HC Deb 01 July 1856 vol 143 cc120-204

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [30th June]— That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair;" and which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, in the differences that have arisen between them and the Government of the United States, on the question of enlistment, has not entitled them to the approbation of this House" instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.


, who said that he had ventured to move the adjournment of the debate last night because he felt that whatever doubt might exist as to the propriety of this discussion coming on at all, there could be no doubt that, if once the discussion was commenced, it ought not to be prematurely or abruptly concluded, and that all Members, either on one side of the House or the other, who were desirous of speaking, should have an opportunity of stating their views. Some hon. Gentlemen had made an appeal to the hon. Member for Mayo not to bring on the Motion, feeling that no good would arise from the discussion, and that perhaps some evil would be occasioned by it. He confessed that he was reluctant himself, on other grounds, that the Motion should come on; but he could not conceal from himself that there was no Parliamentary ground whatever for shrinking from the fullest discussion. Whenever a Minister of the Crown laid papers before Parliament and correspondence with foreign Governments at the close of a negotiation, he by that act invited the opinion of Parliament, and any hon. Member was at liberty to bring those papers under consideration. Therefore he did not think that the Government had any right to complain of hon. Members discussing this question. If publicity were objectionable in reference to these recruiting proceedings in the United States, the Government should not have courted publicity by laying these papers before the world; but that having been done, it might be pretended by some that silence on the part of Parliament implied acquiescence in the course taken. At any rate, as the Motion was now before the House, it was impossible for any Gentleman, anxious on public affairs, to feel it to be consistent with his duty to shrink from recording his vote on the subject. What was the nature of the Motion? The House was called on to say whether the operations carried on in America by Her Majesty's Government, for the purpose of raising soldiers to serve the Queen of this country, met with its approval; whether the policy was wise, of going to the United States in search of soldiers; and, if wise, whether that policy was judiciously and properly conducted? He was one of those who was opposed altogether to the Foreign Enlistment Act. He believed it to be unsound in principle, and he entertained a strong conviction, looking at the state of the municipal laws of the countries to which recourse was likely to be had for men, that any attempt to act on it would lead to serious international disputes. He expressed that conviction at the time, but he admitted that, as the question now stood, he was not to allow his opinion on the Foreign Enlistment Act, which received the deliberate assent of Parliament, to bias his judgment in reference to the conduct of the Administration in endeavouring to give effect to that Act of Parliament. No doubt it was the duty of the Executive—Parliament having consented to pass the Bill into law—to give effect in some form to the intentions of the Legislature. Nevertheless, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to insinuate that hon. Members would be influenced by their opinions with respect to that Act in forming a judgment on the conduct of the Government, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman said that the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire was one which might have been, and probably was, delivered against the Foreign Enlistment Act. There was a statement of the right hon. Gentleman in his speech last night, in reference to the Blue-book, in which he could not concur. The right hon. Gentleman said that the friendly feeling of the British Government, and their unwillingness to do anything to give just cause of offence to the American Government, were evident on the face of every despatch issued from the Foreign Office. The right hon. Gentleman added:— They have done nothing by any hasty, harsh, or even unguarded expression which places them in the wrong, in case any of these affairs shall not be brought to a satisfactory and peaceful result. Such was the description which the Home Secretary gave of the contents of the Blue-book, but he could not concur in thinking it a true description. On the contrary, he found passages in the despatches of Lord Clarendon than which he could conceive nothing more insulting to the United States of America, or more calculated to produce irritation and bad feeling. He found in a despatch from Lord Clarendon to Mr. Crampton, dated November 10, 1855, that the former stated:— Mr. Buchanan called at this office some days ago, and in a very friendly manner asked me if I should object to inform him why such large reinforcements had been sent to the British squadron on the West India station, as he was apprehensive that when the intelligence reached the United States, it would cause considerable excitement, and tend to increase the feelings of irritation, which already existed in that country. I told Mr. Buchanan that I had no difficuly in answering his inquiry with perfect frankness, and that I would, in the first place, assure him that there was no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to attack or menace the United States, but that, as we had reason to believe that ships were fitting out for Russia in the ports of the United States, and that a great conspiracy was in progress there for the purpose of promoting insurrection in Ireland, as we knew that a United States' ship had lately taken soundings in the ports of most of the British West India colonies, and that the commander of that ship had privately made minute inquiries respecting the state of the defences and garrisons in those colonies; and as we had received a note from Mr. Marcy to Mr. Crampton, couched in terms so unfriendly that it appeared to indicate a fixed purpose on the part of the United States' Government to provoke a quarrel between the two countries, Her Majesty's Government had thought it their duty to take measures for the protection of British interests against any attack that might be made upon them, and to be prepared for events which they had done nothing to provoke, and which they would still do their utmost to avert. Now, he denied that it was true that ships were fitting out for Russia in the ports of the United States. The charge was made by Mr. Barclay, British Consul, that one barque ship was fitting out as a privateer for Russia; information was laid to that effect, and the United States' Government at once caused inquiry to be made, and it was found that Mr. Barclay had been misled; that the ship had been advertised for some time in the newspapers as an ordinary merchant vessel; the trade in which she was about to be engaged was ascertained, and Mr. Barclay published in the newspapers a public apology to the effect that he was mistaken, and that there was no foundation for the charge he had brought. Therefore, that statement in Lord Clarendon's despatch was erroneous, and was founded on misinformation; and to state that, on such a ground, the British Government were about to send out an increase of force, was insulting to a friendly nation. He denied, too, that a great conspiracy was in progress to promote insurrection in Ireland. He denied that such an imputation was properly applicable to the Irish population in the United States of America. A great conspiracy was talked about in a written despatch, about to be followed by an armed invasion of Ireland. Would any man in that House stand up and say on his conscience he believed that? If this were true it was grave indeed, but if it were not true—and the United States did not believe it to be true—could they feel otherwise than deeply aggrieved that it should impute to them that they were allowing this great conspiracy to go on within their territories, and that it should be thought necessary that British men-of-war should be sent to watch their conduct, in order to prevent a hostile aggression from their shores? The fourth charge was, that the commander of an American man-of-war had been