Newspaper Page Text
1 ‘ . ' —, - ■■■..
BY WM. S. JONES.
i t iii<
'
V .fc wTeTTV
P„!J o»cr» V.Hn»*< ! "y
PSR ankui,
ia advance.
,o ,«t.«ns 7Ti:«i>»'’rt'('AT* •ct-i*«<ft e« t»•
, V nf tw* *e»*t V* ov
» .‘. ; ~v a* tVc* raL- «f
C7TTE9 FOB TEff DOLLARS,
. •*^ r ... u . , S ,h m »jr r-r-wr. o. Kin -**>'
, W forward Tuftr.«y.
rafl rjHßOsicaTv & «nW-
UiitV >.»I)
r> * '* 1 b- — y par Aftnuio.
V t/,u* iA;
4t , _ J..- gjp.j gfty c :HU
e: « ~i, '" •
~ THE 1856 !
,< >I, i HERN Cl LTJV ATOR,
A JOtttMLj
i - ' CrflVELf . r O TUX IMfßO VKfllfc.iiT Os
‘ r , ,u/\ *;:*«, ffrri.'-nhtoe kt»* Urging,
t*i titf+ O'ftr-l b'arm Econr*ty, 4*.
-■ T *ni"i -srith tfarn«rttis E’egant Engraving*
‘ T» ;rXA’ ; yTTuTYv ADVANCE.
J, .■rr-J J. / • 1» V *r> KKtfMOSb, EIAT r m
* - i’ouitacnth ToaUm© .viU coauncaoe
' JuaTi rg, 1656.
;pf( a:m7 - <-•?«* . pa^i.
. , r. rs >4 p%* ,/Gi; rh** it contain* a
5 .*,) ,u " u Vs * ti4^n 10
* v\.J f AIJ4K oklii/NAI. CoirntibUTiOKH
t r 'ir •■< tii 1 ' iw t tfiUiUgi'fU and proutcal Piauier-*
I ! lior . ' -In* > .'ll* in e«ery section of ihe •ootb
UfW*;
l, f ( V i year..,.. *1! ii.»COfIES, 1 >#wr • • ¥^ n
fk - I “ .a. 31 100 “ 1 “ 73
:■ ■, , „ <t»,h> «*ai W. riiMfvUnM u., «.M in
J . ■M. * ll». MMK !>« - *ll uoil .. Um tti'frC'j AC
I'i. ->prt. r Tba wt" nf all 9j»«-|.ayiac
l. „.*.JI. , .*<,••( .»t r«r All worn!/ rumitlMd hy uuiil.
I ..., «l, W ai/». V ...» .kk O. Ae J-ttbUn^.
A nrorf l.’*«*P»<*Tif ••
I ■«TI.<I at'OK* l)oa»r.|«r xin.re nf twclvo lm«w,
„. M R(|a«U*l, tjrr Ml-u.tlr T f.S bOJ.LAII!-
W U. S. JOM'.H, Aitgnfitn, (In.
■ f* P‘.rv.&» vr*ui will w t Aj oofu, ani obtain u * > *
| ( )iT S.\ !.i;. ~
FOR SALE.
I NOW "Tv tit «ai«mvnntirrniw PLANTATION.
I - ..r rfi-iof, of O.lonOms. ir*. in Bir'o^r
* -j ,Mla.. oiujr th« C?i«HaLß*uhe<» rtvvr,
•l * ' .. WSW in a nne if.To c f ruitlvati .i» and
» ■! re; a'r A AVatvr <>tn nAdi I’orry a(T»Hs th*»
« .17.1 f m»ld an<U Tww»Z miM j.ur
' ’ ' j. MATTIiRW AVL4LTT
LAT7D FOR SALE !
4 FA 101,11 mUe% above Augu«ta, on the Georgia
J\. »(4t;*/ >u4, cmtaining3loacrt?% mostly In woods ;
i * ..m MM*bir good Fcth-c, on v.blrfl* thr-r« la u humll
I/- U. '7 *roo»l ft*ro, &tal»UN*-£to House—allnctv.
i I. k J :n:i!' j tc<- U pr.»dur.th*'-Oh the
t ' ?.!»."•■• rt atxfirf 75 a*rc3 of first-rate «re«k swaioj-
J.a-iT, Y’■ •. wUfm Geared well, prcsluroa 50 buahtOa of
• .. !i * t?u u. ■ ro, <;f which six gores is f leered and r«*ady
f- nth*. coi The p ai: • U healthy, wiib fine springs.
nti ;<i if**.! Vs'ell of w*t«r in the yard. The fields all
* water, the crook running through the i<and.
, ' >• on ihwplace* Mjll sit**, dara and pond, fuitehle
fi i i.lf, »r turning nta> idmuy. Prions wishing a good
I . near Augusta, will tolaoni moot an opportunity of
suitlnt; • humsef -e» hotter.
ALSO,
f«»r mK n Fhrra known n* the If races place on the
’A . \,iv!“u i'm4. Vi nu’es ahoxc Augusta, containing 210
.n i ropn-rty wjll i.o fi>r ea,-h. It not
I*i **' 'mi JtJ At private tide, the two foregoing named
1 C •»»»# wttt he soiil at the Market House In the city of
A ifua*a, .-a the l*r»t TtuMrfiajr iu FLUUUAKY u«xu
u:ox t*. nrttAS,
Jan 17 .«W<nJtw& Trntiee fivr Sarah A. Dixon.
7le2s* ri'.yd this
rplli: nfchc n,> , a/Thr* for snio his TM.AXTATTON.
1 !.» «•« H. fi}. from KrtVkVtifn, In Columbia county.
«"• a... H uuu |%<j »: -wiuK Mtfp will speak ior
.U- t . •. of tha Lind premise* is a comfort a •
be i' r i- sf with six inrge roomv; also, n large
n i! ..iv,4' ’ Staow, a two -story Ba n, with ur*rtiiu«yy
!•• i/.-n.’tf, ndH Itn untnh Suaw Gntt. r*, &•
an . *»;»« Hhm K*ukU and S!«l!s, N.gro Hon**, n.urly
t< im i. si,j stone :tud l.'tiok rUU-iUeya. All of which are
In t o! ••vndition.
- * r.s, r«HlH*r. Mnla«. AVagons, Farming Implement*.
Cml Ulrffit. Ac„ eon bo nought with the nremi
»»< i 'en i
kii% r* fn ",' er*r H. It. R. Parsons wishing
t > l . Uwtt> >
. v ,1 ■ 4tUmi fthowihglLem.
A1 , L't* - :y IWmngTfOrsr. trorin
tl in tn r m }*• .d l"' msoa, ocenph dat present by Mrs.
E. a B.arnftt. * *
Pc- .n- 2\\ , thrm «f ttif advantage
of • C t. luelt;*rdV Eu ,’irh and (31 n•'steal School, will
do h y*a, to« ( )idv efurlx' furibia prqpt rty
h L ri SM EED.
TO M a'JoFACtSEjSi AND GAi 5 i CALISTB
II Htc. ho Wklou the ur.-»t Tu. -duy in Al Kibiu xt,
It iu thslowacf On ,at pnTfiic" ; butcfV,
•v i.«u*ily dis|w»s. l of at wivnte sale, th*
O 4 OTTOii FAC JUKI’. 'lhoJ>wj!du»g
is vi wMfiiiiteii * • tiio purpu-o fir whtrh tt w.tv
• r ’ t. find is located w thin one homlred rardl * f the
>. »*:iun>arl, wnh whtch it, is oonueetedby a “turu
•m *T • • . -hiiiery ts all l» order, and capable <Tf
tu.m -hi p|M. of yany: par day. Omntabom*is a
. invvnla M ddle t»ix*rgia, whyre allthourr
rn . t’te jaeent c autcri a- »t»s* Fvct*>fy can turn
ind h H
tii . p v< Anv out-wishing to
iu’ .Miiur t w-Hl wall to exafmhe
it . =.-. 1..,- . . • ~ it a »*ar tin
t' n>, apjoy t»> JOHN Ctj.NMNt.LAAI.
'' : ■ fia.
> TOR SALE.
V\ CwVXt I>N COT Nft, ttA.
r I’l l l ’ se*.r rib, r, C;u i' ■ i.mi'c l.und than he wishes t<>
1 k i.-v.j.ic. j-,r ile h*a PI.ANT ATION im Crooked
rn *• •.inky* m>MVtin ilWf.’v and kp, \vu
lifaitl.t by i K n:l \
•»i. »v v Os vMWeh nA-onv Ifid'arras are first
~u , ■ ; . »... •‘A, uudt'i good bank. aert's marsh un*
r,i . , *•*. . • ~-iA.b swamp, and *♦*•«,it 154) acres hain
m u jslV’c- <>»l,p’biliielfvc Ihtad.ior e<*n»amli'otUm —the
be .< . • , luitiun *: 1 i .uc t imbarcfl land.
• t. p typo ute.. mpr-aa gC*od* now, ci*iufort.able
tw.i • t •tw Jtst|plH»uce, coutaming r\.‘OM9, tvKh
U. e •wrset.r'fc c<’tton house, negro
* i . .'Vs u3net* 'rf Uh. ov-t. »*, go Art water, and a
he i.P ' •4»t»n % arc ala** vahiabic ccoaidarathm* Ihe
ir. . cfxnluFti j umisiutily leiv price of nitn-dollars
I'im . —Una*half exfh, the l*aJ in on« and two
Ti • A-t sto LH liV, ELLA. S.en the prepst*
.et , is LJI ARLEi: iCU . .SaVamiau.
•r* c\r TACTP ATMO OAPITAI,.
VO rtrew or TASTE AND CAPITAL.
'|H!K «ui» 'nKjr, wishing to rmn >vo*t\> SefUhwwitorn
I i ,ri» to*G! blppte-o muutVive spring,
n V v*fr» V iihh F! ivtl ..qauys G£, Nvinta in in*.r 317
n.-iv-, **itl ik aiul hickory
. jt of>. 1 Rji>i «ur£«»4»ot to vvatji v woiuo ICO acres
c . \nd nude- coofttiUtg* ; the reniaindvr gonemlty
w, , .u»K.*rwl |t haaseviMal *v*'U*v . ol\ >»« i blue Liine
, ;<•.,• 9»«lpEKvm. »»» « ft' (*uvtr water
us tttfk l*. .«r: . hu* •
w.■ *n '.if- . t r 'o x effir%4C. leftg uotc 1 f*«t it* c.iwr.uional
\ v. ii . • pi*, u.isoa, cuh
. , iut li*» rlcmeut
i-.-unirv. li.it
‘ i’»« Chancier. location
... : •*»»*. ii ;*»*• t?U»- i %;i ,*' .fstV y-u
■ ’. i^ilßU
it F tor*©*, r.pptjr » n *hc prcml-'*.
VV. U. COWDREY.
T i ,i ’ l ‘‘- l "' "- .i> >3-wlf
LA3H> FOR SALE.
• i A<-m..rt jr t* act** i« iko wood* —
*4 « .i. • »uS ltjf. *i\j fining l vamls
• it !T Wf. ven.Ti II A Hfwv»t and«:her*.
i . ;li4 ,n« ,41, Piv, Du »;«i.l all noee**ar> out
i»t 1
. i. JUia ft* health, t . • MtnitMn ranuM b© ihr
. . 1 s *o:a low u applied u . botm.
r.u-4 -*u»* .V . IV A. J. MILLER* or
t. w. riA:>tiN<s
FOIIMAWS IRON PLOW-STOCK.
r 1 if 14 having purchased the patent r< tht
1 r. e above vi**ua**ic mid popular FLOW fi»v ihe
Buck
■ nt?*\ Kuwniw! nvo prepared to
'. , v* ui*sttsr» at Ike wnuHtJiotttu • .•> price. This
Vt» « A awl on.
.
tii <isans .»« -v 't.adiiv. bivak* and puugruos the so.l
ui - $ m toss Mi LHigl Uud, is more easily
,T d< «'p or r‘!ovr plowing. bcdd< the ?Mr> s
nmihr, linst* ineoiuj-anffily tnpgtfr. and i*. tn ihe
•
... • •: "-v-uml Dy imnu e.-; :ifl-viTo- u
.
•- .» la iHv cv-uatry. " • w . ha\ e p.os-.uv
. . •
<a v»h- would Uko to t'u* fu. "VS e are w ulirg Vo
r. m -u.• mv ,-uo wuv hss gtvxtt this Plow a fair trial, in
t X>' >ftho Southern CiUtivnw. n. ;t4JV. the o«ii
oi’thAi werk *ay*. "After giving this a ifur
aud uai a*v) «. truL w can truly say, that we ;vgai itl a
a n.i; vahiahle * ou all eotnuvm wr*odon
m>, o•-, . .f-W ktad now «n r*»e F<4* general * ftio ou
<»\ uwl aa rreli M apeeial ada)natk>nt»i deep
t ■ t- o* « < Jtttow oi ootuMig ihat - irpasa > .
t oMW «* i t-h-- >»> •'T oeoaoci} aad d inih.lity, it
a' _-\.f* v r nt; N ' r». >rr whh whirh wv are fliw!
