practised, but the Amer. can gover: ment were deluded and misled by atione, Wh.ch 1 do not say were intended to mise were evidently such that they must mis! pperiy ousidered. (Hear, hear.) Teay this—that the im) al low was not only broken, but it wo fence of the advice of those who wer cliore—it. was knowingly brokea on t gents of the British geveramwnt. (Hear, hear ) ’ ct say that in these papers is to be found the root that this wax done under the direction of riteh government, In that respect I x © citfer from the hon. gentlemm the mew Vayo, and, permit me in passing to say, 1 conld wot isten with regret to the observations expressed tre Treasury bench, not only on those portions of the «pe ot the hoporabh ember for Mayo, in whieh he into vd, by way of illustration, certem passages trom Trteh b slight Javgh), but’on the gem endenay of Uiat h to throw blame on one particular meaber ot 1 Tmuct say, in justice to the honorable member tor Mayo, that although tt may ve good tactics to striy o keep cuter view one’s own incapacity by introduc citing matter, the honorable gentleman bas oo ew or any stich expec ut. because be has amply proved by argument bis ful ability to dea! with the merits of the question. (Cheers.) But I diifer from the honorable gen Ueman in that point. 1 think he stated these thing. wer done under the cirection of her Majesty's goverment. confess Ico not discern that on the fhee of peapeors (Hear.) But, in my yiew, it matters little whether they were done under the “direction of the goverument or uot i the government made themseles parties to the acts by their subsequent approbation. And here,sir, Teannet help regretting deeply the injustiwe done Mr. Crampton by che hororabie member for Montrose. One pro an tivat I state with the greatest contidence is the—that in justice was not done Mr. Crampton by avy mem ber of the government, but it was done by ‘he honoran'y member for Montrose. (Hear, hear.) The honorabic member, with his regard for America, was not willing to incu)pate America: and, with hie regard tor the govern ment, was not willing to inculpate the government. (A laugh.) $0, following the example of Presideat Pierce and passing by both the British and the A nerican go vernments, be threw the blame upon Mr Crampton, and said, Mr. Crampton, when he took the lawyer's opinion, cught to have stopped the scheme of recruitiag. I give Mr. Crampton credit tor taking a lawyer’s opinion. Tt was a wise and prudent step; but when it is said he should bave stopped the scheme of recruiting, did it rest with Mr. Crampton to Seober erent from home? (Hear, hear.) Inmy opinion, Mr Crampton «a'led as near the wind as he could, and, in justice to Mr. Crampton, it must be remembered that, ‘when he had taken the lawyer's o) inion, he sent home that opinion to his government and wrote to Lord Clarendon:— bt perceive that the provisions of ‘our operations within very narrow Cheers.) I take it that it was a fair expression that in his opinion the whole thing should be abandoned. That suggestion was pot adopied by the government at home. Mr Crampton had begun to act in the spirit of what he con ceived to be these intentions, and the result ix that her Majesty ’s government are unreservedly acquitted by the Americans. and Mr. Crampton is no ‘longer Minister at Washington. on) But with respect to Mr Cramp ton, my proposition is chis—that there is not one hair's breadth of distinction between the position of Mr. Cramp. ton and the position of her Majesty’s government. (Hear, hear.) I think, as far as I cam judge, that the zeal of Mr Crampton, and, perbaps, what be believed to be the in- tention: of the government, but were not the instruc tions of the government, were the source of the evils which have aren. (Hear, hear.) Everything which Mr. Crampton did was opeoves by the government at home; every claim that Mr. Crampton made was mata tained by the government at home, and J entirely decline to draw tbe least distinction between the original respoa- sibility of Mr. Crampton, as the subordinat’ person, and the subsequent reeponeibility of the governmen: by its unrestricted posterior approval of Mr. Crampton’s ‘con duct. (Cheers.) But] say that, at first, Mr. Crampton concealed those proceedings from the American govern ment, and that i a pomt of great importance. (Hear, vent ‘The bop. member for Mayo has quoted a passage irom Lord Clarendon’s despatch of the 16th of July, ip which Lord Clarcnaon says, that he has instructed