taking soundings in most of our West Indian ports. This was an old story. Just before the panic of a French invasion was raised, somebody was reported to have been taking soundings on the coast of Scotland, and there was always some tale of the sort flying about when it was thought necessary to excite apprehension in the mind of the British public. The only meaning which this insinuation could have was, that the United States' Government were contemplating a descent upon our West India Islands, but he declared most solemnly that he did not believe the American Government had ever had any such intention. He could not, therefore, agree with the Government that there was nothing irritating or provoking to the American Government in these Blue-books. On the contrary, charges of this kind were calculated to produce feelings of alienation, to prevent the success of negotiations, and seriously to disturb the good relations between the two countries. The defence of the Government with reference to the particular matter now before the House was, that they had been entirely right in whatever they had done in the United States, that they had broken neither international law nor the municipal law of the country. That was the position taken by the Attorney General, and by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. Seeing, however, that we had got into scrapes in other countries as well as in the United States in this matter of enlistment—seeing that the Prussian Government had taken a much stronger course than the United States' Government, and without troubling itself about writing despatches and withdrawing exequaturs, had put our consul into prison—and that at the Hanse Towns our agents had been very roughly handled, it was just possible that we might have been mistaken in our view of the American law. It certainly would be very strange, to say the least of it, if Prussia, the Hanse Towns, Switzerland, and the United States were all wrong in their interpretation of their own municipal laws, and if we were the only persons who could put a proper construction upon them. Our Government had put their own construction upon the United States' law, and upon that construction they felt at liberty to assert that they had not broken that law. This was a most convenient mode of proceeding. There was no act which a man might not commit if he were allowed to justify himself by pleading that his interpretation of the law which he was alleged to have broken differed from that of his accusers. All that we had done, according to the Government, was "to disseminate information" to those men who were invited to enlist in the British forces. We had gone into the United States with our agents, not to hire or retain any person to go to Canada to enlist in our army, but only to circulate information as to the advantages which persons might obtain by leaving the United States and going to Canada to enlist in the British Foreign Legion. That was all our proceedings had amounted to, according to the Attorney General. Suppose a voter were told. "If you vote for Mr. So-and-So you will receive £10"—that was merely "disseminating information," it implied no contract, and voting was a perfectly legal act; but he doubted whether the Attorney General would put such a charitable construction on that proceeding as he had put on the acts of our agents in the United States. It was obvious that our Government, to suit their own purposes, had put a construction on the American law which rendered it inoperative, but the American Government had put a construction on it, very rationally, which made it operative. They said that no foreign Government should come into the United States to put themselves into communication with individual persons residing within their territory for the purpose of persuading those persons to leave the United States to enlist in a foreign army. That was the obvious and common sense view of the American law. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had told the House on the previous evening that nobody had been persuaded, but that the very few men (and very few they appeared to be) who had entered our service were men who had come forward freely, of their own accord, without any persuasion from any quarter. The right hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed on this point. Lord Clarendon, in his despatch of November 16, 1855, laid it down distinctly that we had an incontestable right to persuade men to leave the United States to enlist in the Foreign Legion, and that we had a right to make promises to them to induce them to leave the United States; and, if that were so, why should the Home Secretary attempt to deny that there had been any persuasion? He believed, on the contrary, that there had been persuasion, and he differed entirely from the doctrine of the Foreign Secretary that we had a right, according either to international or municipal law, to pursue that system of persuasion. If we could go into the United States with our agents and organise an extensive system of persuading men to leave that country to enlist in our army, then we could exercise there all the powers which the United States' Government could exercise, and, being at war at the same time that the United States were at war, we might enter into competition with their Government with their own territory in raising forces to carry on our war. It was very necessary that the House should be informed whether Lord Clarendon's instructions, that there should be no concealment from the American Government, had been carried out. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Moore) had insinuated that he could not discover whether any very direct instructions were ever given to Mr. Crampton to practise no concealment from the American Government. If Lord Clarendon had told Mr. Crampton in the first instance to have no concealment from the American Government he would have been taking a wise course, which, if acted upon, would infallibly have spared us from our present humiliating and difficult position. If Mr. Crampton had told Mr. Marcy how he meant to act—that he meant to have agents throughout the country, that promises would be held out to persons to induce them to leave the United States to go to Canada—and had asked him how such a system would be viewed, he would have been told directly that it was inconsistent with the American law, and that it could not be carried out without giving offence to a considerable portion of the community. Mr. Crampton himself seemed to admit that he had, perhaps, not been without fault in this matter of concealment. He said that on the 22nd of March, the only occasion on which he had any conversation upon the enlistment with Mr. Marcy, he told that Gentleman that applications had been made, and so forth; Mr. Marcy informed him that persons might leave the United States—which of course everybody knew—but that he would enforce the neutrality laws. Mr. Crampton, in his despatch, said that he did not enter upon the bearing of international law, adding, "I can scarcely take blame to myself for not doing so," and then continued:— I entirely agree with him, that it was unfortunate that the matter was not mentioned and the difference of our views brought to light. I should not have concurred with his opinion, but I should have thought it matter for grave consideration whether it would not have been better for Her Majesty's Government at once to abandon all idea of accepting aid in soldiers from this country than to run the risk of any difference or unpleasant discussion whatever with the Government of the United States. It is perfectly true that I did not enter into any details of the means which were to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government to render available the services of those who tendered them to us in such numbers. There seemed to be obvious reasons for abstaining from this, even if it had occurred to me. I should have been unwilling to do anything which might have borne the appearance of engaging Mr. Marcy in any expression of favour or approbation of a plan favouring the interests of one of the parties in the present war. If Mr. Crampton abstained from informing Mr. Marcy of the means by which the services of these men were to be rendered available to the British Government, he, in fact, abstained from telling him anything which was worth knowing. Everybody knew that men had a right to leave the United States, and that the British Government had a right to