; , « #«> mui c*A'UMKai i'> the cfii'ii'** and uea
• »••*.' ■ . '
5* »a v ,>r.hl V;’ f ve-v jmateru
u hi nu;t io> pliauog lutereot oi the SouiK ’
*i ;jta*A is yP>py»d It. 4ix vUu.vcxl »hart» or i'OuiU
yS«i, . j every variety which a planter will need
T. i tae to tho end of thayenr. TUes« scares
~ .. -v d with tbeSUnk, kmi
a iw-t*uon sintUi can make vhctu alter onc^aecing
ui# <dr coatui«a, for Shops, or for Plantation?, will
to l*n v?»a*or.*bie t«ma. Applv at the Hardware
J a I t r'il T L.N 4. Co.
4o«i»-a-4 GA
ES4I:.!Ai.' l 3 GAHDEIT !
AiMCsTA, GA.
TM HE aa heritor oxTura .or «a.> a verv eh ole© and rare
V ••. ,W* it fc.v.l;*ußK VMKNTAL FL-\NTS. on.
r * nr »il iso duo old and no** new var..‘tie# of Ever
u-s: QOHSS ; jL\ an uahvulu I ceitect.ua of QV
.%t'V.Xs. rs ov«ry variety. Decidu
* ' and PLANTS ar.d r>
Li d FLA NTS. m the SoatV
dors pt napc> .lUeuded p\ aud Fiants packed •
f *lv» * -oirva.‘ty. Any iaforMAtioo r*H]«ired wfil
Pv . •. r g'-von. a.Mtom' J W BK^OiAN.
■ Mct
510 HEWABD !
CIGI.EN t*m tfc«'*ao.ir.,w t>oothpci4)it ofti»*th
a ««Ei Wo* «Mh.r POCKET.B.X>K. cor.
H.r - '*xe or rl2 tn tnouey. and n» c notes : one
' * nuo oenta, Cifc.-!e by Jam. * M and Will'.am
1. ui*.i»ay' .into nse, dab-d •„> h January. ie^ % ,^,, 0
a*.*n;h», tbs oiLe* fur $47 fO. n?ade by \
I • layavleto.T A Stooe. dated aDout tl»e 2d of
«cr Ea«. duo oae dar after date, and one amali note
*y*i f. which 2 bad pahl, and tom off the name l
.\y iL* aho i> raw fur rvoovery of th» paper*
aide no nnaa. \na >'l po-; n, as-- ber*>by cnut.mt^
.. . *» notes, and the nuvkur*n< ttv pay
f coceepr to tm,. O. S DAXWELLV
F vrtmrv 13. 1&5&.
1) 4?* iWATi thjt sniper:her. reelding La Put
i.\ n- a. .i aty. uta: MeiTiit. in, Augtiet last, my Segro
V t Fie a NIL He is float 2$ year* old, five fe#t bm m
e r. bkf)-. Os medium silo, has » slight t jup<*diaM>oc a hi*
« “ **. audhas i>-*t the *;g k u erf one eye. He was raised
N .rgiaia nad b*e in Georgia about two year*
1 ho abi/Vv- reward will be paid far hi* delivery to me.
or i «nv jaii *o that l can get iusa.
v JOBTN A, HARRIS
a "c rs Raeo; i«r wtli pubiiah uh forbid, and for
v .o. t aecsuat total* office for payru at
hew^rx;^
-f> A - abottth# mcf
A l Dei casber iioc c tiegc' h.*n JoHN—ht
r> . call* 4dt*i*dif WlSvLI' V. il« .aahout iMrty
f. r y-.Afi w 44. about sve ei*. lw wen inviiv* frf
;. „ tr cOihtlOTloa. with 8012 Of hi* frew under teeth
out rtd a sraALI ii-ar over v®e of his ej’-. ?. Ido not recoi
nbpve rv
v\»rv fur ui delivery of *a:d boy to me, or hi* cunftno-
UiCTJ: ja‘-i •• that f may get him.
L . fv.oe. r,a. On F W JOHNSON
O V LT^—lOcvi sack* Liverpool SALT, now landing.
O and fax MU« ; »wy law, by
j** . HAKP. WgXIOK A
FELTON HOUSE,'
ATLANTA, GEORGIA,
8f A* W. KELTS*.
tLijvomclc & Sentiucl.
ENGLAND AND THE U. STATES
The Lntistfuenc Qu<*»tion. —Official Corresjion
dftire.
A dat or two fcuic f, we gave a very brief synop
if. of tbe Correspondence between the Oovermnent
d Uk* l nited Stat'.-s and Great Britain, in regard to
'cruitiqg for the Britwh army within the United
States, but a» the question is likely to prove a very
gruve one, we deem it prudent to give the most im
portant part of the correspondence complete. It
should Vie carefully read by every citizen.
The correspondence consists of twenty letters and
•iceornpanying papers, extending in from April
11, 18ot, to I eoruary 1,185 b. ft opons witli a iet
-r trofji Mr. Crampton Hnnouneing tlie ezist>.*oeo of
war bet we* n ltu-- iaand England, and the determi
autu n of th<flatter not to issue letters of marque, to
v Mr. Mah-v replied. Ti* »<* two letter#* were
uio!) ied at tin- time 1 hen follows a letter from
M ■y. v/ri?t' Hin a mild tone, insmictiug Mr. Bu
;ha:mn to ( all the attention of the British govem
nenl to the fact that enlistments, apparently with
ts knowledge and'approval, were making in the
r.'nib-d Sint. -for the English service, altiiough Mr.
Cramptoti had previously expressed his disappro
>athai of it. Mr. Buchanan upon the receipt of Mr.
SJurey’f! letter, laid the subject before Lora Claren
lon on the Cth of July last, in a letter of some
eugth, giving a full statement of what had trans
pired in the United States.
On the !sth of July, Mr. Marry again write* to
*lr. Buchanan telling him that the basin ess of ro
•.ruiting in the United States fur the British army
r-'is u<»t only continued, but prosecuted with in*
•r> • ;s»‘d *uc( - -s. He. Uierefore, instructs Mr. 811-
l.ancn bisny to her Me* sgovernment that the
lent (ts it will tuke and effective
v-asuri* U> arr<#t the proceedings of the recruiting
(diic-ris, and to discharge from service those persons
in it who wore enlisted within the United
State#*, or who left the United State* under contracts
.ii.de u« re to enter and serve as soldiers in the Bri
tish army.
On the UOtli of July Mr. Buchanan transmitted to
Mr. Maroy a reply of Lord Clarendon to his letter
•»f tlie 6th. Lord C. expresses the regret of his
government if the laws ot the United States have
been violas das alleged ; states that in opening re
miting oflices iu the British provinces stringent
instructions wer*- iwu* d to the officers to guard
uguiust any violation of the neutrality laws of the
United Stat< s; and admits that instances of undoubt
ed violati'iiis of our laws had taken place, but alleg
es that the offender- were acting without authority
from bis government or iisugenia. He then quotes
an opiulou of Judge Kane that the payment of the
I nssuge from this country of a man who desires to
to enlist in a foreign j»ort does not violate the neu
trality act of 18JH; and concludes by stating that in
\ i< w of the fact that no precautionary means adopt
ed bv|Grc*at Britain, would prevent a real or imagi
nary infringement of our laws, it had been determin
ed that, all proceedings f«*r enlistment should be put
an end to.
On the sth September Mr. Marcy addressed Mr.
Crampton, and after a review of what has been done,
expressed hisregretthat Mr. C. is implicated, togeth
er with many other British officers in the United
Stales and the British provinces. The object of the
note ia to ascertain how far the acts of the known
and acknowledged agents of the British govern
ment, done within the United States in carrying
opt this scheme of recruiting for the British army,
have been authorized or sanctioned by her Majes
ty’s government.
To this note Mr. Crampton declines replying at
length, until put in possession of the views of her
iitujdsty’g government ; but says, “I confidently
trust that I shall be enabled altogether to remove
the unfavorable impression which has been created
ns to tin motives and conduct of her Majesty’s gov
ernment and their officers, including myself, in re
gard to this matter.”
Copies of these notes were sent to Mr. Buchanan,
accompanied with the opinion that the British gov
ernment must have been misinformed in asserting
that the persons who had violated our neutrality
law : were self-constituted ftndfmmuthorizcd agents.
Mr. Buchanan responded on the 28th September,
with a copy of LorvLClarandon s note to him of the
pr -coding day. Mr. Buchanan expresses a doubt
whether, under the possession of the views of the
British government, Mr. Crampton will be aide to
exonerate himself
The correspondence now becomes more earnestand
explicit. Lord Clarendon to Mr. Buchanan on the
c J7t!i September, after some introductory remarks,
refers to Mr. Moray's letter to Mr. Crampton and
«jy»:
lu this letter, Mr. Marcy, laping less stress than
.Mr. Buchanan did upon the alleged infraction of the
municipal laws of the United States, dwells chiefly
upon the point, which was but slightly adverted to
by Mr. Buchanan, of an assumed disregard of the
*<>v< rigu rights of the United States on me part of
British authorities or the agents employed by
them.
Her Majesty’s Government have no reason to be
lieve that such has been the conduct of any persons
in the employment of her Majesty, and it is need
less to say that any person so employed would have
departed no less from the intentions of her Majesty’s
go\eminent by violating international law, or by
ofleriug ati affront to the sovereignty of the United
Suites, than \rv infringing the municipal laws of the
Union to which Mr. Buchanan more particularly
•a h a attention of the undersigned. Her Ma
l«;#iy’» government feel confident that even the ex
traordinary measures which have been adopted in
various parts of the Union to obtain evidence against
her Majesty’s servants, or their agents, by practices
somethin s resorted to, under despotic institu
tions, but which are disdained by all free and
enlightened governments, will fail to establish any
well founded charge against her Majesty’s ser
vants.
The British Government is fully aware of the ob
iutions of international duties, And is no legs mind
mi of the obligat ions than is the government of the
(Tinted States. The observance of those obligations
oitght, undoubtedly, to be reciprocal; and her Ma
i ipty’s government do not impute to the government
•*f tip* United States, that while claiming an obscr
\ mice of these obligations by Great Britain, they
are lax iu enforcing u respect for those obligations
within the Union.
ilut up thiHHubjuct has been innoted by Mr. Mnr
i*y, her Mi\>eßty'e goveniment cannot refrain from
some few remarks respecting it.
The United States profess neutrality in the pre
sent war between the Western Powers and Russia;
but have uo nets been done within the United
States, by citizens thereof, which accord little with
the spirit of neutrality ? Have not arms and am
munition, and warlike stores of various kinds, been
sent in lurge mmntitios from the United States for
tlu: service of Russia l Have not plots been open
ly avowed, and conspiracies entered into without
Jiiiruise *»r hindrance, in various parts of the Union,
to t ike advantage of the war in which Great llri
tain is enguj/ed, and to seize the opportunity for
promoting insurrection in her Majesty’s dominions,
ami toe inv. s'-.#: the.r<'of by an turned force proceed
ing from the United States ? ,
Iler Majesty’s government have been silent on
thfcse matters.*which they did not consider indica
tive of the general feelings of the American people;
to? remembering the many ties and sympathies
which connect the people of the United States with
the two powerful nations who are engaged in the
present contest with Russia, they were convinced
that a flee, enlightened and generous race, such
ms the citizens of the great North American Un
ion, must entertain on the important questions at
issue, sentiments in harmony with those which an
imat. not only the British and French nations, but
the great muss of the nations of Western Europe ;
mid her Majesty’s Government would not have
adverted to'lhe ex.-entiounl course pursued by n
vert.tin number of individuals, if it had not been
for the above mentioned statements in Mr. Marey’s
note.
But her M:y- sty’s government think themselves
entitled to claim the sumo credit forsineerlty of pur
poi<* and uprightness of conduct which they readily
allow to the government of the United States ; and
to expect .that their assurance should be received
that as they have ciyoined on all her Majesty’s ser
vonts a strict observance of the laws of the Uui-
U:d States, so they have no reason to believe that
any of her Misty's servants, or any agents duly
authorized by those servants, have disregarded
those injunctions in respect to the'matters which
form the subject of this note.
T v undersigned ri*ques?s Mr. Buchanan to accept
the assurance of his highest consideration.
Clarendon.
Hon James Buchanan, Arc., Arc.
The next communication of interest is as follows,
and we continue the correspondence from this pe
riod in full to the close :
Mr. Ma c jr to Mr. fiuckanrtn.
Dcjxrrtmevt of State, )
Washington, October 1, 1865. y
Sir:—l herewith send you papers containing the
report of the trial of Hertz, for a violation oi our
neutrality laws by enlisting sokliers for the British
army
The testimony shows that Mr. Cramptou aud
s» v« ral other British officials are deeply implicated
in the transaction. Clarendon s note, in an
swer io voure hriugingthe subject to your notice, as
. .ui.eil that none of her Majesty’s olli.Hirs had been
ir f.iv M-ay enguged in the plan of recruiting within
ti e Hnitea States. Had the facts been as he as
suin' d them to be. and this government had had no
a i*uu to believe tlmt the measure was not designed
t draw recruit* from the United States, his lord
ship'* reply would have been satisfactory.
Sutisequent develojmient* show that' Ixud Clar
endon woe nusinformeil as to the true state of the
r second despatch to you on the subject slew
ed tiiut the ground of grievanee was not conhned
to tiie mere fact of a violation of our neutrality laws
by British officer?. It presented the case as a nation
al offence committed oy tiiem, irrespective of those
laws. These officers may have contrived to shield
themselves from the penalties of our laws, and yet
l av* committed an offence against our sovereign
territorial rights. This latter aspect of the case w : as
distinctly presented in uiy last aespatch to you on
the subject. It was this view of the case which the
President wished yon to present to her Majesty 's
Minister of Foreign Relations.