Mr. Crampton, above all, to € no concealment from the American government My right honorable friend the member for Mancaecster says, that if that were so, then i: was a bigh offence in Mr. Crampton to practice con © alment. American government, not doubting the ssurapce conveyed by Lord Clarendon, said the same hing, and laid ob Mr. Crampton’s shoulders this burden —that, having received strict instructions not to practise onecalment, be did practixe concealment. The hon rable member for Mayo har stated that there does not appear in these papers any instruction to Mr, Crampton not to practise concealment, and he has called upon tue government to point out to him where that in-truction is. (Hear, bear) The Attorney General followed, and he did not apswer that apreal. The Home Secretary spoke later in the evening, and did not answer that . ‘The appeal must be renewed (hear, hear), for this House has a right to know from ber y's government whe ther it is true thet Lord Clarendon inst -ueted Mr. Cramp- ton to have uo concealment from the American govern- ™ If he did vo instruct Mr. Crampton, then undoubt edly the American government are justified tn the dis Unetion which they draw; but, if Lord Clarendon did eo instruct Mr. Cramy , and it the reference im th despatch ot July 15 is erroneous, then it is im posible to find words to describe the justic? wilicted on Mr Cramptop, because Mr. 1m p- ton bas been made to bear the responsibility of con- cealment.which the honorable member for Montrose well said was the fatal error from the outset, whereas the responsibility of that concealment belongs to the gov- ernment. (Chetrs.) I frankly own that I think it does delong to the government, for although reference is made to the despatch of July 15, to some mstruction not to practive concealment, there |s a0 inany prior , oF, indeed, inany despatch prior or subsequent effect. (Cheers.) The material point in the case i#, whether concealment was or wos not practised ? Attorney General raid po concealment was practised, tor Mr. Crampton pointed out to Mr. Marcy that the British government bad established, or intended to establish, @ depot at Halifax. And this is what induced me w say the Attorney General hed not read the papers because my honorable and learned friend gave two references to derpatches neither of which contain a word as to the depot at Halifax; but there happens t) be a third extract whieh doce refer to it, 1 “GM the person who pre- ed the references for the Attorney General bad un ‘tunately placed the wrong Sgures in the margin, or they were wrongly supplied atthe moment, and my honorabie and learned friend not baving read the papers, was unable to correct the error. However, it is quite true Mr. Cra ad say to Mr. Marey that the British government intended w establish a depot at Halifax. It t# not in the blue book, but it ie in the Iith page of the last pa pers presented to Parliament. 1 think there is no doubt it was mentioned, but it is a fact tor which I do not think depot at Halitax, whether prudent or Thevt, and Tm, pertetiy men! am right ee one of present Saenezes compe! question aris Jearned member for Sheffield. the subject ment have the agency within the United States, not only to give infor. mation, but to tempt to induce, by the offer of valuable censiderations, the subjects of Gaited pate. to go be- ond the United States for Pe Ss log. That ie the subject matter. 6 ir complaint, this question—Ihd Mr. 4 communicate talk of not con. the very head of the whole Hest doubt, Mr. ange lg gov. nment, £0 laration, express and , of the Amertean ment—be- cause that declaration is entirely jicted AT thing nd deca: Mr. Cram; ton he bear. Proposi- bi ‘states, for the oo Inducing A berond the bor. Ger und be was concealed the American government. That is the charge of concealment, and it will be well if the government can give some answer to ~ (Pesrovenetely 1 hon, peutiomen to feet ot request hon. at the Lith page of the Inst which ‘have. been Ini open the table, and there they will find that Mr. Cramp- ton, referring to hie despatch of the 224 of March of Inet yout, ven we 0 ree Et 6 Cone wane wae ee giver in original blue book. there gives his se count of his conversations with Mr. Marcy, substance of his communications with thas - Hesuys be told Mr, that to the inquiries whet bee: re: to in that country invariably replied by 1g them to the provision ie “those pro’ }, he goes on Lo 0) could do was to give such p the which be was in