establish recruiting depôts in Canada or Nova Scotia. The difficulty was, how were men living in the territory of the United States to be brought to these depôts? In not informing Mr. Marcy of the means by which it was proposed to effect that object, Mr. Crampton failed to comply with the instructions of Lord Clarendon,—"above all, have no concealment from Mr. Marcy." Had he informed Mr. Marcy of the exact means intended to be employed, Mr. Marcy would have told him that the use of such means was out of the question, and would render it necessary that a prosecution should be instituted against his agents. It was so strongly denied that anything wrong had been done, that he supposed the House must presume that the Government would see no objection to a repetition of these operations. Was that the case? He did not see why he should desist from doing what he had a right to do, and could not understand all the talk about having apologised, and all the wonder that the United States were not satisfied, if we had never done anything wrong. If our acts were to be justified we ought to avow and stand by them. He would not encourage the Government to surrender our rights in any part of the globe; but he did not believe that in the territory of the United States we had any such rights as we had claimed. If there had been no municipal law in existence, if the United States had passed no law with reference to enlistment, the Government of England would have had no right to put itself in communication with the citizens of the United States, for the purpose of levying forces, without the previous consent of their Government. The true view of international law, as he understood it after a perusal of the works of the best writers upon this subject, was, that Governments should correspond with Governments, diplomatists with Ministers of State, but that they should not, through agencies of questionable character, put themselves in communication with individual citizens, in the meantime keeping all their proceedings secret from the Government of the country to which they were accredited. If there were no municipal law at all, one Government must not act within the territories of another in such matters without the full consent of the latter. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that nothing had been done which was plainly and clearly a violation of the municipal law of America, but he admitted that there had been some money stirring in the business. When he (Mr. Gibson) heard of money payments, he always doubted the voluntary action of those who had come forward. He had recently read a pamphlet published by a gentleman who had been in the United States, and had made accurate inquiries into all these matters, and who said that we had spent between £30,000 and £40,000, and that the net proceeds of the operations were about thirty-seven Germans, who had therefore cost somewhere about £1,000 a piece. He believed these were the very men who had lately been mutinying in Plymouth, who had disturbed the garrison of that town, and whom the authorities were afraid to trust with their arms in the streets. A more miserable and impotent result it was impossible to conceive; but how Ministers of State could ever recommend that we should go across the Atlantic into the United States in pursuit of Germans, he was at a loss to understand. There was a talk of British subjects and political refugees; but almost the only persons whom attempts were made to obtain in America were for the most part the German emigrants, who, it was said, were in distress, and would be likely to join the German legion. It was very doubtful whether a single British subject was recalled to his standard, as it was called, or whether any person was obtained except these Germans, and, perhaps, some few Poles and Hungarians. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had taken a most extraordinary view of the question. He said,— That some persons were paid, who had gone to Halifax with the expectation of being received as recruits in Her Majesty's service, and were not so received in consequence of the determination to abandon the scheme altogether, in deference to the feeling of the United States' Government. Money was paid to them, not for the purpose of enlisting them in Her Majesty's service, or for the purpose of inducing them to go anywhere, but merely to reimburse them for their loss of time and expenses incurred in a fruitless journey. So that the House was told that the Government paid not those who enlisted and rendered their services, but those who came too late and were of no use to us. This seemed very strange. How was it possible to conceive that, unless these men had had some previous claim upon the Government, they would, after all recruiting had been given up, have received these payments? He would undertake to say that, when applications were made to the Government for places or employment, and they had none to give, they did not reward the applicants for having made a "fruitless journey." He very much doubted whether some contract had not been entered into with these men in the United States, and therefore the Government had felt bound to repay them for going to Halifax to join the foreign legion, after the deôt at that place had been abolished. There was, however, pretty direct evidence that there was a contract between the agents of the Government and those persons in the United States. He did not speak particularly of Mr. Crampton. He put Sir Gaspard le Merchant, the Hon. Joseph Howe, and Mr. Crampton all in the same category as having joined together to superintend the carrying out of recruiting operations in the United States. He found among the papers the following letter from the Hon. Joseph Howe to Major Joseph Smolenski:— Boston, April 28, 1855. My dear Sir,—Referring to the conversations which we have had as to the policy of the British Government, as explained to you, and to the wishes of the Gentlemen associated with you, as you have explained them, I have now the honour, by command of the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, to authorise you to raise in that province a regiment to form part of the foreign legion, upon these terms:—You shall be colonel of the regiment when raised. Mr. Souckorouski shall be major. The commissions of captains and lieutenants will be given to such officers as you may select. The fares and passages of the men will be paid or provided by my agents at Boston or New York. Four dollars per man will be paid to your order in Boston for any man shipped thence. If any, on their arrival, refuse to enlist, you will find another to take his place. Men who are in debt, or who may live beyond New York, may pay their debts or additional expenses by order on the provincial secretary in Nova Scotia, to be deducted from the bounty of thirty dollars which each man is entitled to receive. I have the honour to be, my dear Sir, Your obedient Servant, JOSEPH HOWE. Major Joseph Smolenski. To that letter Major Smolenski replied as follows:— Boston, April 28, 1855. My dear Sir,—I have read the annexed letter, a copy of which has been furnished to me, and I undertake to serve Her Majesty the Queen upon the terms as therein explained. I have, &c., JOSEPH SMOLENSKI. Hon. Joseph Howe. Surely, if ever there was in this world a valid contract for raising a regiment that was one. What, then, could be the use of denying that even persuasion had been used to promote such an object? Here was something far beyond persuasion. If the object contemplated had been legal, the transaction would have involved a contract binding on the respective parties. It would have been a "hiring and retaining" according to the words of the American law, and it required no straining of phraseology to bring it within the terms of that definition. Mr. Mathew, the consul, admitted that he paid money to Hertz. Why did he do so if the latter was nothing more than a self-constituted and unauthorised agent? In the despatch of Consul Mathew to Mr. Crampton, bearing date "Philadelphia, October 13, 1855," there was a passage which could not be interpreted otherwise than as an admission that Hertz received money from the consul. It ran thus:— At his (Hertz's) earnest request I transmitted a sealed letter to Mr. Howe, and handed him a reply, containing, I believe, money, for which he gave a receipt made out to Mr. Howe, and enclosed by me to him. In replying to the despatch from which that sentence was extracted, Mr. Crampton used these