It is important, with reference to proceedings
against British officers residing within the United
States, that the President should know whether the
government of Great Britain mean to justify or
condemn their conduct.
T. disclosures which have been made leave no
d übt of ti e fact that some ol these officers have
h* . . active part in raising recruits in the Uni
ted Mate*. If their couduct was unauthorised and
;s c<'ndemned. it is proper that this government
aj.vttUi be apprised of the tact, as well as of the pun
isiiineut which has been, or i? proposed to be, maid
ed upon them : but if, on the other h&nd, the British
government approve of the course pursued by Its
officers, it is import&ut that its determmatiou in that
respect sltv>uld t>e known.
1 am, sir. respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. L. Marct.
James Buchanan. Esq.. Arc.. &;c.. A:c.
U' . Buchanan to Mr. Marey.
[Extract]
Leo'.‘ion of the Cnited States. ?
London, October 3. lSa5. S
Sir: * » » * »
t in my last despatch. No. 93, of the ultimo. I
an lit: at 1 hso not then time, before the closing of
toe tag, lotnake the observations 1 had intenaed
or, the surjeet to which it refers, but intimated that
I nnpht do so this week
Ihe a.iegi-o agency of Mr. Crampton in the re
cr.::tirit,. o. Hr...- -oM„-rs within ihe limits of the
lin ted Stale- presents a senoo. aspect. From the
.nfortuation eorta.ned m > our despaudi ,Xo 9) of
the 9th June, we had reason to ex lxct a different
course of conduct on hi? part. I need scarcely **v
that, had I been mformec that her Britanrie Maie*
ty'B representative at Washington had placed ffim
i»el: in the po&tion attributed to him by Captain
Strobel, I should not have expressed to Lord Claren
don mv *atisfaet»c in transmitting to vou hip note
of the 16ih July.
It > remarkable that Lord Clarendon, in his note
to myself of the tk n nmo. whilst commenting on
your note of tiic sth of September to Mr Cramptoo,
should have been totally silent in regard to that
gentleman, after what you had said respecting hi*
conduct.
I cannot but regard as offensive the remark of hie
lordship on “ the extraordinary measure® which.”
hi tdle-jeg, “have been adopted in various parts of
the l mon to obtain evidence against her Majesty’s
servant*, or their agents, by practises sometimes re
sorted So underdespotic iiirti tut ions, but which are
disdained by all free and enlightened govemmects;”
though he would doubdeas sav these were not in
tended to apply in an offensive sense to the Arne
rican government. He probably ahudes to occur
rences a* Cincinnati and other places.
If an»# and ammunition and warlike stores of va
rious kinds Lave been sent in large quantities from
the United States for the service of Russia, as his
Lordship alleges, this is nothing more than our citi
zens had a right to do, to the risk under the
law of contraband. Similar articles have been .*ent
from the United States to Great Britain in large
quantities. Besides, at the present moment, and
ever since the commencement of the present war,
many of our vessels have been engaged as trans
ports, by Great Britain and France, to carry troops
and munitions of war to the Crimea. When this
business first commenced, I was applied to by mas
ters and agents of American vessels for information
as to what penalties they would incur by engaging
in it, and I stated to them that their vessels would
be a lawful prize if captured by the Russians. For
this reason, I advised them to obtain an indemnity
from the Government employing them against this
risk.
The “plots” to which his Lordship refers relate
chiefly, I presume, (for I do not know,) to the pro
ceedings and address of the “Massachusetts Irish
Emigrant Aid Jyjciety,” at Boston, on the 14th of
August. These were republished in the London
Times, on the 11th of September; and you will
find an editorial on the subject on the following
(lay. * n n n »
Yours, very respectfully,
James Buchasa.t.
Hon. Wm. L. Marcy, Secretary of State.
Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Marcy.
Iteration of the United States, }
London , October 30,1856. S
Sir : * "■***' *
But I have not since taken any action upon your
No. 102, for the plainest reason. I had, previously
to its arrival, transmitted to you a copy of Lord
Clarendon’s note, already referred to, of the 16th of
July, on the subject of tno enlistment and employ
ment of soldiers of the British army within our lim
its, and had informed his Lordship, in acknowledging
the receipt of this note, that I should have much
satisfaction in transmitting a copy of it to tho Secre
tary of State. Os course it would have been im
proper for me to take any new' step in this matter,
until ~i should learn whether this note would
prove satisfactory to yourself. Again : your No. 102
states that, aftei many months had elapsed, British
officers were still proceeding to violate our laws, and
persist “in carrying on the obnoxious scheme with -
out any open disapproval by the home government,
or any attempt to arrest it; and one of the two ex
press instructions which the President gives me in
conclusion is, “to say to her Majesty’s government
that he expects it will take prompt and effective
measures to arrest their proceedings.” Now, these
measures had been already adopted, but could not
possibly have been known to you. Lord Claren
don’s note had entirely changed the aspect of the
case from the view which you took of it. and must
necessarily have taken of it, at the date of your No.
102. The general tenor of this note—its disavowals
and its regrets—were certainly conciliatory ; and
the concluding paragraph, declaring that all pro
ceedings for enlistments in North America had been
put an end to by her Majesty's government, for the
avowed reason that the advantages which her
Majesty’s sorvie,e might derive from such enlist
ments would not be sought for by her Majesty’s go
vernment if it were supposed to be obtained in dis
regard of the respect uuo to the law of the United
States, was highly satisfactory. It was for these
reasons that I expressed the satisfaction I would
have in communicating it to you. Then came the
declaration of Lord Palmerston to the same effect in
the House of Commons, on the 2d of August, in
which he explicitly declared that, in order to avoid
questions with the United States, the government
“had put an end to the enlistment of forces which
used to lake place at Halifax.” This declaration was,
to niv knowledge, received with much satisfaction
by Mr. Milnor Gibson, who had made the inquiry of
Lord Palmerston, a? well /is by many other liberal .
members of Parliament. Very different, indeed,
had been the conducts the British government in
this respect towards certain continental States.
I can assure you that I did not entertain the most
remote idea that this question had not been satis
factorily adjusted until 1 learned the complicity of
Air. Crampton in the affair. This was officially
commuicatcd to me in your dispatch,No. 107, of the 1
Bth, received on the 24th of September, with a copy
of your letter to Mr. Crampton, on the sth, and his
answer of the 7th of the same month. From these,
it appears you had thought it due to Mr. Crampton,
no doubt properly, to take the affair in hand your
self, and this you have done in an able manner in
your letter to that gcutleman. Thus much I have
deemed necessary to place myself rectus in curia.
Yours, very respectfully,
Jas. Buchanan.
Hon. Wm. L. Marcy, Secretary of State.
Mr. Marcy to Mr. Buchanan.
Department of State , )
Washington, Oct. 13, 1855. $
Sir : —The copy of Lord Clarendon’s note of the
27th ultimo, which you transmitted to the Depart
ment with your dispatch, No. 93,1 ms been received.
1 have laid it before the President, and am directed
to make the following reply :
The case presented to Her Britanic Majesty’s
Government, in my note to Mr. Crampton, contain
ed a distinct charge that British officers and agents
had infringed our laws enacted for the maintenance
of our duties of neutrality to friendly powers, and
that some of these officers and agents m the employ
ment of their Government within the United States,
and other residents in the neighboring British
Provinces, had also violated our sovereign territo
rial rights by beiug engaged in recruiting for the
British army within our territories. The mode
by which this recruiting had been carried on, and
the connection of these with it were clearly stated.
A scheme for that purpose had been arranged by
British officers. Agents had been employed by
them to open rendezvous in our principal cities,
numerous engagements had been made with re
cruits, money liad been paid to them, and liberal
promises of other considerations offered as an in
ducement for entering into the British service, and
they had been taken out of the United States by
means furnished by persons in the employment of
the British Government.
It was also stated that the evidence establishing
these allegations against the officers and agents of
the British Government, was of such a character
that this Government could not reasonably doubt
its accuracy.
The President has given to the reply of Lord Cla
rendon, Her Britannic Majesty’s principal Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, to the case thus pre
sented by this Government, the full consideration
it is entitled to on account of the high source from
which it emanates, and ho regrets to be obliged to
adopt the conclusion that it is not satisfactory.
Tliis government had a right to look for some
thing more in that reply tlian an expectation on the
part of Her Majesty’s government “that their as
surance, should be received that, as they have en
joined on all Her Majesty’s servants a strict obser
vance of the laws of the United States, so they have
no reason to believe that any of Her Majesty's ser
vants, or agents duly authorized by those sevants,
have disregarded those injunctions in respect to the
matters which form the subject of this [Lord Cla
rendon’s] note.” This is a very laconic, but cer
tainly a very unsatisfactory answer to the demand
of redress by this Government, for a violation of
its laws and an affront to the sovereign right of this
country.
This’ conclusion adopted by Lord Clarendon is
E receded by a general objection to all the evidence
y which the charges against the British officers and
agents are sustained.
Lord Clarendon declares that the “extraordinary”
measures adopted to obtain evidence against Her
Majesty’s servants or their agents, though “some
times resorted to under despotic institutions, are
disdained by all free and enlightened Governments.”
This serious imputation is accompanied with no
specification or even vague allusion to the condem
ned measures, uor is this Government favored by
his Lordship with any information to guide conjec
ture as to his meaning.
The only reply which can be made to an allegation
so exceedingly indefinite is, that this Government
has authorized or used no other but ordinary and legi
timate modes of obtaining evidence against Brit
ish officers, nor has it any reason to believe or sus
pect that any persons, with or without its counte
nance, have adopted any measures whatever for
obtaining such evidences which would not find
abundant sanction in the established practice of the
administration of penal law in Great Britain. It is
a significant fact that on the trials in Philadelphia
and New York, in which the accused were convic
ted for being engaged in carrying out the scheme
of recruitments within the United States, no such ob
jection as that by which Lord Clarendon would fain
set Aside all the evidence as worthless was interpos
ed or made to appear, though some of Her Mqjestv ;
officers were present at these trials, took a deep
interest in the acfence of the criminals, and were
directly implicated by the proofs as participants in
tile offence.
Repelling this charge of imitatiug “despotic insti
tutions, ’ and doing what is “disdained by all free
and enlightened governments,'’ it is proper to re
mark that, if it were sustaintable, it would not warrant
the conclusion which Lord Clarendon has deduced
from it, which is. that the evidence “will fail to es
tablish any well founded charge against Her Ma
jesty’s Government.” It is far from being certain
that the measures adopted for obtaining the evi
dence. even if thev had been extraordinary and
exceptionable, would invalidtae it, for it might still
be of such a character as to carry conviction to the
mind of the truth of the allegations.
Should Her Britannic Majesty’s Government see
fit t o disclese any specific objection to the mode by
which the ovidence bos been obtained, or attempt in
any other way to impeach it. this Government will
then feel called on to vindicate its course, and show
its abilities to sustain its charges by evidence to
which uo just exception can be taken. Neither the
promises on which Lord Clarendon founds his a Tyu
men t for setting aside the testimony against the im
plicated British nor the inference he deduces
from them, can be admitted bv this Government.
Lord Clarendon must, I think, intend to be un
derstood as impeaching our neutrality in the preoeni
war, though theie appeal's to be some indistinctness
in his language. In commenting upon so grave a
charge, coining from so respectable an authority, it
is but fair to quote his own words :
** The United States profess neutrality in the pre
sent war between the Western Powers aud Russia;
but have no acts been done within the United States,
by citizens thereof, winch accord little with the
spirit of neutrality ? Have not arms and ammuni
tion, and warlike stores of various kinds, been sent
in large quantities from the United States for the ser
vice of Russia
It is certainly a novel doctrine of international
law, that traffic Dv citizens or subjects of a neutral
power with belligerents, ihough it should be iu arms,
ammunition ana warlike stores, eompromits the
neutrality of that power. The enterprise of individ
uals, citizens of the United States, may have led
them in some instances, and to a limited’ extent, to
trade with Russia in some of the specified articles,
is not denied—nor is it necessary that they should bei
for the purpose of vindicating this government from
the charge of having disregarded the duties of neu
trality in the present war.
Lord Clarendon is most respectfully asked to look
on the other side of the case . Have the citizens of
the United States had no traffic with Great Britain
during the present war. in arms, ammunition, and
warlike stores ? It must be known to his Lordship,
for it is a matter of notoriety, that our citizens, m
their character as individual's, have rendered sub
stantial aid to both England and France in the
prosecution of hostilities against Russia. Though
Lord Clarendon may have momentarily forgotten,
he will readily call to mind the fact, that a large
number of our merchant ships have been engaged,
from the commencement ot the war down to the
present time, in transporting troops and munitions
of war for Great Britain from British ports either
in the United Kingdom or in the Mediterranean,
to the Crimea, nothing of the numerous
American merchant vessels employed in convey
ing troops and munitions of war from the ports of
France.
Private manufacturing establishments in the Uni
ted States have been resorted to for powder, arms,
and warlike stores for the use of the Allies, and im
mense quantities of provisions have been furnished
to supply their armies in the Crimea. In the face
of these facts, open and known to all the world, it
certainly was not expected that the British Govem
mK°k Woai<i k &ve alluded to the very limited traffic
which some of our citizens may have had with Rus
sia, as sustaining a solemn charge against this Go
♦ifH'ov 111 ™l*ting neutral obligations towards
may have shared scantily, but
u D * V€ i partaken largelv in
j benefits derived from the capital, the industry.