possession ag fo the terms and mixht, if eo disposed, be receivec into the service the British government. Therefore, Mr. Crampton] solemuly assured Mr, Marcy that, in anewer .to apy ietters he might receive, he would bit self to oommauieniog fo. the persons who addressed themselves to him the terms u whieh they could be received into the service of his coupéry, as fi as be was acquainted with them Thad appears to me to have been a promise of a most solema cnarac. ter, Mr. Crampton’s own communication $0 Mr; Marcy resting v| ir Premmood allegations now juced By himself in self-defence. fas that Lage dor onl Did Mr. Crampton coptine bimeelf to that ? there a man in this house who will rise and say he d so? Whe did not, how are we to meet the charge of American goverbment, when they say we deceived and threw them off the-sognt and in. ve that although proceed: were] ing on m the Union we had rothr g todo » them, | ause they gave credence to ar assurance at convey. ea by Mr. Crampton, that whate «7 oeney vas employed tthe United States it was the ag: nex of unsupporte: nd unrecognized volunteers with whieh the ar nothing tod», But was there vething more? Ther yn Angus M'Donald who appeared) wo. think rtrade being a very good thing, i might pro. erly be apphed to recruiting. who, upon receiving a res Dunerative price for the passage, (fered % take persong cthe Breish dominions, Well we laid heli of this con. +hient Cespateb to Mr. M Donald, carried i witb greag tn to the American Minister, who reed (tw indigoan: ocious terms iv which Ube offer of Mr d Was repuditted Upon thetvery day 0 on with Marcy % yehioh: Phage letter was written to Abgus — M'Do ott will not be very unoharitable 2 «it was written for “the purpese — off exhib ted to Mr. Macey. (Hear, hear.) It was, a by Mr. Marey. wae regarded oy. that gen importact fact, and led to th om the part of the Amel Bovera. 1 y sorry tobear the criti, ened member for Leo ©.) upon the couduet of the it. It peace be ou ntenance OF ve honor o! I would ask vahetbe: 1st thove objects are promoted by priw : £ themselves up as judges of thecemduet of thd American go ive my judgment upoa thd conc cet of thet government upon the queswen. before us borin it be tue that the American government is peti: loggipy aud titigious, then [ say, instead of that being ¢ reveon tor Uampling upon the law, it was a-reasoo why, it net ont ard for them, at least ‘n consideration tui the great o ry which we represent. wesheuld hav bet those laws more sacre!, and have wolded sts morg carefully to give so litigious and pettilogying & people the slightest reason for complaint. A comparison, bas bevr| nace between the proclamation of Me Angus M’Donal and that of the Nova Scotia goverument, and it bas been argued that what was ageinst the law, if done with in the boun‘aries of the Uuited States, vs not azams' the law if done beyond those bouudartes. Upom that all can say is, [cannot concetve @ serrier answer than tha) Unipgs which were not Jawful for a man to do because dund by @ private individual within the dominion of the United States might lawfully be done by Brakh go} vernment immediately upon the bordersof the Uni Staves. But that is not the question at issue: Com the proclamation of Mr Angus McIonald with:that ot Me Wilkins, and with the actual proc of the Britist] government in the United States. Mr, M’! Id dissem pated the informa jon that, upon certain terma, wi prepared to send recruits to a British colony. Mr. mp ton snd hix agents disseminated information, too, and ad vertivements appeare. in German newspapers publish in the Union that persons were required 20 go aroad sometimes it was said as mechanics, but everybody ua derstood the kind of machinery they would be expect to use. (“Hear,”? and a laugh.) The only differenc was that they provided a free passage, or paid: money fu) purpose. Therefore it stands thus—we-actuafly pa raced in the face of the American governmené our con Gempabon of the unfortunate Angus M’Donald, and th perbaps, ruined bis innocent aod well intended enverprise while at the same time we were doing all thathe prq posed to do, superadding the provision of mfree p ( or paid money to meet the expense. I think uo one wi) deny tbat a government who, by its agents, pursued th course, and afterwards signified it approved of th acts, is pot only tairly chargeable with concealment, ba but is also liable to the charge of baving deluded th American government, Therefore nothing is more u than the