remarkable expressions:— I have satisfaction in assuring you that I can see nothing in any of your proceedings in regard to this matter which appears to me to be incorrect or derogatory to your office. It was clear, therefore, that Mr. Crampton took upon himself the responsibility of Mr. Mathew's acts, and by approving his conduct made the consul's cause his own. It appeared, moreover, that Hertz was on terms of intimate familiarity with Mr. Mathew, and occasionally burst in upon him with ludicrous abruptness. Mr. Mathew, in his despatch of October 13th, wrote— On one occasion he forced himself into my presence without sending up his name, in my bedroom, stated he was going on most important business to see Mr. Howe at New York, and ended by asking me, under many oaths and protestations, to lend him as a private loan 50 dollars, which I did to get rid of him. He has not fulfilled his pledge of repayment. Assuming that Hertz was not in the pay of the British consul, how could an incident such as this have possibly happened? Had the Government incurred expense in defending Hertz and his associates in the American Courts? Had they wrangled about law points with the law officers of the United States, and spent much of the public money in carrying on what Mr. Marcy had properly designated as "most unseemly contests?" It were much to be wished that some Member of the Government would rise in his place and authoritatively deny that they had done so; for if these men had been defended by the Government, and if the Government had incurred expense in that respect, such a course of proceeding must be regarded as a practical avowal that the men were to all intents and purposes their agents, and that for their acts they (the Government) were responsible. But, in truth, the matter was so clear as not to admit of controversy Mr. Crampton had himself confessed that he had furnished Stroebel with money, and sent him into the United States to procure recruits. The sums were said to be trifling, and the exact purpose to which the money was to be applied was not stated in Mr. Crampton's confession, but to give money to a man like Stroebel, and to tell him that he might have a carte blanche to wander through the States in search of recruits, was to render himself responsible for Stroebel's proceedings. Whatever that man's character might be, he was for all practical purposes the servant and agent of Mr. Crampton. In his despatch to Lord Clarendon, dated Washington, November 27, 1855, Mr. Crampton made the following singular statement:— I arrived at Halifax on the 11th day of that month. It was here that Stroebel, who had already brought with him some men from New York and Boston, and who appeared to be well acquainted with the condition and desires of his own countrymen in the United States, positively asserted that he knew many hundreds of Germans in the cities and country in the vicinity of the Great Lakes who only required to be informed of where they could be received in Canada, and to be supplied with the small sum which would cover their travelling expenses, immediately to present themselves on British territory for enrolment in Her Majesty's service. That plan was adopted. From that it was manifestly to be inferred that Stroebel was authorised by Mr. Crampton, and supplied with money to raise recruits in various districts of the United States. That proceeding he (Mr. Gibson) deemed to be contrary, not only to the spirit, but to the letter of the American law, and he very much regretted that Her Majesty's Government should have mixed up this country in such transactions. He could conscientiously assert that, as an Englishman, he deeply deplored it. If he were now a traveller in the United States, he should feel that his Government had involved him in the liability of some unpleasant remarks being made to him; for, unfortunately, every Englishman abroad was compromised by the conduct of his Government. He repudiated most emphatically the proceedings of the Government, and greatly lamented that any attempt had been made to raise men in America, and that, when that policy was decided on, the Government had not pursued a candid course, and put themselves in frank communication with Mr. Marcy and the other American Ministers. It had been said that Judge Kane had given a sort of sanction to the proceedings of the Government by admitting that the payment of travelling expenses did not involve an infringement of the law. Of course it did not per se constitute a violation of the law, but "the mutuality of understanding"—to use Judge Kane's expression—between Mr. Crampton and his agents, that the reason why the expenses were paid was, that men might be induced to leave the States for the purpose of being enlisted in the service of a foreign Power£that it was that constituted the essence of the offence, as amounting to "a hiring and retaining." The following passage from the judgment delivered by Judge Kane in Hertz's case showed, with sufficient significance, the opinion which that learned person had formed on the conduct of the British Government, viewed as a whole— Our people and our Government have been accused of forgetting the obligations of neutrality, and pushing ourselves forward into the conflicts of foreign nations, instead of minding our own business as neutrals, and leaving belligerents to fight out their own quarrels. For one, I confess that I felt surprised, as this case advanced, to learn that, during the very time that these accusations were fulminated against the American people by the press of England, there was, on the part of eminent British functionaries here, a series of arrangements in progress, carefully digested, and combining all sorts of people, under almost all sorts of influences, to evade the laws of the United States by which our country sought to enforce its neutrality; arrangements matured, upon a careful inspection of the different sections of our statutes, ingeniously to violate their spirit and principle without incurring their penalty, and thus enlist and send away soldiers from our neutral shores to fight the battles of those who were incontinently and not over courteously admonishing us to fulfil the duties of neutrality. Such was the opinion of Judge Kane on the whole case, and assuredly it did not tell in favour of Mr. Crampton or his agents. It was to be hoped that our relations with America would not long feel the effect of these unfortunate differences. It was most important that the people of the United States should understand that the people of this country were not backing up Her Majesty's Government in a deliberate violation of the American laws of neutrality. Nothing would so much tend to keep the two nations on friendly terms as the belief that this was merely a question as between Mr. Marcy and the Ministry of the day in this country, and not as between the American people and the English. It amounted to no more than a personal difference between the Ministers of the two countries. The Ministers of Her Majesty were responsible to the House of Commons, and it was the duty of that House to pronounce an opinion upon their conduct. It was no business of his to sit in judgment on the conduct of Mr. Marcy, Mr. Cushing, or President Pierce. He did not undertake to defend all their acts, or the spirit in which they had conducted their part of the correspondence; and, indeed, he should be prepared—if it could be done legitimately—to agree in a vote of censure upon Mr. Cushing. But, he repeated, it was not within his province to pass a sentence on the Government of the United States. His duty lay with the Government representing the community to which he belonged, and his deliberate opinion was, that they had not done well for the interests of England in picking this miserable paltry quarrel for the sake of raising a few German recruits in the territories of the United States. It was to be regretted that the present Motion came before the House as an Amendment on going into Supply, as it might enable hon. Gentlemen to avoid delivering their judgment on a grave international question. It would be much better if a plain substantive Resolution had been submitted to the House, and they had been called to vote "Aye" or "No" on the question—"Do you approve of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in endeavouring to raise soldiers in the United States?" [An hon. MEMBER: We do.] In conclusion, he had only to thank the House for the kind indulgence it had extended towards him.