! and the inventive geniu* of American ettiwis
! l ° bnt " thi. Govern
, men! ha* h*d no connection witi liMe proceedings,
neither belligerent has any just ground of compWmt
: against it. r
ILord Clarendon further asks, "Have not plots
been openly avowed, and conspiracies entered into
without disguise or hindrance in various parts of the
Cnion, to tMte advantage of the war in whioh Great
AUGUSTA, GA., WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH J 2, 1856.
Brit.un is engaged, and to seize the opportunity tor
promoting insurrection in Her Majesty''a dominions,
and the invasion thereof by an armed force pr*x*eod
i ing from the United States?**
i This Government replies that it has no knowledge
or belief whatever of the existence of any such plots
or conspiracies. It has only seen it stated in En
flish newspapers that a few persons from Ireland
ad congregated together at Boston, or in its vi
cinity, adopted some resolutions in relation to the
condition of their countrymen at home, and made
some suggestions in relation to what they regarded
as an amelioration of the condition of the land of
their birth. It was not here c onsidered a noticeable
affair, and only became known to any member of
this Government by the comments upon it which ap
peared in the British press. On inquiry, it is ascer
tained that a very few' individuals were present at
that meeting, and it was probably the result of the
British scheme of recruiting which was at that time
vigorously prosecuted in Boston. It was a proceed
ing no more noticeable, and far less harmful, than
the daily machinations of foreign fugitives collected
in Loudon against the Government of their native
countries. Those who assembled in Boston will
probably rejoice at having effected much more than
they ;uitkdpoled when they shall iearn that their
proceedings have attracted the attention of Her
Britannic Majesty’s Government, and been regarded
as a disturbing movement against the British do
minions.
If the British Government believed that plots and
conspiracies are really on foot in any part of the
United States, and will furnish any clue by which
they can be detected, it may be assumed that this
Government will act promptly and efficiently in
bringing them to light, and punishing the offenders;
and it will not consider itself in any way relieved
from doing its whole duty in this respect by what
has taken place here in reference to recruitments
for the British army.
This Government is not less mindful than that of
Great Britain or France of the many ties and sym
pathies which connect the people' of the United
States with those two powerful nations, and it will
go as far and do as much as either to strengthen and
cherish those sentiments, in the hope of making
them available for all legitimate purposes to
maiutaiu friendly relations, and increase social and
commercial intercourse; but Great Britain ought not
to indulge the expectation that those sentiments
can be permitted to draw the United States over
the line which marks their duty to themselves as
to the belligerents and all friendly powers.
It would be an inexcusable perversion of such sen
timents if they were permitted to induce this Go
vernment to pass unnoticed the violation of its laws,
or to throw' open ite territories to the recruiting offi
cers of any foreign power.
The expectation that the United States would
yield to such pretensions, or forbear to claim redress
when such an affront to their sovereign rights had
been offered, could only be founded on a belief that
they were prepared to abandon their positions of
strict neutrality and run the hazard of plunging into
the struggle which now convulses Europe.
Supported a a this Government is in the charges
made against British officers and agents, of having
infringed our laws and violated our sovereign terri
torial rights, and being able to3Ustain that charge by
competent proof, the President would fail in due re
spect for the national character of the United States,
and in his duty to maintain it, if he did not decline
to accept, ns a satisfaction for the wrongs com
plained of, Lord Clarendon’s assurance that these
officials were enjoined a strict observance of our
laws, and that lie does not believe that any of them
have disregarded the injunction.
This Government believes, and has abundant !
io warrant its belief, that Efer Britannic Ma- <
jesty's officers and agents have transgressed our
laws and disregarded our rights, and that its solemn j
duty requires that it should vindicate by insisting
upon a proper satisfaction. The President indulges
the hope that this demand for redress will be deemed >
reasonable, and be acceded to by Her Britannic Ma
jesty’s Government.
This Government has indicated the satisfaction 1
which it believes it has the right to claim from the • .
British Government, in my despatch to you of the
13th of July lust. '
The President directs you to urge upon Her Bri
tannic Majesty’s Government the views contained
in that dispatch, and to read this to Lord Clarendon, !
and deliver a copy if he should desire it.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, -
W. L. Marct. 1
James Buchanan, Esq., &e., &e.
[Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Morey .]
[Extract.] <
Legation of the United States. )
London, Nov. it, 1855. $ *
Sir : * * * * * * * # <
According to the appointment mentioned in my last 1
despatch, I met Lord Clarendon yesterday after- *
noon at the foreign office. After some unimportant |
conversation, I told him that on my return to the 1
legation on Monday last I found a despatch from j
yourself on the recruitment question, which I had 1
been instructed to read to him, and furnish him a
copy if requested. He said he had also despatches J
from Washington on the same subject. I then sta- f
ted that Mr. Crampton having promised, in his note *
of the 7th of September, to address you again after I
hearing from his lordship, I should be glaa to know '
whether he lmd furnished instructions to Mr. f
Crampton for this purpose. He told me he had not; 1
that he had pursued the usaul diplomatic course in
such cases, in addressing me a note in answer to the
note addressed by you to Mr. Crampton; I said
very well; then your note to me of the 27th of Sep- *
tember is the answer to Mr. Marcy's note to Mr. *
Crampton of the sth of that month, and the des- J
patch which I was about to read to him was your 1
answer to his note to me of the 27th of September, t
To this he assented. a
I then read to him your despatch to me of the 13th
of October, to which lie listened throughout with
great apparent attention. After reading lie request
ed a cony and I delivered him the duplicate which
you had forwarded. He then asked what was the
nature of the satisfaction from the British govern
ment to which you had referred in your despatch
just read. I said that the best mode of giving him
the information was to read to him this despatch of
yours to me, which I accordingly did, * * * *
of which he also desired a copy, and I promised to
furnish it. I had prepared myself to state in con
versation the substance of what the despatch re
quired from the British government, but having the
despatch with me, I thought it better at the mo
ment, in order to prevent all misapprehension, to
read it to him, as it had evidently been prepared
with much care. I have sent him a copy of it to
day. ********
I then stated, his lordship would observe that the
government of the United States had two causes of
complaint; the one was such violations of our neu
trality laws as might be tried and punished in the
courts of the United States; the otner—to which I
especially desired to direct his attention—consisted
in a violation of our neutrality, under the general
law of nations, by the attempts which had been
made by British officers and ngents, not pnnishnble
under our municipal law, to (haw military forces
from our territory to recruit their armies in the
Crimea. As examples of this, I passed in review
the conduct of Mr. Crampton, of the lieutenant go
vernor of Nova Scotia, and the British consuls at
New York and Philadelphia.
I observed that, in his note of the 16th July, he
had assured me that the individuals engaged in re
cruiting in the United States, acted upon their indi
vidual responsibility, and had no authority for their
proceedings from any British officials, by whom their
conduct was condemned. In addition, he had sta
ted that instructions had been sent out to Sir Guh
pard le Marchant to stop all enlistments ’ll North
America. {Yes, his Lordship observed, they were
sent out on the 22d June last.) I said I had ex
pressed the satisfaction which I felt in transmitting
this note to Mr. Marcy, and was, therefore, sorry to
say satisfactory proof existed that Mr. Crampton and
other British officers had before and since been en
| gaged in aiding and countenancing these proceed
ings and recruitments. In fact, Waguer had been
convicted at New York for a violation of our neu
trality law r , committed at so late a period as the 3d of
August.
Lord Clarendon sat silent and attentive whilst I
was making these remarks, and then took from his
drawer several sheets of paper containing extracts
from a despatch of Mr. Crampton, (received, as I
understood, by tLe last steamer,) some of which ho
read to me.
Mr. Crampton emphatically denies the truth of
Strobel’s testimony and Hertz’s confession, as
well as all complicity in the recruitments. I ex
pressed my surprise at this, and said that Strobel’s
character was respectable, so fur as I had ever
learned, and that his testimony was confirmed
by several documents implicating Mr. Crampton,
which had been given in evidence on the trial of
Hertz. 1 told him he w'onld see this on a perusal
of the trial itself, of which I gave him a copy.
In concluding this part of the conversation, Lord
Clarendon declared, m a sincere and emphatic man
ner, that nothing had been further from the intention
of the British Government than to violate the neu
trality of the United States, or to give them cause of
offence. He could also declare, in regard to himself
personally, that he would not act in such a manner
towards one of the weakest Powers—not even to
wards Monaco—and certainly would not do so to
wards the great and powerful republic of the United
States, for which he had ever entertained the warm
est feelings of respect and friendship.
We afterwards had some conversation about the
invasion of Ireland, which I have never treated se
riously. In regard to the Russian privateer alleged
to be fitting out at the port of New York, I told him
that since our last conversation I had seen two gen
tleman v. ho had just arrived from New York, who
assured me they would be likely to know or have
heard of it were any such steamer building, and they
treated the report to that effect, on this side of the
Atlantic, as idle and unfounded. In reply, he in
formed me that the fact was substantiated, and the
steamer described in a particular manner, which he
detailed, by three depositions which had been for
warded by the British consul at New York, to Mr.
Crampton, who had brought the subject to your no
tice, and you had promised to inquire into it. * *
Ja.Mll? BUCHASAS.
[Mr. Bucb.anan to Mr. Marcy.]
[Extract.]
Legation of the United States , ?
London, November 9, 1855. $
Sir: I had an interview with Lord Clarendon on
yesterday, bv appointment, and shall now report to
vou, as nearly as I can recollect it, our conversation.
After the usual salutations, I said to him. ••Your
lordship, when we last parted, asked me to help you
to keep the peace between the two countries, which
I cordially promised to do ; and I have come here
to-day to make a suggestion to you with this intent.
“Y'ou have now learned the prompt and energetic
action of the government of tne United States, in
causing the seizure and examination of the vessel at
New York, wL'ch you had learned was intended for
a Russian privateer. Upon this examinition, she has
turned out to be the bark Maury, built for the China
trade, and bound to Shanghae. The ten iron can
non in the hold and and four cm deck, together with
the other arms on board, were designed to furnish
arms to the merchantmen in the Chinese seas, to
enable them to defend themselves against the pi
rates. so numerous in that quarter. The lime of ner
sailing had been announced for three weeks in five
daily journals, and she was to take out four Chris
tian* missionaries. So satisfactorily did the examina
tion prove to be that Mr. Barclay, the British con
sul. had himself assented to her discharge.
“Your lerdship stated to me at our last meeting
that the reason why the- British fleet had been sent
to the vicinity of the United States was the infor
mation 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 Aus
tralia. You have now received the clearest evi
dence, not only that this was all a mistake, as I
predicted at the time it would prove to be, but also
that the government of the United States has acted
with energy ?nd good faith in promptly causing the
vessel to be seized and examined. Now, my lord,
the cause having proved to be without foundation,
the effect ought to cease, and I c-ainestiy suggest to
you the propriety of issuing an order to withdraw
the fleet.
Hu? 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 conriderarionTout, of course, he could do
nothing without consulting the cabinet. Os this,
however, he could assure me most positively, as he
had done at our former interview, that nothing could
be further from their intention than any, even the
most remote, idea of a menace in sending oat the
fleet. Immediately after our conservation on Thurs
day last. Le had sent to the Admiralty and reques
ted that orders might be issued that the vessels sent
out should not go near the coasts of the United
States. Sir Cbaries Wood and Admiral Berkeley
had both informed him that it was never their in
tention that they should approach our coasts, and
he could assure me that none of these vessels would
ever go ‘‘poking ’ about our ports. Besides, he said.
Sir Chariee Wood had informed him that but three
vessel? had been sent out—one to Bermuda, and
the other two to Jamioca. [1 observed this was a
mistake, but I could not interrupt him.l He re
plied, this was the information he bad received from
Sir Charles. James Buchanan.
[Lord Clarendon to Mr. Crampton .]
Foreign Office. ?
November 16. 1855. {
Sir : —ln my despatch to you. No. 254), of the 2d
instant, I enclosed the copy of a despatch from Mr.
Marcy which had been reaa to me, and placed in my
hands by Mr. Buchanan.
Before I proceed to offer any remarks upon this
dispatch, it will be proper to state that when it was
read to me by Mr. Buchanan I had no cognisance
of Mr. Marcv s despatch of the 15th of July to which
it alludes, arid of which a copy was also transmitted
to you ; and upon my observing this to Mr. Buch
anan, he said he hail not thought it necessary to
communicate it to me. as before it had reached him.
be had received mv note of the 16th 4 of July, which
hejthought would dnally settle the question'that had
arisen between the two governments.
Her Majesty’s government shared the opinion of
Mr. Buchanan. They did not doubtthat the frank
expression of their regret for any violation of the
United States law, which, contrary tj their instruc
tions, might have taken place, and of their deter
mination to remove all causes for further complaint
by putting an end to all proceedings for enlistment,
would have satisfactorily and honorably terminated
a difference between two governments’whose duty
it was to maintain the friendly relations which have
hitherto and to their great reciprocal advantage,
happily subsisted between Great Britain and the U.