charge which is made against the American vernment of baving at first confiued its complaims to th proceedings of unauthorized persons, ant sul extended those coniplaints to the British Minister and bh subordina‘es. The American government? at frst cor fined their representat'ons to the unauthorized Decause tt believed the answer which was given. Th representations were extended wher they found that t answer was not based upon truth Aiming as Ido at pla‘n and intelligible statement, I must say the America| government was deceived by the proceedings of the Br tish government. [say we intentioually broke: be la ofthe Union. My honorable friend (Mr. Spuorer) vol Shot to judge generaliy of intentions. I agree u im, except so far as we cau infer them from acts, Mi ramp .on—and I give him credit for it—began bis p eecings by taking the opinion of a most eeinent Amer an lawyer, ove in whom, according to Mr. Crameun iyniticant description, Le bad perfect cowtdence, n nly as to professional ability, but also as tw © rinciples—that is to say, a man who, he believed. cou! enfidentiy be reckoned Hpon as having no: feeling interests of Great Britain Thae get n eems to have given a very prudent opinion, upea whic! conceive, Mr. Crampton was bound to ect. Why dij Mr. Crampton take that opinion’ He himself, a8 page 13. ives us the reason. He says he took it because be di ot understand the neutrality laws, and shorefore ays— T requested an eminent American lawyer, a whose jud tp foe me an opinion on the vunjects and’a. copy” of thas opt up for i Ci nid vai Wright totransmit to ter Binjouys ‘Consuls, ities of the Union, and a co wccompanied despatch to your lordship of the Tsth of Mareh. Now, in this opinion it is distinctly laid down that person would be found Deutrality laws, who ei worth to any wit Union, in order to Prduce or enable him to-go abroad the purpose of enlisting in a foreign service. Why fay that we intentionally broke the law? I will you wie band declaration = British officer how he unde! stood the meaning of tl jon. Mr. Bumiey, w' = ee 4 fp yp snewhe has u nseif wi proceedings of Mr Crampton, says page 16, in a letter to Consul Dyer:-— - But a promise to the travelling ¢1 for the tutmity of any'porson who may, oln her Nin viee, as proposed by your corre: such emigration of its voluntary cl tute a ion of the neutrality no proposition of this nature can, her Majetsy's Minister or consula, So it stands upon these documents that the counsel the Pritish government stated that giving either money'# worth to persoay to indice them woo about the j urpose of enlisting would be a violation of the lat and it stands upon these documents, also, thes Mr. Lat ley, on the 13th of May. Mr. Crampton, to Coneul Dyer to say that « promixe t» PLEECy Somstieuted « violation of the uoutraliey law of ‘nited States." The meaning, therefore, of laws, expounced, was known and admitted by the of Briteb government. That was on tbe 13\h q that day Mr. Lumley stated Pp pore eee would be a violation of the law. ampton on the 13th of May? He was at Hulifua, was Mr. Crampton at Halifax at the Lamiey was thus soundly expoundiag the trality laws? Mr. Crampton waa committing breach of the neutrality laws—aye, and beyond that—which Mr. Lumley was di office at Washington. Eg = hear.) If 183, you will see that Mr. Crampton begin he S Ole ane er ee that he arrived at Halifax on the 1th; that “Strobel, who had already some men from New York and peared to be well arquainted wi desires of his countrymen in serted that he this uP hein bewever i Hi inal i i f i : 5. i Q it H | i i g F i f i : = 3 * i e i i ii fi i i tilt i : | § i government. Ro with the American wae this ce certain acts tien Stee iw, jodicial ane conrwie b forward some ingenious view taken on the other side! the Atlantic with respect to that construction Justify bie acts. (Hear, bear.) does stand upon the opinion of your own American lawyer: stands upon Mr. Lumley’s deckaration on the part the Britieh govern ® breach of law to promise to pay Theos wnvelling Serene . bined with Mr. uae y they ie General on his felicitous and all but total Ine books contain—(a laegh) tel om rible he can have read the blue books and imagine that ie the whole eve raised. Now, I throw over and Strobel altogether, and am only sorry that mass of affidavits from one person tad another, to all sorte of things, should have been prodaced as pq lic doeuments—those affidavits being the most trash ever printed in this world, ido more than