said, that as he was intimately connected with the United States in a commercial point of view, and it had also been his good fortune to spend a considerable time in that country, in order to make himself acquainted with its social and political institutions, he trusted he might be allowed to make a few observations. He was not one of those who felt any jealousy of the power of America—on the contrary, he rejoiced in its consolidation, and even in its extension. He had no sympathy whatever with those who regarded the great republic, not as a child to whom we had ourselves given birth, and in whose prosperity we ought therefore to take a deep interest, but as a rival whose progress we ought to curb and to check. It was much to be regretted that so many persons on this side the Atlantic could not distinguish between the people of the United States and the mob, between the farmers and merchants in whose society an Englishman would immediately feel himself at home, and those noisy demagogues and trading politicians into whose hands, he said it with sorrow, the government of the country had of late fallen. The Government of the United States had no doubt many faults, and its constitution many defects, which all wise men must see with apprehension and regret. The change of the President and the subordinate officers every four years, the payment of Members, and the state of the naturalisation laws, were circumstances calculated to embroil the Union with foreign Powers and to lead to numberless intrigues. At the same time he would exhort Englishmen, abandoning our natural proneness to find fault with the institutions of other countries, to look upon the shortcomings of America with that magnanimity and forbearance that so well befitted a country standing in the relationship which England bore towards them. Turning to the subject immediately before the House—for his own part, he confessed that if he had any bias, when he sat down to peruse the correspondence that had been laid upon the table, that bias was in favour of the Government of the United States—not that he regarded the honour of America above the honour of England, but he did feel that there was at times a disposition on the part of British statesmen to misconstrue the policy of our trans-Atlantic kinsmen. A calm, dispassionate, and very careful study of the Blue-book, however, had thoroughly convinced him that the House of Commons had no ground upon which to pass a vote of censure on Her Majesty's Government, such as was implied by the Motion before the House. It seemed to him that the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo was unjust both to Mr. Crampton and to Her Majesty's Government. He did not stand there as the apologist for either, and he would cheerfully admit that there were things in the conduct of both of which he did not entirely approve; but he denied that either Mr. Crampton or Her Majesty's Government had been guilty of conduct that deserved the censure of Parliament. In the first place, he should never cease to feel surprise, that when Mr. Crampton received the legal opinion which he procured as to the operation of the neutrality laws—he did not wash his hands of the whole business, and advise Her Majesty's Government, by the first steamer, to relinquish a measure which threatened to embroil us with a friendly State. Mr. Crampton also led Her Majesty's Government to believe that he had fully and freely told Mr. Marcy what were their intentions; and, therefore, if any one was to blame, it was that gentleman rather than the Government. He thought it was also to be regretted that Mr. Crampton, when he saw the impracticability of the scheme, did not take upon himself to put an end to it, instead of grumbling at the feeling which perseverance in it excited in the American Government. But it must be obvious to all—and he confidently appealed to the generosity of the House on this point—that the error of Mr. Crampton was an error of judgment and not of intention, and that he had no disposition to offend the American Government, or to break the American laws. He had, in short, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) had observed, done his very best to do his duty to his Sovereign and his country. He would further put it to the House whether, if the American Government had only treated the matter in the same friendly spirit, and had not shown an evident desire to fasten a quarrel on some one, the dispute would never have been permitted to assume the formidable magnitude which it had since done. With regard to Her Majesty's Government, that Lord Clarendon had never used an unguarded expression, he (Mr. Baxter) would not assert; but no sooner did the noble Lord discover that the enlistment scheme was a mistake, than he atoned for it in the fullest, frankest, freest, possible manner. As for the language of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) complained, he would not deny that Lord Clarendon's despatch certainly contained some unadvised expressions; but they had obviously been provoked by language of a similar character held by Mr. Marcy against the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) said that, besides the passages in the despatch to which he was alluding, there were many similar ones in Lord Clarendon's other correspondence. Well, he (Mr. Baxter) fearlessly challenged the right hon. Gentleman to point out one such passage. The right hon. Gentleman said, it was an act of absurd folly to send to America to enlist Germans; but the order was, in the first instance, given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), who had no doubt friends enough in that House to defend the policy he thus originated. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the opinion of Judge Kane. But there were two opinions of Judge Kane. The last was, no doubt, very strongly in favour of the American Government, and, perhaps, Judge Kane had had good reasons for changing his views; but, nevertheless, the fact remained that his first opinion was one very much calculated to mislead both Mr. Crampton and Her Majesty's Government. The English Government had certainly had a most difficult game to play. Both the district Attorney of Virginia and Mr. Attorney General Cushing—not newspaper editors, be it remembered, but officers of the Federal Government—and in their official capacity made use of language of the most insulting and most offensive nature towards the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman said, he was not prepared to defend that language; but he (Mr. Baxter) would go further, and say that it was language which in most civilised countries must have necessitated the instant removal from office of those who uttered it. The great thing the House of Commons would, after all, have to consider was, whether in the conduct of these negotiations Her Majesty's Government had behaved in a friendly and conciliatory spirit towards the Government of a country with which the people of Great Britain must always desire to be at peace? For his own part, he could not conceive any unprejudiced and candid person rising from a perusal of the Blue-book and answering other than in the affirmative. He had no doubt that the feeling of friendliness which the people of this country entertained to America was reciprocated by the respectable classes in the United States. He believed, moreover, that though certain politicians had been vapouring and blustering about war with England, it was civil war—war in Kansas—war, the result of the system of slavery—which all the time they feared. The very men whose names had been most prominent—Mr. Cushing and the present Secretary for War—at the time the Mexican war was going on, opened offices in Canada for recruits, and they had allowed whole shiploads of armed men to leave American ports to go and interfere with the Government of Nicaragua. A dislike for England was just now a political necessity with certain classes in the United States; but he had listened to the whole of the debates in the American Senate on the Oregon question—he had attended the democratic meetings in all parts of the Union—and he did not believe that the devices of politicians would ever be allowed to create hostilities between the two countries. He believed that the general sentiment of the whole nation was against it; and the real strength of America, the honest and substantial citizens, had three or four times interposed to prevent the schemes of the politicians. He believed they would do so again, for they were satisfied that a war with England would be in the highest degree disastrous to both the belligerent parties.