States. But as this expectation has been disap
pointed, and as a spirit altogether at variance with
it has been manifested by the government of the
United States, her Majesty's government, while they
fully appreciate the friendly motives which actuated
Mr. Buchanan, are now disposed to regret that he
withheld the dispatch of Mr. Marcy, as it would
have called their attention to proceedings against
which the United States government thought itself
called upon to remonstrate, and which would at
once have been inquired into, as her Majesty’s
government, in a matter which concerned the
law of the United States, were scrupulously
desirous that no just cause for complaint should
arise.
This despatch, however, of which Mr. Buchanan
has given u copy, together with Mr. Marcy’s de
spatch of the 13th of October, have now been con
sidered with all the attention that is due to them ;
and in conveying to you the opinion of her Miyes
ty’s government, I shall endeavor to exclude from
discussion the subjects which are foreign to the
question immediately at issue, and which might
lead to irritation ; and this course will be the more
proper as her Majesty’s government observe
with satisfaction that Mr. Marcy’s note es the 13th
October is not framed in the tone of . hostility which
characterized his note of tho sth of September to
you.
It appears that two distinct charges are made
against the officers and agents of her Majesty’s gov
ernment :
First. Thatthev have within the United States ter
ritory infringed t-he United States law ; and second
ly, that they have violated the sovereign territorial
rights of the United States by being engaged in “re
cruiting” for the British army within the United
States territory.
Now, with respect to both these charges, I have
to observe, that the information possessed by her
Majesty’s government is imperfect, and' that
none of a definite character has been supplid by
the despatches of Mr. Marcy, inasmuch as no in
dividual British officer or agent is named, and no
particular fact or tune or place is stated, and it
is therefore impossible at present to know either who
is accused by Mr. Marcy, or what is the charge he
makes, or what is the evidence on which he intends
to rely.
Her Majesty’s government have no meaus of
knowing who are the persons really indicated by the
general words “officers and agents of her Majesty’s
government,” whether such persons as those who
[have] been under trial are the only persons meant
to be charged, or if not, who else is to be included,
or what evidence against them is relied upon by the
United States government.
It is true that you and her Majesty's consuls are
personally charged in Mr. Marcy’s note to you of the
•>th September, but neither you nor they are alluded
to in Mr. Marcy’s dispatch of October 13 to Mr.
Buchanan; which might unreasonably have been ex
pected, if it really be the intention of the United
States government to charge you or them with being
“malefactors sheltered from conviction,” (to use the
official language of the United States Attorney
General.)
They must therefore request the United States
government to make and establish more distinct
charges, with proper specification against particular
individuals by name; and that government will, I
am confident, not deny thejusticc and the necessity
of giving each person implicated the opportunity of
knowing wlmt is alleged against himself, and of
dealing with the evidence by which the charge may
be supported.
I shall accordingly abstain from offering the re
marks which a perusal of the evidence at tne recent
trials and the character and conduct of the witnesses
have naturally suggested; nor will I observe upon
the temper and spirit in which the officers of the
United States government have throughout pro
ceeded, and which displayed their desire rather to
influence the public mind against her Majesty’s go
vernment, than simply to prove the facts necessary
to convict the accused parties; this tone and spint
being the more remarkable when it is remembered
that the proceedings complained of had been for
some time definitely abandoned, out of deference to
the United States government, and that the ques
tion to be determined was the character and com
plexion of acts done many months previously under
a state «f things no longer existing.
With reference to the second charge made by Mr.
Marcy—namely, that of “ violating the sovereign
territorial rights of the United States, by recruiting
for the British army within their territories”—l have
to observe, that apart from any municipal legisla
tion in the United States bn the subject of foreign
enlistment, or in the entire absence of any such
legislation, Great Britain, ns n belligerent nation,
would commit no violation of the “sovereign terri
torial rights of the United States” simply by enlist
ing as soldiers, within British territory, persons
who might leave the United States territory in order
so to enlist. The violation alleged is the recruiting
within the United Slates; but to assume that there
was in fact any such “ recruiting,” (that is, hiring or
retaining by British officers.) is to beg the question.
It appears to her Majesty ’s government, that pro
vided only no actual “recruiting,” (that is, enlisting
or hiring) takes place within the United States, Bri
tish officers, who, within the United States territo
ries, might point out the routes which intending re
cruits should follow, or explain to them the terms
upon which they would be accepted, or publish and
proclaim such terms, or even defray their travelling
expenses, or do similar acts, could not be justly
charged with violating such sovereign territorial
rights. It has been legally decided in the United
States that the payment of the passage from that
country of a man who desires to enlist in a foreign
port does not come within the neutrality laws of the
United States, and that a person may go abroad,
providing the enlistment be in a foreign place, not
having accepted and exercised a commission.
It would, indeed, be a violation of territorial rights
toonlist and organize, and train men as British sol
diers within the United States—and whether or not
this has been done by British authority is the ques
tion involved in the first of Mr. Marcy’s charges—
» l it is decidedly no violation of such rights to per
suade or assist men merely to leave the United
States territory, and to go into British territory, in
order, when they arrive there, either to be volunta
rily enlisted in British service or not, at their own
discretion. There can be no question that the men
who went tollalifax were free, and not compelled to
be soldiers on their arrival. Upwards of one hun
dred Irishmen in one body, for instance, if her Ma
jesty’s government are rightly informed, refused to
enlist on arriving there, and said they came in order
to work on a railway. They were, therefore, not
enlisted, hired, or retained as soldiers in the United
States ; no attempt was made to enforce against
them amr such contract or engagement.
Mr. Marcy cites no authority for the position he
has assumed in relation to this paiticular doctrine of
the effect of foreign enlistment on sovereign territo
rial rights : but the practice of nations has been very
generally adverse to the doctrine, as proved by the
numerous instances in which foreign troops have
been, and still are, raised and employed.
It cannot therefore be said that Mr. Marcy’s doc
trine is in accordance with the general practice of
nations ; and high authority might be quoted direct
ly adverse to any such doctrine as applicable to free
countries, “ übi nvitas non career est. ' Blit even
admitting the alleged doctrine as to the bearing of
the principle of territorial sovereignty its applica
tion must obviously be subject to many limitations
in practice.
Her Majesty had Tor instance) internationally an
unquestionable right to recall to her standard dis
played upon her own territory those of her own sub
jects capable of bearing arms who might be tran
siently or temporarily resident in a foreign country,
and her Mujesty would not thereby incur any risk of
violating the “ territorial sovereignty” of such a
country. Again : in the case of political refugees,
driven from their own country, an essentially migra
tory class, owing a merely local and qualified alle
giance to the United States, is it to be contended
that to induce such persons by any fair means short
of “ hiring” or enlisting them to leave the United
States in order to enroll themselves on British terri
tory as volunteers in a war which many of them feel
the strongest and most natural desire to engage,
is to violate the territorial sovereignty of the L nited
States.
It is. of course, competent to any nation to enact a
municipal law. such as actually exists in many
countries, forbidding its subjects to leave its territo
ry, but in such cases “ chit as career cst ami it
may be the duty of other countries to abstain from
actively assisting the captives to escape from the
national prison in order to serve another master ; but
the government of the United States has enacted no
such law—it justly boasts of its complete freedom in
this respect, “ civitas non career cst all residents
therein, whether foreigners or citizens, are perfectly
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 them or persuade
them to do what is thus lawful can constitute no vio
lation 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 States citizen, r as far as her Majesty’s
government are aware, were engagedboth those
actually enlisted within the British North American
provinces, and those expected were, to the beet of
our belief, exclusively foreigners, and not citizens
of the United States.
Without entering further into a discussion of this
peculiar doctrine. I will only remark that at all
events 2 it was not proclaimed or insisted upon by
the United States, eitner at the commencement of
the war or when the desire of her Majesty’s govern
ment to raise a foreign legion was first published,
or when a recruiting station was first opened at Hali
fax.
The United States therefore, although always
and most properly insisting on their rights and in
tention to punish violations of their municipal law,
took no step to proclaim or vindicate the particular
doctrine now set forth until a very late period of the
discussion, and after the time for giving effect to it
had gone by. The charge “violation ofsovengn
territorial rights'' cannot, therefore, in the opinion
of her Majesty's government, be fairly urged as a
seperate and different charge from that violation of
the municipal law of the United States. But the
municipal law was certainly not violated by the
orders, nor, as far as they believe, by the officers of
her Majesty's government; and both her Majesty's
government and her Majesty's minister at Was h
mrton gave reiterated orders to all concerned care
fully to abstain from such violations; and if the
British government did not purposely cause the
United States law to be violated, then the territo
rial rights of the United States, whatever they
may be. were not, as has been said, intentionally vio
lated by Great Britain “as a nation,' even if it
should be shown that the municipal law of the Union
was infringed.
Before I conclude this despatch it may be useful
to place on record certain facts connected with the
questions of recruiting in North America, the cor
rectness of which w ill, I douht not be admitted by
Mr Marcy; and I will observe first: That the
United States government were from the first per
fectly wefl aware that her Majesty’s government
were in want of recruits and were deeiorus of raising
a foreign legion. Secondly: That preparations
were making to receive recruits in a British North
American eoiony for such a legion. Thirdly : That
her Majesty’* government expected to receive re
cruits there for such a legion from the United
States, although, whilst so doing, they were anxious
not to violate the United States law.
Fourthly . That many British subjects and for
eigners in the United States were bona fide “volun
teers,” desirous from various, but natural and pow
erful motives, to enlist. Numerous offers to raise
men within the United States were made, but were
connatenriy and honorably refused by her Majesty •
ministers and consuls, in order to avaid violating the
1 United States law.
Fifthly : That Mr. Marcy was in confidential com
munication with you on the subject without ever,
that I am aware of, warning you against attempt
ing of the kind, or stating that the United
State* would resist or resent it, apart from any ques
tion of municipal law ; thus, in effect, acquiescing,
and only insisting that the United States law should
be respected.
Sixthly : That as soon as it became apparent that
the United States government was adverse to the
scheme, and that it mic;ht lead to violations of the
United States law, the whole project was abandon
ed out of deference to the l uited States ; but this
conclusive proof of the good faith and good will of
her Majesty’s government has not been noticed or
appreciated by the government of the United
States.
Seventhly: That the whole question in dispute
uow turns, not on what is doing, or shall or may be
done, by her Majesty’s government, but on what
was done many months ago under a system wliich
is not continuing nor about to be revived, and which
has beon voluntarily aud definitely abandoned, in
order to satisfy the United States, and to prevent
the occurrence of any just ground for complaint.
The foregoing facts and considerations, which de
monstrate that no offence to the United States was
offered or contemplated by her Majesty's govern
ment, may, perhaps, have weight w’ith Mr. Marcy,
if the matter at issue is to bo settled in a manner be
coming the governments of Great Britaiu and the
United States, and with a deep sense of the respon
sibility which weighs on them to maintain uninter
rupted and unshaken the relations of friendship
which now exist between the two countries ; aud her
Majesty’s government, fully reciprocating the feel
ings of the United States government, expressed in
Mr. Marey’a despatch, with regard to the many ties
and sympathies which connect together the people
es the two countries, do not permit themselves to
doubt that such further discussions as may take
place on this question will be conducted in a spirit
of conciliation.
It only remains for me to state that no enlistment
in the British service is valid without attestation ;
and that, according to British laws, a recruit cannot
be attested in a foreign country, nor even in the
British colonies, without a specially delegated au
thority for that purpose. No binding contract could,
therefore, be made with any man within the United
States—promises might be so made, but any money
given to men to enable them to repair to places be
yond the United States territory, for the purpose of
being enlisted, would be advanced at a risk ; never
theless, if it can be shown that there are persons now
iii 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 prepared to offer them their discharge,
and to give them free passage back to the United
States, if they choose to return thither.
You are instructed to read and give a copy of this
despatch to Mr. Marcy.
[JjOrd Clarendon to Mr. Crampton.]
[Delivered to Mr. Marcy in the course of the month
of May, 1855.]
Foreign Office, April 5, 1855.
Sir I entirely approve of your proceedings, as
reported in your despatch No. 57, of the 12th ult.,
with respect to the proposed enlistment in the Queen s
scri'ice of foreigners and British subjects in the
United States.
The instructions which I addressed to you upon
this subject and those which were sent to the gov
ernor of Nova Scotia were founded upon the re
mits from various quarters that reached her Majes
ty's government of the desire felt by many British
subjects as well as Germans in the United States to
enter the Queen’s service for the purpose of taking
part in the war in the East; but the law of the Uni- 1
ted States with respect to enlistment, however con- 1
ducted, is not only very just but very stringent, ac
cording to the report which is enclosed in your de- 1
spatch, and her Alnjesty’s government would on no 1
account run any risk of infringing this law of the '
United States. «
[ Mr. Marcy to Mr. Buchanan .]
Department of titalc, )
Washington, Dec. 28,18J5. £
Sir: I have received from Mr. Crampton, her
Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minis
ter plenipotentiary to this government, a despatch
addressed to him by the Earl of Clarendon, her Ma
jesty’s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Af
fairs, in reply to my despatch''to you of the 13th of
October.
This document had been carefully considered by
the President, and I am directed to present to you
his views thereon, for the purpose of having them
laid before her Majesty’s government.
It is perceived with deep regret that there exists a
very wide difference of opinion between this gov
ernment and that of Greaf Britain, in regard to the
principles of law involved in the pending discussion,
and a still wider difference, if possible, as to the ma
terial facts of the case.