said, he wished to offer a few observations upon the arguments which had been used by two members of the Government in last night's debate. Those arguments were, first, that the conduct of Mr. Crampton was free from blame; and, next, that it was inopportune to raise a discussion upon this subject at the present moment. With regard to the last argument, he would ask, what then would be the proper time for raising the question? The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) had, at a very early period of the Session, placed a notice upon the paper referring to the enlistment of troops in America; but when he proposed to bring that Motion under discussion, he was invariably met by the objection that negotiations were still pending. Negotiations were, however, no longer pending; they had terminated in a manner most humiliating to this country; yet if such subjects were not to be discussed while negotiations were pending, nor when negotiations were closed, the effect would be to prevent the House from expressing an opinion upon the foreign relations of the country, and to exempt the Foreign Minister from Parliamentary control and responsibility, however culpable his conduct might have been. As to the argument that Mr. Crampton was perfectly blameless, he would ask hon. Gentlemen who maintained that position, how it was, if such were the case, that Mr. Crampton had been sacrificed and abandoned by the Government? They had been told yesterday by the hon. and learned Attorney General that Mr. Crampton's conduct on the enlistment question was perfectly free from blame, and that the only evidence against him was that of men of abandoned character. He (Mr. Peacocke) believed, however, that no hon. Member on that side the House wished to advance a single fact upon the testimony of Hertz and Stroebel which was not entirely confirmed by other evidence, and even by the admissions of Mr. Crampton himself. Mr. Crampton admitted that he corresponded with Stroebel in cipher; that he had given instructions to various persons as to the best mode of enlisting; that he furnished Stroebel with instructions for evading the municipal law of the United States; and that he went to Halifax for the purpose of organising the system of enlistment. Such admissions showed that Mr. Crampton had violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the municipal law of America. He was able to show that this was not an insulated act of indiscretion on the part of Mr. Crampton, but part and parcel of a policy that had been deliberately planned and organised by the Government at home, and deliberately carried out by its agents abroad. He would not quote the law of Prussia on this subject, for it was analogous to that of the United States and our own, but he would call the attention of the House to the case of our consul, Mr. Curtis, who had been prosecuted at Cologne for a violation of that law. He had perused the judgment of the court of the district in that case, and found in it the following statement with reference to Mr. Curtis:— That he furnished those anxious to enlist not only with information as to the conditions of enlistment, but even detailed instruction as to the mode in which their entry was to be effected, and what course must be pursued to effect this end; and furnished them with cards to his agent, Boyer, the publican, who on the strength of them was to provide for their free board and means of going forward. That he furthermore pictured in glowing colours the rank in the service, the high pay they would receive, and gave them advances of money for facilitating their journey, and lastly cautioned them to be aware of the police.' What was this but the very system pursued by Mr. Crampton towards the Government of the United States? And what was the defence of Mr. Curtis? Did he plead not guilty? No; but he pleaded that the acts of which he had been convicted were done in his official capacity and under the instructions of the British Government. But, after all, this question might be reduced to the simplest of alternatives—was Mr. Crampton right or wrong? If he was right he ought to have been upheld, and Mr. Dallas dismissed; if wrong, he ought to have been recalled. If Mr. Crampton was right, the conduct of the Government was indefensible; if he was wrong, the conduct of any Government which should appoint him to any situation would be as indefensible; and if, in the last alternative, the noble Lord should think to purchase connivance in an unjust disgrace by the promise of impossible promotion, he would tell them both that the eyes of the House of Commons were upon Mr. Crampton. England had received an insult and an affront which she was either not in a position or had not the courage to retaliate; and what would the public opinion of Europe say—the public opinion of that Europe, throughout which, in the language of England's last apologist, De Montalembert, "the insufferable arrogance of England had called forth the indignation of the majority of thinking men"? Why, it would say that that same England, which had insulted Spain until she resented it, which had menaced Naples, and intimidated Greece, and which had even the courage to make war upon Russia when she had France for an ally—now, at the first act of hostile aggression from the United States, plucked from her brow at the menace of the strong, the laurels which she had gained by the intimidation of the weak. And by whom had this humiliation been inflicted on the country? Why, by the Cabinet of the noble Lord, the orator of Romsey, and the rhetorician of the Mansion House. The Minister who declared he would make the English as respected as the Roman citizen, yet who had failed to obtain for the representative of his Sovereign the immunity from insult which he declared he would command for the meanest of her subjects. He (Mr. Peacocke) did not know whether the blood flowed warmer in the veins of the sexagenarian Secretary of 1848, than in those of the septuagenarian of 1856; but, when Sir Henry Bulwer was dismissed in 1848 from Madrid, M. Isturitz, the Spanish Ambassador in this country, received his passports, and the Government of that day refused even to receive the Minister (Count de Mirasol) who was sent to explain why Sir Henry Bulwer was dismissed. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London recited the other night the cases of the Ambassadors who had been sent away from Washington; but there was a marked difference between those instances and the present. The acts for which those Ministers were dismissed were repudiated and disavowed by their respective Governments, whereas the conduct of Mr. Crampton had been defended and maintained by his Government; and he believed this was the first instance in which the dismissal of a Minister whose acts were approved by the Ministry at home, had been tamely acquiesced in by the Government which he represented. But if this case were to be quoted as a precedent hereafter, he still hoped there was enough of English feeling in this House to repudiate the petty policy of a system which may have been learned amongst the Camarillas of Madrid, which may have been improved in the ante-chambers of Dublin Castle, but which could never be allowed to sow the seeds of small intrigue between two great countries like England and America.