It is due, alike to the serious importance of the
questions under consideration, and to the sincere re
spect entertained for the elevated character and po
sition of Lord Clarendon, that opinions and views so
much in conflict with his should be not merely an
nounced, but sustained.
To do tins I shall be obliged to occupy much
space, and notice several delicate topics; but, in
performing this unavoidable duty, 1 shall refrain.as
far as practicable, from any allusion to subjects
which may lead to irritation; but I hope to re
move the impression from Lord Clarendon’s mind
that my previous despatches have manifested a “tone
of hostility,” and have been framed in a spirit incom
patible with the duty which I feel as sensibly as he
can, of maintaining friendly relations between the
two countries.
I am quite certain that Lord' Clarendon is not
aware of the serious importance which the United
States attach to the question under discussion ; oth
erwise he would not have so harshly characterized
the conduct of the United States officers on whom
the duty to suppress recruiting for the British ser
vice was devolved; nor would he have so freely ar
raigned the motives of this government for requiring
some satisfaction for what it regards as a grave na
tional wrong.
The variant views of the British government in
relation to recruiting for its armies within the United
States render the precise position it intends to main
tain Homewhat uncertain.
To present the different aspects in which the two
governments view the case, and to show the reason
for dissenting from some of the statements, and
the main conclusion contained in Ix>rd Claren
don’s despatch of the ltitli of November, a recur
rence to the prominent points appears to be indis
pensable.
The claim put forth in that despatch, of the right
of a foreign belligerent power to resort to the terri
tories of a neutral State to recruit its armies, and for
that purpose to employ such means as he justifies,
raises one of the gravest international questions
which can come under consideration. If that right
be conceded, then any foreign power can justifiably
resort to measures for recruiting its armies within
the jurisdiction of this country, almost co-extensive
with those which can be employed by this govern
ment.
Before adverting to the conduct of the officers
and agents of her Majesty’s government, in recruit
ing within the territories of the United §tates, it
will be necessary, not only to define our own rights,
but to ascertain the precise limits of British preten
sions.
After the debatable ground shall be clearly ascer
tained, the range of discussion will, it is hoped, be
reduced to narrow limits, and the probability of an
amicable acyustment of the present difficulties in
creased.
When the Parliament of Great Britain authorized
foreign enlistment, there was no apprehension here
that the United States would be resorted to for that
purpose. This government had what was regarded
ns the assurance of her Majesty’s government that
enlistments in this country would not be attempted
by British authority unless notice was given and
its consent obtained.
While the bill for foreign enlistments was under
consideration in Parliament, her Majesty’s ministers
were warned against resorting to a measure which
would be dangerous to peaceful relations with other
powers.
When the Duke of Newcastle, her Majesty's Sec
retary of War, and a member of the Cabinet, intro
duced that bill into the House of Lords, he was asked
to state from what country the foreign legion was to
be obtained, and he replied that the question could
not be answered until communications were had
with foreign governments. No such communication
has ever been made to this government ; but on the
contrary, much was done here, after the plan of re
cruitment was in full operation, to allay the suspi
cion that the British government was in any wise
connected with it.
After her Majesty’s ministers came to the deter
mination to raise recruits within the United States,
it is much to be regretted that their purpose, together
with the instructions to their agents, was not made
known to this government. There is some vague
language used m the last despatch of Lord Claren
don, which seems to imply that this had been done ;
but it is not positively asserted, nor could it be. The
first intimation which reached this government that
recruiting in the United States had the sanction of
British authority, was derived from the proceedings
which had taken place in executing the plan of en
listment. The first step taken by the British gov
ernment, or any of its officers, in communicating
with that of the United States on the subject, was
one which implied an assurance that the Brilish gov
ernment not only had no connection with but actu
ally discountenanced the scheme of recruiting for
the British army, although it subsequently appeared
that the proceedings were supervised by British
officers, and conducted by their agents. This assu
rance was derived from a letter dated the 22d of
March, addressed by Mr. Crampton to the British
consul at New-York, and about that time read to me
I shall have occasion hereafter to bring that letter
under particular consideration.
Without any notification from the British Govern
ment of such an intention, it would have been ex
tremely illiberal to indulge a suspicion that her Ma
jesty’s ministers or officers had been so unmindful of
what was due to courtesy as to authorize, or even
countenance the unfriendly procedure of sending
agents into the United States to raise recruits for
the British army. The offenders against the laws of
the United States were therefore treated as individ
uals unconnected with the British government, and
unsustained by its authority or means -, but the judi
cial proceedings against them soon disused facts
which established a complicity of her Mayty’a offi
cers in the British provinces m this sc mane of re
cruiting within the United States. Jr
The next step in the progress of 40febts was the
delivery in May, at the Department of State, of a
copy of a despatch from Lord Clarendon to Mr.
Crampton, dated the 12th of April last, relating to
that subject. This pape r demands special attention.
It conveyed the first distinct intimation that her
Majesty’s ministers had given instructions for enlist
ments in the United States, together with the fact
that to the British minister, Mr. Crampton, had
been assigned some duty in that service. Lord
Clarendpn says to Mr. Crampton in that despatch,
“ I entirely approve of your proceedings, as report
ed in your despatch No. 57, of the 12th ult., with re
spect to the proposed enlistment, in the Queen’s
service, of foreigners and British subjects in the
United States.” Thus it was brought to light that
the British cabinet had pre posed enlistments in the
United States, and had employed her Majesty’s en
voy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary ac
credited to this government to aid in the underta
king. When this despatch was received at this de
partment, Mr. Crampton was in the British pro
vinces. It had direct reference to the enlistment,
for the Queen’s service, of foreigner- and British
subjects in the United States. The object to be ac
complished was against law; and it is difficult to
conceive what one step Mr. Crampton could have
taken in furtherance of it without putting at defi
ance an act of Congress which prohibits, in explicit
terms and under heavy penalties, such a proceeding.
Being satisfied that the government ot Great Bri
tain reciprocated our friendly sentiments, and that
it would not deliberately ana designedly authorize
proceedings within the jurisdiction of the United
States in contravention of their laws, this govern
ment was disposed to behave that there had beet
some strange on the subject by her
Majesty’s cabinet, and that the inadvertent misstep
would be retraced as soon as it was perceived, with
such explanations to this government as the circum
stances of the case seemed to require.
The closing part of the despatch alluded to was
interpreted as indicating a concioosness that the
British ministers, in authorizing enlistments in the
United States , had acted at first in utter ignorance of
the laws of this country for Lord Clarendon says,
“the law of the United States with respect to enlist
ments, however conducted, is not only very just but
very stringent, according to the report which is en
closed in your (Mr. Crampton s) despatch, and her
Majesty 's government would on no account run any
risk of infringing this law of the United States/
But, as that risk would be inevitably ran, if the de
sign should be pursued, it was expected that the
original scheme of recruiting within* the United
States would be promptly ana wholly abandoned.
After the lapse of time, this government discover
ed that it had looked with a mistaken confidence to
a roult so much desired. Throughout the months of
April, May. and .I an.•. ftIWMN of recruitment
proceeded upon a wider field, and with increased
vigor ; it was exteuded to regions which it had not
hitherto reached: the « Sorts of our magistrates aud
tribunals scarcely checked, but could not arrest it;
and prools were daily brought out which show that
the recruiting business derived vitality and energy
from the countenance and means afforded by her
Majesty’s officers resident iu the United States' ami
in tiie adjoining British provinces.
To arrest the evil, an appeal to the British govern
ment, unpleasant as such a step was, became ne
cessary, andiu the early part of June you were di
rected by the President to present the case to the
notice ot the Earl of Clarendon. 111 your note to
Lord Clarendon of the 6tli of July the case is clearly
and ably laid before his lordship, and he is as
sured that the government has reason to believe,
that British officers were engaged in carrying out a
scheme of recruiting for the British army* within the
United States in contravention of their laws and
sovereign rights . and you were instructed to ascer
tain from the British government how far these offi
cers lmd acted with or without its approbation, and
what measures, if any, had been taken to restrain
their unjustifiable conduct. Lord Clarendon was
assured that the President would be gratified to
learn that her Majesty’s government had not au
thorized the proceedings complained of: that it had
condemned the conduct of its officials engaged
therein ; had visited them witli its marked displea
sure, and taken measures to arrest the proceeding
complained of.
The reply to this note deserves particular notice
011 several accounts, but especially lor the difterenee
between it and the despatch of the 16th of Novem
ber, now under consideration.
Iu the note of the 16th of July Lord Clarendon
seems to admit that the restraining effect of the law
of the United States in regard to recruiting is sucli
as this government asserts it to be ; but, by his ex
position of that law in his despatch of the 16th No
vember, it is bereft of the very stringent character
he had before ascribed to it, and it is uow so con
strued by him ns to afford justification for such
acts as, in his former note, he conceded to be il
legal.
In the note to you of July the British government
only claimed the right to make generally known
to British subjects aud foreigners in tho United
States, who wished to enter her Majesty’s service
and tuke part in the war, its desire to accept these
volunteers, and to receive such us should present
themselves at an appointed place iu one of the Brit
ish provinces.
That Lord Clarendon intended, in his note of the 1
16th July, to exclude all pretension to a right to pub
lish handbills offering inducements, and to send
agents into the United States for recruiting purposes,
is shown by the following passage : “It can scarcely
be matter of surprise that, when it became known
that her Majesty’s government was prepared to ac
cept these voluntary offers, many persons, in various
quarters, should give themselves out as agents em
ployed by the British government, in the hope of
earning reward by promoting, though on their own
responsibility, an object which they were aware was
favorably looked upon by the British government.
Her Majesty’s government do not deny that the acts
and advertisements of these self-constituted and
unauthorized agents were, in munv instances, un
doubtedly violations of the laws of the United Suites;
but such persons lmd no authority whatever for their
proceedings from any British ngents, by all of
whom they were promptly and unequivocally dis
avowed.”
These positions taken by the Earl of Clarendon
brought the matter to a definite point. This govern
ment took issue upon his allegation, that the persons
engaged in recruiting in the United States, were
self-constituted, unauthorized agents, whose acts had
been disavowed; and it maintained, on the contrary,
that the persons performing them were authorized
agents, and had embarked in that service iu conse
quence of inducements, stronger than the mere hope
ofuucertain reward, held out to them by British offi
cers ; that they were promised commissions in the
British army, und some of them were actually re
ceived and treated as fellow -officers, and, as such,
were paid for their services, received instructions
from her Majesty's servants for the guidance of their
conduct while within the United States, and were
furnished iu the same way with abundant funds for
carrying on their recruiting operations in this coun
try. * The persons engaged in the United States in
recruiting were, in fact, llic agents and instruments
of eminent British functionaries resident here and
iu neighboring British provinces. The numerous
judicial investigations and trials have brought out a
mass of testimony too strong to be resisted, impli
cating those functionaries and sustaining the forego
ing allegations.
VY hen this state of the case was presented to Lord
Clarendon, with the designation by name of some of
the higher British officers, and with the assurance by
the President that the information he possessed did
not allow him to doubt their participation in the of
fence against the laws and sovereign rights of the
United States, his lordship did not then call for the
evidence, as he has since done, but disposed of it by
thegcnerhl declaration, “that even the extraordina
ry measures which have been adopted in various
parts of the Union to obtain evidence against her
Majesty’s servants, or their ageutSj by practices
sometimes resorted to under despotic institutions,
but which are disdained by all free and enlightened
governments, will] fail to establish any well-found
ed charge against her Majesty’s servants.”
It is presumed that his lordship’s misapprehension
as to the character of the evidence, and the means
by which 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 before given) and the specific
charges uguinst them, but for a particular statement
of the evidence by which these charges are sustain
ed, professing to have very imperfect information
in regard to the matters complained of, although full
four months had passed since his attention was first
called to them by this government.
The exposition he has given to the statute of the
United States against recruiting, and the restrictions
he has placed upon our sovereign rights, show that
his views on that subject have been greatly modi
fied since his first despatch was written.
As that law Is now construed by him, scarcely
any evidence, however obtained, or whatever be
its character, will be sufficient to implicate any
one in the offence of recruiting within the United
States.
If the views of Lord Clarendon as to that law and
the sovereign rights of the United States can be
maintained, the territories of this country are open,
almost without restriction to the recruiting opera
tions of all nations, and for that purpose any foreign
power may sustain a vigorous competition with this
government upon its own soil.
This Government does not contest Lord Claren
don’s two propositions in respect to the sovereign
rights of the United States—first, that in the absence
of municipal law, Great Britain may enlist , hire or
engage, as soldiers, within the British territory, per
sons who have left the United States for that pur
pose. This proposition is, however, to be understood
us not applying to persons who have been enticed
away from the country by tempting offers of re
ward, such as commissions in the British army,
high wages, liberal bounties, pensions, and portions
of the royal domain, urged on them while within the
United States by the officers and agents of her Ma
jesty’s government; and secondly, no foreign pow
er has a right “to enlist and organize and train men
as British soldiers within the United States.” The
right to do this, Lord Clarendon does not claim for
his government; and whether the British officers
have done so or not, is, as he appears to understand
the case, the only question at issue, so far as inter
national rights are involved, between the two
countries.
In his view of the question as to the rights of ter
ritory, irrespective of municipal law, Lord Claren
don is understood to maintain tlmt her Majesty’s
government muy authorize agents to do anything
within the United States, short of enlisting, and or
ganizing, and training men us soldiers for the British
army, with perfect respect to the sovereign rights of
this country.