said, he had last night expressed his great regret that this subject should have been brought forward, and every speech he had heard since, every argument which had been used, and every document read to the House, had only increased that regret, and led him the more deeply to deplore the course taken by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore). His hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Baillie), from patriotic motives, had given up his notice; but the hon. Member for Mayo had no sooner found an opportunity than he had rushed in to supply his place. The hon. Member for Mayo had a perfect right to take the course which he had done, but, doubting the wisdom of it, he could not follow the hon. Member. That hon. Gentleman Last night chose to represent him (Mr. Spooner) as frequently, amidst cheers from both sides of the House, denouncing casuistry and equivocation, and called upon him now to denounce the papers under consideration as being of that character. He Could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was as averse to casuistry and equivocation as that hon. Gentleman himself, and he was glad to hear the expression he (Mr. Moore) had now used, and he should have been still more glad if he had, in addition, joined with him (Mr. Spooner) in denouncing what he had so often done—jesuitry; but for reasons best known to himself, he had omitted so to do. He would not enter into the merits of this case, as he believed the more it was discussed the more danger would attend the discussion; but there was one point to which he would allude which had not been adverted to by any speaker. It was said we had broken the law of the United States and greatly irritated the Government of that country; but what said the American Government? Why, they acquitted our Government altogether. ["No, no!"] No, no! Why they said distinctly that they acquitted our Government of any intention to insult them; and he would say that a person who could not make a difference between an intentional and unintentional insult did not know what ought to be the conduct of a Christian or a gentleman. He would not say that Mr. Crampton had been dismissed in the most courteous manner, but he would say that, if the Government had refused to accept the dismissal of Mr. Crampton, considering the offers with which it was accompanied, the whole country would have resounded with a cry of indignation. The American Government said they could not treat with Mr. Crampton, but they were ready to treat with us, through Mr. Dallas, on the subject of the Central American question; and, if the Government had refused such an offer, they would, in his eyes, have been guilty of a most desperate crime, and would probably have involved the two countries in a most lamentable war. He would not enter into the merits of the question, for, although he had listened attentively to the various speeches which had been addressed to the House, he could not pretend to understand the legal arguments sufficiently to justify him in giving an opinion between the Attorney General and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger). But this much he did understand—that in the event of our being obliged to go to war with America, it was of vital importance that England should be in the right; and certain he was that our Government would not have been in that position if they had not taken the greatest pains to avoid a hostile collision with the United States. He believed that our Ministers would have been to blame if they had resented the dismissal of Mr. Crampton by sending away Mr. Dallas. The eyes of the country were upon them, and his opinion was, that if the people of England were polled to-morrow an overwhelming majority would be found in favour of the maintenance of cordial relations with the United States. For his own part, believing that the discussion was premature, he would give his vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo, reserving to himself the right, upon some more convenient occasion, to canvass freely the conduct of Her Majesty's Government.


Sir, the speech which has just been delivered by my hon. Friend marks a feature in this debate so important and so much connected with the vote that I shall probably myself give at its close, that although I am likely upon a division to go into the same lobby with the hon. Member, yet I think there is no impropriety in my following him in discussion. It appears to me that the two cardinal aims which we ought to keep in view in the discussion of this question are peace and a thoroughly cordial understanding with America for one, the honour and fame of England for the other. I am bound to say that in regard to neither of these points am I satisfied with the existing state of things, or with the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. A cordial understanding with America has not been preserved; the honour of this country has been compromised. Sir, I am not one who will set up the phantasm of honour in a case where the plea appears to me unreal, or who will condescend to separate between honour and the honourable conduct of which it ought to be the symbol. But as respects the honour of England, I assent—I cannot but assent—to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has already spoken from an opposite bench (Sir F. Thesiger), that what is considered by the world to be an insult—that which, at any rate, cannot but be called an insult—has been put upon England by the Government of the United States. Has it been put with or without a cause? If with a cause, it ought to be confessed; if without a cause, it ought to be resented. Sir, I am bound to say that upon this question my feelings are of such a nature that it would be impossible for me to meet with a direct negative the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo. I could not say "No" to a Motion which states that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, in regard to enlistment in America, has not entitled them to the approval of this House. Nor do I mean simply to take my stand, when I say I am likely to vote with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), upon the circumstance—though it is an important one—that we are not called upon to say "Ay" or "No" to that question. The question which you, Sir, will put from the chair, that we should go into Committee of Supply, gives to the matter the technical Parliamentary aspect of what is called the "previous question;" but at the same time, I must say that I do not concur in the censures which have been bestowed upon the hon. Member for Mayo with respect to the time of bringing forward his Motion. Yet the question is one of the greatest difficulty. I cannot say that there is no inconvenience attending a Motion which criticises or assails the conduct of Her Majesty's Government engaged in transactions with a foreign country. But, before deciding the question whether the hon. Member for Mayo is open to the severe censures which have been cast upon him, we must consider whether the papers which have been laid on the table do or do not make us acquainted with all the facts of the case—whether the misunderstanding with America has not gone beyond the point of mere diplomatic communication, and has assumed form and action in the face of the world, and whether the House itself, or at least those individual Members who have familiarised themselves with the contents of the Blue-books, will not by declining to take this opportunity of expressing their opinion upon them become parties to the approval of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government? For myself, Sir, I frankly own that I have felt the greatest difficulty in considering the question what vote to give upon the present occasion. I never recollect a question more difficult as pressing upon my own understanding and conscience. But with my knowledge and experience of this House, I am convinced that those who feel with me cannot do better than throw themselves on the indulgence of the House, stating fully the difficulties which they experience, exposing themselves, if need be, to adverse criticism, but relying with confidence upon the generous forbearance of the House to put a fair construction upon their language. At any rate, after what I have said, I shall state in intelligible language why it is I expect to find myself voting with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. My hon. Friend stated, at the commencement of this discussion, that he deprecated the beginning of it as likely to injure the interests of peace, and he likewise characterised it as a party question, casting some discredit upon it on that account. Is it, then, in point of fact, a party question? Why, I appeal to his own example against his precept. He himself has risen in his place and declared that he will vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo. So far that is an indication that it is not a party question. Again, within the last few minutes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson), who, I apprehend, does not belong to the same political school as the hon. Member for Mayo, has declared his intention to support the Motion. But if my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mayo are making it a party question, on behalf of what party are they raising it? Is it of the party opposite? Does the hon. Member for Mayo belong to the school of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)? Why, Sir, it is quite plain this is not a party question. And, Sir, I am bound to say that, in my opinion, that is a vital element in the consideration of the case. Disapproving the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the management of the foreign enlistment question, I say here that I should be ready to express