This proposition is exactly the reverse of that
maintained by this government, which holds that no
foreign power whatever has the right to do cither of
the specified acts without its consent. No foreign
power can, by its agents or officers, lawfully enter
the territory of another to enlist soldiers for its ser
vice, or organize or train them therein, or even en
tice persons away in order to be enlisted, without
express permission.
This, as a rule of international law, was consider
ed so well settled that it was not deemed necessapr
so invoke the authority of publicists to support it.
lam not aware that any modern writer on inter
national law has questioned its soundness. As
this important principle is controverted by Lord
Clarendon, and as its maintenance is fatal to
his defence of British recruiting 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 a right of ma
jesty which cannot be violated by a foreign nation,
it is*not permitted to raise soldiers on the territory
of another without the consent of its sovereign.”—
Wolfius.
Vattel says, that “the man who undertakes to en
list soldiers in a foreign country without the sover
eign's permission, and, in general, whoever entices
awav the subjects of another State, violates one of
the most sacred rights of the prince and the nation.”
He designates the crime by harsher names than I
choose to use, which as he says, “is punishing with
the utmost severity in every well regulated State.”
Vattel further observes that, “it is not presumed
that their sovereign has ordered them (foreign re
cruiters, to commit a crimne; and supposing, even,
that they had received such an order, they ought not
to haveobeyed it ; their sovereign have no right to
command what is contrary to the laws of nature.”
Hautefeuille, a modern French author of much re
pute, regards permission, and acquiescence implies
pennsssion, by a neutral power to one belligerent,
though extended to both, to raise recruits in its ter
ritories, unless it was allowed in peace, to be an act
of bad faith, which comnrumits itn neutrality.
There can be do well founded distinction, in the
rule of international law, between raising soldiers
for a belligerent’s army and sailors for its navy
within a neutral country. Hautefenille says, “the
neutral sovereign is under obligation to prohibit
and prevent all levying sailors upon its territory
for the service of the belligerents.” Again he says,
“the neutral must prohibit, in an absolute maimer,
the levying of sailors upon its territory to complete
a ship’s company reduced by combat, or any other
cause.”
“ The prohibition to engage sailors on the territo
ry of a pacific prince must extend to foreigners who
are found in the ports of his jurisdiction, and even to
those.who belong to the belligerent nation owning
the vessel that wifehesto complete its crew, or ship s
company.”
Reference to other writers might be made to sus
tain the position contended for by this government,
and to overthrow ti nt advanced by Lord Claren
don, but the authority of those presented is deemed
sufficient for that purpose.
This view of the law on the subject was presented
to Parliament when the foreign enlistment bill was
under debate. On that occasion Lord Stanley said
tliat the object proposed by it was “to resort to a
practice which, for the last hundred years, the
opinion of European statesmen had not hesitated to
condemn.”
This is the doctrine on the subject of recruiting
soldiers and sailors by belligerents on neutral soil,
which this government maintains, and insists upon
applying to the present case.
There is another view of territorial rights which
Lord Clarendon has not distinctly brought out, but
which has a direct bearing upon the questions under
consideration. The extent of a nation's sovereign
rights depends in some measure, upon its municipal
laws. Other powers are bound, not only to abstain
from violating such laws, but to respect the policy
of them. The British officers who set in operation
the scheme for recruiting in this country, which re
sulted in numerous acts against its law, being
yond its jurisdiction, did not, by such a proceeding,
expose themselves to the penalties denounced by
that law ; but they violated its policy and their acts,
if done in obedience to the orders of their govern
ment, or in carrying out its purposes, involved that
government in responsibility for their conduct. It
is the sovereign right of every independent State,
that all foreign powers should abstain from authoriz
ing or instigating their officers or agents to do that,
even within theurown dominions, which would, as
a natural or very probable consequence, lead to the
contravention of the municipal laws of such State.
Some of the proceedings by British officers and
agents, in regard to recruiting within the United
States, though conducted beyond the limits thereof,
were considered by this government an infringe
ment of their sovereign rights, and constituted one
ground of remonstrance to her Majesty’s govern
ment
By Lord Clarendon’s exposition of the municipal
law of the United States, in respect to recruiting
therein has created much more surprise than the re
striction he has laid on the sovereign rights of this
country.
If I do not misconceive his meaning, Lord Claren-
VOL. LXX.—NEW SERIES VOlTxx. NO. 11.
don’s interpretation nearly annuls the clause in the
act of Coegress which prohibits enlisting within the
United States for foreign service, aud thus leaves to
British officers and agents full liberty to do almost
anything for that purpose.
He says “that no enlistment in tho British ser
vice is valid without attestation, and that accord
ing to British laws, a recruit cannot be a( tested in a
foreign countiy, nor even in the British colonies,
without a specially delegated authority for that pur
pose.”
The other provisions of the law which forbid
hiring or retaining persons within she United States
to go beyond the limits thereof, for tho purpose of
enlisting in foreign service, aro reduced to tho
same imbecility through a similar course of reason
ing. Lord Clarendon says : “No binding con
tract could, therefore, be' made with any man
within the United State- -promises might bo ho
made ; but any money given to men to ('liable
them to repair to places beyond the United States
territory tor the purpose of being enlisted, would bo
advanced at a risk.”
In order to prevent misconception as to Lord Cla
rendon’s view on this subject, and to show that tho
inferences hero deduced from thorn ore correct, I
add another extract from his despatch of tho 16th of
November:
“There can be no question that the men who
went to Halifax were free, and not compelled to bo
soldiers on their arrival. Upwards of one hundred
Irishmen in one body, for instance, if her Majesty's
government are rightly informed, refused to enlist
on arriving there, and said they came in order to
work on a railway. They were therefore not en
listed, hired, or retained, as soldiers iu the United
States ; no attempt was made to enforce against
them any sucli contract or engagement.”
Lord Clarendon, it is true, uses language in other
parts of that despatch which seems to admit that
enlisting into foreign military service within the U.
States or hiring or retaining persons to leave the
United States to enlist into such service, would be a
violation of the United States neutrality law ; but
this admission amounts to nothing, when taken in
connection with his definition of the terms enlisting,
hiring, or retaining. In his view, ub I understand
it, each act must be the result of a valid contract.
If the persons are not bound, when they have lcll
the United States, to perfect their enlistment, then
there lin6 been no violation of the United States
law. Such a contract made in the United States,
being expressly prohibited by law, would, of course,
be void. I think this conclusion is fairly deduced
from Lord Clarendon’s language, or rather, is his
own conclusion, stated by him in a different man
ner. ,
This government cannot concur in these views.—
They deprive the law of the United States of all
stringency, and render it a dead letter. The earlier
opinion of Lord Clarendon in regard to that law is
the one which this government strenuously main
tains.
In his despatch of the 12th of April to which 1
have already referred, he admits “ that the law of
the United Status with respect to enlistment, how
ever conducted, is not only very just, but very
stringent;” but, as I understand his latter opinion,
the law imposed very little restraint upon the Brit
ish officers and agents who embarked m the scheme
of recruiting in this country ; it left them with all
the liberty they had occasion to use for their pur
pose ; they could penetrate every part of the coun
try ; open rendezvous in any city; publish hand
bills, ornamented with the emblem of England's
royalty, presenting every inducement for enlisting
which a United States officer engaged in recruiting
troops for hiH own government eouhl offer; and yet
in doing all these things, they would comply with
the stringent instructions—so often repeated to
them, ami now so much relied on for their justifica
tion—not to violate the United States law of neu
trality.
Under the construction given by her Mtyesty’s
government to that law, the injunction not to vio
late it could have very little significance, and is not
admitted by this government ns an available excuse
for what was done by her Mtyeaty’s officers and
agents.
After the most deliberate and respectful consid
eration of Lord Clarendon’s views, in his despatch
of the lfith of November, as to the sovereign rights
of the United States, the effect of their neutrality
law, and the conduct of the British officers and
agents in carrying out the scheme of recruiting, this
government is constrained to differ most widely
from them all.
It cannot but regard the original design, which
had the sanction of the British cabinet, as a dange
rous measure, which should not have been ventured
on without the consent of the government. The
scheme for carrying out that design, which, it is pre
sumed, was devised in the United Stales or the
British provinces, was framed in an utter disregard
of the act of Congress, and almost every step in the
progress of executing it was attended by the trans
gression of that law.
The reasons offered by Lord Clarendon for not
having acted, on the complaint ot this government,
against the British officers who were engaged in
recruiting within the United States, and the prece
dent condition to bo performed before that com
plaint will be attended to, deserve particular con
sideration. Lord Clarendon says “they (her Miyoa
ty’s ministers) mast, therefore, request the United
States government to make and establish more dis
tinct charges, with proper specifications against par
ticular individuals uy name ; and that government
will, I am confident, not deny the justice and the
necessity of giving each person implicated the op
portunity of knowing what is alleged against him
self, and of dealing with the evidence by which the
charge maybe supported.”
In your note to Lord Clarendon of the 61 hos July,
the charges, ns well ns the* designation of persons,
were less distinctly presented than in the despatches
subsequently laid before her Majesty's government;
yet in Lord Clarendon’s reply to that note, he did
not object to the charges for being indefinite, or to
the designation of the persons implicated for uncer
tainty. lie did not deny that the United States
law hud been violated, but insisted that, it had
been done by self-constituted and unauthorized per
sons, for whose Brit ish officers wore not re
sponsible.
In mv despatch of the sth of September, address
ed to Mr. Crumpton, the charges were repeated
with more distinctness, and Mr. Crampton himself
and Sir Gaspard le Murchnnt, were both named.
Lord Clarendon appears to have understood that
her Majesty’s consuls in some of the cities of the
Union were included in the charge against British
officers resident within the United States. Nothing
was said in Lord Clarendon’s reply to my despatch
of the sth September, concerning his imperfect in
formation on the subject, or his, uncertainty ns to
the persons complained of; nor did he then call for
the evidence by which the participation of the Bri
tish officials in the infraction of the law of the Uni
ted States was to be established ; but lie set aside
the whole of the evidence by the sweeping allega
tion, that the practice resorted to for obtuiuing
it, rendered it incompetent “to establish any well
founded charge against her Majesty's servants.”
The ground taken in July—that the persons en
gaged m recruiting who had violated the laws of the
United States were self-constituted and unauthoriz
ed agents—is abandoned in his despatch of Novem
ber. In the latter it is not denied that these persons
have acted under the authority of the British govern
ment ; but her Majesty's ministers now propose to
give their attention to the demand of this go\ Mo
ment for redress, if it will make and establish more
distinct charges, with proper specifications against
particular individuals by name. Quite as much,
and, indeed, more than is usual, lias been done in
this case in specifying charges mid indicating the
persons implicated. The despatches from this go
vernment in the possession of the British ministers
made such disclosures ns to the infringement of the
law and rights of the United States, and ns to the
British officers and agents concerned therein, ua
called for a full investigation of the subject by her
Majesty’s government. Such an investigation on its
part was, in the opinion of the United States, due to
the friendly relations of the two countries, and
would have been in strict conformity to established
usages; but that government has remained appa
rently inactive, aiid is, it seems, disposed so to re
main until the American Secretary of State shall
name the individual persons accused, describe the
particular acts performed by each, with specifica
tion of time, place, and the evidence relied on to
sustain the charges ; until the proceedings shall as
sume, as it were, the form, and be conducted by the
legal rules, of a crimidul trial, in which the govern
ment of the United States is to present itself as the
prosecutor, and the accused as defendants.
It is believed that such a course is nnpredented
in diplomacy, and a dangerous departure from that
hitherto pursued in similar cases, if generally adopt
ed, it would introduce a new element of discord into
international intercourse, which could not fail to
disturb the peace of nation**, and would inevitably
lead to a protracted controversy, engendering at
each step hostile feeling between the parties.
Though the example of this government may not
be much regarded, I will refer to an instance of a
recent date, in a matter of less grave importance,
but of similar character to that under discussion, as
illustrating the course which, in the opinion of this
government, should have been pursued in this case.
Not long since her Majesty’s minister, Mr. Crump
ton, represented to this government that the bark
Maury was being fitted out in the port of New York
as a privateer to depredate upon the commerce of
the allies. The evidence, if it could be called such,
to support the charge, consisted of affidavits detail
ing loose rumors, and some circumstances abouthcr
equipment which justified a bare suspicion of an ille
gal purpose. If there could be a case which would
warrant the course suggested by her Magesty’s min
isters in respect to the complaint of this govern
ment against British recruitments within the United
States, it would be that of the bark Maury; but the
President, without the slightest hesitation or delay,
ordered proceedings to be instituted against that
vessel and against all persons who should be found
to be implicated. All the alleged causes of suspi
cion were immediately investigated, and Ihe result,
which showed the utter groundlessness of the charges,
was promptly communicated to her Majesty’§ gov
ernment.
If this government, acting upon the rule now pre
scribed in the case of British recruitments in this
cour try, had replied to that of Great Britain, on the
complaint against the bark Maury, that inasmuch
as Mr. Crompton had not made any definite charge;
had not named the persons accused, with a precise
statement of their acts, or when or where done, or
produced the evidence on which he intended to rely
to support his allegations, so that the persons con
cerned might have an opportunity to deal with it,
nothing would be done, no step would be taken,
until these preliminary matters should have been
attended to; would such a reply in the case of the
Maury have been what her Majesty's minister might
have expected; would it have been deemed courte
ous or friendly to the British government ?
Lord Clarendon may be well assured that such a
reply, in the l ase of the Maury, would have been quite
as satisfactory to her Majesty’s government as
is his reply to this government in relation to its re
monstrance and complaint against British recruit
ments within the United States.
Until this government was apprized by Lord
Clarendon’s despatch of the lGtb of November of
the position adverted to in regard to its complaint
with reference to that proceeding, it indulged a con
fident expectation that her Majesty’s ministers
would take the usual course in such cases. The
ground of the complaint were fully disclosed- the of
fence clearly stated: some of the British officers
named, and others, with more than usual precision,
indicated. Sufficient information was given to di
rect their inquiries, but her Majesty’s government
has refused to do more than offer to pass on the
issue which may be made between this govern
ment and those officers, after the pleadings and
proofs are laid before them, os prescribed in Lord
Clarendon's despatch.
For most controlling reason*, which on reflection,
will readily occur to Lord Clarendon, this process of
litigating the case is declined.
So far as respects the British officers And agents,
whose acta in carrying out the project of recruiting
in disregard of law were performed beyond the
limits of the United States ; and also, those persons
who acted within those limits, but have since left
the country, nothing further remains to be done.—
This result is deeply regretted ; the sense of wrong
which led this government most reluctantly to pre
sent their conduct to the consideration of her Ma
jesty’s government, as a violation of the law and
rights of the United States, survives the hope of re
dress. .
Before I present the President’s views in respect
to other British functionaries who arc implicated,
and who now hold official positions here by the con
sent of the Executive, it seems to be proper that
other parts of the despatch of the 16th of November
should be particularly noticed. ...
In that despatch Lord Clarendon has subjected
to unfair suspicion the purpose of this government
in seeking redress, and insisting upon it alter tho
proceedings complained of have censed, and as he
alleges, by the interpretation of the British govera
mThe circumstances which led to the abandonment
of the recruiting scheme will be adverted to here
-81 This act is regarded by bor Majesty’s government
as a favor for whiob the United mates are not ettifl
eiently grateful, lt'ii |„. n ~, . 7T 77
i'NitoS"" wm ti? by “"‘‘V 1
SioL ! ui w!«
discontinue recruiting by its
h national offence. This government oonnot receive
the mere suspension of wrong-doing, even if uuin
tin .j»nßl, aa a favor, a,l( * consequently does not
oousiaer Lord Cmrondon’s reflection upon it for not
?° receiving it .is at all deserved. As the proeeed
iu£s tor raising recruits for the British service in this
country resulted from instructions to her Majesty’s
officers here and iu the British provinces, issued by
the minister of the crown for that express purpose,
the order to discontinue them is regarded os a mere
act of justice, but iu no respeot a satisfaction for a
past injury.
This Government asked, ns a part of the satisfac
tion due to it from Great Britain, that the men who
had becu enticed, contrary to law, from the United
States into the British provinces, and there enlisted
into her Majesty's service, should be discharged. A
casual reading of Lord Clarendon's despatch of the
loth November may convey an impression that this
demand has been acceded to; but. suoh is not tho
ti ue import. The language of that despatch is as
lOilows : "It it can bo shown that there are persons
now in the foreign legion who have been enlisted,
or hired, in violation of the United States law, as
well as of British law, her M»yesty’s government
will be prepared to offer them their dischargo.”-
The oiler is not to discharge them if it bo shown that
they were enlisted or hired iu violation of the law of
the United States. That fact would boos no avail,
unless it were shown that they were also enlisted or
hired in violation of British law. This in no conces
sion whatever to tho government of the United
S tat os ; tor, it tho men were enlisted or hired con
trary to the law of Great Britain, no antecedent
transaction within tho United States would
strengthen their just claim to be discharged.—
The single fact of having been enlisted or hired in
violation of the United States law would not be
available under this offer, unless the further fact be
shown that the enlistment was also iu violation of
the British law.
Notwithstanding the illegal means W’hich wore
used to entice or decoy them to leave the United
*® r Uj® purpose of being enlisted into the
British foreign legion, their subsequent enlistment
in the British provinces would be valid according
to the British law. Under this offer by Lord Cla
rendon, probably not one of the many hundred
men who were induced, contrary to law, to leave
the United States and go to the British provinces,
and were there enlisted, could obtain his discharge,
either on his own application or that of this govern
ment. This offer oi tier Majesty's minister does not,
therefore, in any respect, meet the demand of this
government.
Lord Clarendon has placed on record “certain
tacts”—seven in number—the correctness of which
he says he does not doubt will be admitted by me.
After duly considering them, 1 am constrained to
say there is scarcely one of them, bearing on the
merits of the ease under discussion, which i can ad
mit without essential modifications. Some of them
1 shall make tho subject of remark. One of those
altedged facts, or rather statesmens, which I cannot
omit to notice, ia, “that as soon ns it became appa
rent that the United States government was averse
to the scheme, and that it might lead to violations
of the United States law, the project was abandoned
out of deference to the United Statesand he adds
an expression of regret that “this proof of good faith
and good will of her Majesty ’s government has not
been noticed or appreciated by the government of
the United States.
If the fact on which Lord Clarendon relics for the
proof of good faith and good will shall bo shown to
be essentially different from what he concieves it to
be, he will understand the cause why this govern
ment docs not appreciate it as he docs.
In a question of this kind, dates are important.—
When oid it become apparent that the United
States Government was averse to the recruiting
scheme, and how soon thereafter was it aban
doned t
I hope to be able to convince Lord Clarendon
that they were not coteraporanoous events; that
l'ar the greatest number of objectionable acts
committed by the British officers was performed
long after this government had, in the most public
and emphatic manner, reprobated the recruiting
projects ; after prosecutions had been ncuding for
months against the agents of British officers, with
the full knowledge of these officers, and also, it was
fair to presume, with the knowledge of their govern
ment.
Mr. Crampton’a intercourse with these recruiting
ngents commenced in January. On the 4th of Feb
ruary ho notified Strobel and‘Hertz, by a note ad
dressed to each, that he was then able to give them
precise instructions on the subject alluded to in a
previous personal interview, and there can be no
doubt that the subject alluded to was recruiting
within the United States. That scheme did not sig
nificantly develop itself in onr principal cities until
the month of March. Immediately thereupon, the
United States government manifested the most de
cided, unequivocal, and public demonstration of
aversoness and resistance to it. Their attorney at
New York was instructed to suppress enlistment in
that city, and prosecute those engaged in it.
On the 23d of March he called upon the United
States marshal for his assistance and co-operation,
and addressed to that, officer a letter containing a
copy of the United States law against foreign re
cruiting within their jurisdiction, stating that “ the
government is determined to execute the laws to
their fullest extent.” In that letter he employed the
following language: “ I wish you to use such means •
ns may be at your command to prevent anv viola
tions of the laws of the United States which are
passed to preserve our neutrality.”
On the succeeding day this letter was published
in the journals of the city of New York of the widest
circulation, and shortly thereafter in the “Wash
ington Union,” and throughout the country.
Numerous arrests of persons charged with enlist
ing men for the British service were made in March;
their examinations before the magistrates were pub
lished at that time in th<' newspapers of the coun
try ; their cases were laid before grand juries and
indictments found against them. Not only in New
York, but at Boston, Philadelphia, and other places,
the most vigorous efforts were publicly made by the
federal officers, acting under the instructions of the
United States government, to arrest these recruit
ments for the British serv ice and bring the offenders
to justice. No local transaction was ever more gen
erally kuown or more freely Animadverted on. It
provoked much excitement against the persons en
gaged in it, and lmd it then been known that they
were in fact employed by officers in eminent milita
ry aud civil positions in her Majesty's service, un
der instructions from their government it might
have been difficult to restrain public indignation
within proper limits.
The landing of the “first instalment of the foreign
legion,” ns it was called, from the United States at
Halifax was chronicled with much exuberance of
joy in the Halifax Journal of the 2d of April. As
that is a British journal, in the interest of her Ma
jesty’s government, and published where Sir Gas
purd le Murchnnt, the Governor of Nova Scotia,
who is implicated in the scheme of recruiting reside#,
and where the main depot for receiving the men thus
enlisted was situated, 1 will make one or two ex
tracts from its article of the 2d of April :
“ The brig America arrived from Boston on Fri
day, with the first instalment of troops for the for
eign legion, amounting to seventy, most of them
are Hungarians and Uerma’hs. Tnev were landed
at the Queen’s wharf, and marched up to the milita
ry hospital, followed by an immense throng of citi
zens, who were anxious to have n peep nt them.”
For the purpose of showing that the active oppo
sition of this government to the enlistment scheme
at that enrly day whs notorious, not only through
the length and breadth of this country, but in her
Majesty’s North American provinces, and to the
British officials who bad set the schrae on foot, and
were superintending its execution, I direct attention
to the extract from the same article in the Halifax
Journal which contained the foregoing announce
ment of the arrival of the “first instalment” at Hali
fax “Brother Jonathan,” says that journal, “is ma
king a great fuss about this foreign legion and is
using all kinds of proclamation to prevent the ship
ping recruits, &c., threatening to arrest parties en
gaged. He is a very smart fellow, but Hluenose
is sometimes to much for him. They would like to
ly hands on Mr. Howe, but he is so slippery they
cannot catch him.*’
This state of tilings—this public excitement—the
obvious fact that vigorous monsnree had been taken
by this government to put a stop to this scheme of
recruiting for the. British army, so widely known
here in March, could not but have been well known
in Ehgland by the middle of April; and if the recruit
ing project was abandoned ns soon as the aversion
to it by this government was manifested, it should
have ceased in that month. Such, however, was
not the fact. Was it abandoned in the succeeding
months of Mayor June? Through both of these
months the recruiting agents swarmed more numer
ously than at any previous time in various parts of
the Union, and the schme was never prosecuted
more victoriously than at that period. Mr. Camp
ton spent, nearly all the month ot May in the British
provinces in forwarding that scheme, though he
must have been aware as early as March of the fact
that the British recruiting agents had been prosecu
ted by the United States.
The disclosures on the examination and trial of
the offenders first brought to light the information
which rendered it quite certain that British officials
lmd instigated these recruitments; that the agents
employed were engaged by them, and wore plenti
fully supplied with means for carrying on the ser*
No abatement of the efforts to execute the scheme,
except what was fuirly attributable to the criminal
proceedings against some of the recruiters, wu
visible when yon were directed in my despatch of
the 15th of July, as you had been in that of the 9tb
of June, to call the attention of her Majesty’s go
vernment to the subject. No knowledge of the
abandonment of the scheme was received here un
til the 4th of August.
More than four months before it*wos known here
that there was any intention to suspend the scheme,
this government had, in the most public manner,
signalized its utter repugnance to tn® proceeding#
under it; and nearly two months before any notice
of such intention was received here, instruction#
were sent to you to remonstrate against it, and to
claim satisfaction for the part which British officers
had taken in the perpetration of this international of
fence.
J have presented this detail of facta to show the
reasons why I cannot admit, as the Earl of Claren
don assumes I would, the correctness of bis state
nient, “ that as soon as it became apparent that the
United States government was averse to the scheme
and that it might lead If violations of the United
States law. the whole project was r.bandoned out of
deference to the United States.”
The President cannot adop t the opinion of Lord
Clarendon, that the question between the two coun
tries Las shrunk into the narrow limits he has
assigned to it. It is true, the scheme is at length
abandoned, and this government accepts his as
surance that it is not about to be revived; but
the right to revive it, and to carry it out to the same
extent as heretofore, is held in reserve. If nothing
more is to be done, the United States are left with
out indemity for ti e past aud security for the fu
ture they would be understood as assenting
to principles which have been once resorted to,
ana may be again, to lay open their territories to
the incursions ox the recruiting agents of any belli
gerent that may Lave occasion to augment its mili
tary force.
Auotherof the facts put on record bv the Earl of
Clarendon, which he assumes I will admit to be cor
rect, is, “that Mr. Morey was in confidential commu
nication with you [Mr. ’Crarnpton] on the subject for
months, without ever, that I am aware of warning
you against attempting anything of the kind, or eta
ting that the United .States would lesist or
re.'ont it, apart from any question of municipal law;
thus, in effect, acquiescing and only insisting that
tie United States law shotild be respected.”
It gives me pleasure to say that my intercourse
with Mr. Crarnpton has been intimate, friendly, and
Serhaps it may be regarded as having been in some
egrec confidential. I resisted tfie evidence tend
ing to implicate him in the recruiting project until it
became too powerful to Ire any longer withstood.—
Scarcely anything oould have occurred more pain
ful to me than to be obliged by a high sense of duty
to controvert in any way or even to qualify a state
ment which it is fair to presume baa bad his sanc
tion. The charge imputes to me official delinquen
cy, but I shall notice it only on account of its direct
bearing upon the merits of the case under discus
sion. If I gave him no warning beyond insisting
upon the observance of the United States law, it was
because I bad not at that time any knowledge of ths
extent of the recruiting scheme. He had satisfied
me that his government had no connection with it,
and was in no way responsible for what was doing
in the United States to raise recruits for the British
array. The first intimation that I had been misled
in this respect reached me while 31r. Crarnpton was
absent in the British provinces, shortly before my
despatch of the. 9th of June was sent to you.
It is not for me to raise the question whether Mr.
Crarnpton has or has not complied with his instruo
[Concluded on Second Page.]