that disapproval by vote, if I saw a Motion to that effect made by a party ready to be responsible for the consequences of success. Now, Sir, I say to the hon. Member for Mayo, without the slightest disrespect, that these questions of votes of censure upon Governments are matters of great importance, and that in considering them, we must look not merely to the terms in which they are framed, but likewise to the quarter from which they emanate. I mean nothing disparaging to the hon. Member for Mnyo—I look merely to the terms of his Motion; but are we to regard his Motion as the declaration of a party ready to be responsible for the results of its adoption, or is it merely the expression of the opinion of individual Members of this House who can have little influence upon the division, and who, if the Resolution were carried, could not themselves be responsible for the consequences? I think, Sir, it is a good practical rule in Parliamentary discussions that we should not by our votes weaken the hands of Governments unless we are prepared, if the result of the division should prove adverse to them, to displace them from office. I think it is not desirable in these foreign transactions that the Government should be assailed by votes that tend to weaken their influence on behalf of their country, unless they are moved by those who would become responsible for carrying those opinions into effect; and I merely state what is notorious to all the world, when I observe that no great party in the House can be held responsible for carrying the Resolution of the hon. Member for Mayo into effect, should the vote of the House resolve his question in the affirmative. For a vote of censure on the Government, as an abstract Resolution, I am not able to vote; but if the Motion had come before me supported by those who were ready to carry out the principle it embodied, I should have felt it my duty to give effect to my opinion. But then I may be asked, "Why, admitting that we ought not to weaken the hands of the Government in carrying on their difficult negotiations with a foreign country—why do you enter upon this discussion and express opinions contrary to the course taken by the Government?" My answer is plain. I have no choice, after the turn which this debate has taken. [An Hon. MEMBER made a remark, which was inaudible.] My hon. Friend says, I am going to speak one way and vote another. Sir, I can only repeat in reply to that charge, that I cannot vote in favour of a Motion which, if carried, would only weaken the hands of the Government without leading to any practical result. I believe it to be a wise rule that votes of censure on the Government should only be proposed by those who are able to give effect to the principle contained in those votes; and if the opportunity were such as would enable the House, if it should come to a decision adverse to Her Majesty's Ministers, to give due effect to that decision, I should not shrink from giving my vote in accordance with that opinion; but as matters stand, I shall vote for going into Committee of Supply. The state of things with which you have to deal is this:—Upon the British Minister the penalty of dismissal from Washington has been inflicted. As far as the honour of this country is concerned, the state of things is therefore unsatisfactory. As far as regards the American Government, what is its condition? Was the breach with America closed up by his dismissal? Will any man say that he believes it is? If it were right to retain Mr. Dallas, why do you keep our diplomatic relations in a state of half animation. Why do you not appoint a successor to Mr. Crampton? I can conceive uo reason for not sending away Mr. Dallas, that does not equally prove that you should appoint a successor to Mr. Crampton. If the American Government had no cause to justify them in dismissing Mr. Crampton, why do you retain Mr. Dallas as the Minister of the United States at this Court? If they had a cause to justify them, why do you not admit that they are right and send a successor to fill Mr. Crampton's place? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department having spoken last night, I presume we are in possession of the views of the Government, and the Government were not content to debate this question except upon its merits. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire said he would not enter upon the merits of this question, and that is a perfectly consistent measure for me to take or for my hon. Friend to take. But the Government have entered upon the discussion upon the merits of the case. That was a manly course, and I do not find fault with it. Whether it was a prudent course I am not so sure. But they declared their adherence to all that has been done and stated during the whole progress of this painful discussion. Nothing can be more explicit than the declarations they have made to this effect. The Attorney General declared that, whereas there had been charges against the Government of violating both international law and the municipal law of the United States, he denied both those charges, and denied that either law had been violated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was even bolder in his manner of dealing with this subject than the Attorney General. He said that the officers of the Government had acted up to the spirit of the instructions that they had received. He said that no acts had been done contrary to the American law, and that the apologies made to the United States' Government did not admit that such acts had been done, because her Majesty's Government felt all along that no wrong had been done. So that the doctrine of the Government is, that their proceedings are justifiable on their own merits. I am certainly not prepared to be responsible for that opinion by the side of the evidence in this Blue-book. I believe, indeed, that such an assertion is made in the teeth of the plainest evidence in every page of these documents. That is not only my opinion, but I believe it is, in effect, the opinion of a great many of the Members of this House who have given their time and labour to the perusal of these Blue-books. Small is, I fear, the number who answer to that description. There are many things that the English people will do. They will sign petitions; they will attend meetings; they will get up agitations; they will pay taxes, and double taxes if need be. But Blue-books they will not read. That is the case, also, with hon. Members of this House. I say, fearlessly, that the Attorney General has not read these Blue-books. That is a fair challenge, and I will show that the references of the Attorney General to these books—references evidently supplied to him at second hand—betray that he has never entered upon the study of these important documents. To return, however, to the points to which I was addressing myself. I will remind the House that the effect of the declaration now made by the Government will be to keep alive the recollection of the differences which, with respect to the enlistment question, exist between this Government and the Government of America, and I am not prepared to assent to the opinion of those who say that it is not desirable to remove the affairs connected with the American Government from the hands of those who have hitherto conducted them. On the contrary, I think that no Government is so little qualified to conduct these negotiations with America to a successful result, because of the differences that have prevailed, because of the course of combined obstinacy and weakness which the Government have pursued, and because the recollection of these differences, kept alive by the course they have taken in this debate, must of necessity form an unfortunate introduction to those negotiations with respect to Central America which are now pending. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department stated in a fair and candid manner a point of great importance. I refer to the supposed apology of the British Government to the authorities of the United States. It has often been said that the American Government cannot complain, because, if any wrong has been done them, it has been covered by a handsome apology. But that is not the language of my right hon. Friend. He did not say that if any wrong had been done to the Government of the United States it had been covered by an apology. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend said, with the greatest candour and truth, that the apology offered to the United States' Government had always been a conditional apology, and was not an apology that implied or admitted that a wrong had been done, because Her Majesty's Government, having been fully conscions that they had done no wrong, had not offered an apology that supposed that a wrong had been done. My right hon. Friend stated these were the apologies that had been made. They have been repeated in various despatches. They all run in one form—they may be summed up in these words, "The British Government would regret deeply if, either intentionally or unintentionally, they have done a wrong to America; but they have not done a wrong to America." If no wrong had been done I grant you that an apology so couched ought to be accepted, and that it would be a frank, generous, and conciliatory step, going as near as possible to meet the views of the American Government. But if a wrong has been done, such an apology is no apology at all. Whether a wrong has been done, therefore, is the question upon which we have to fall back. I maintain that if a wrong has been done, that wrong has not been atoned for by the apology. Let me say two things, which will shorten my part in the discussion. In the first place, I will not, as a general rule, quote from these Blue-books, but for every word I utter I am ready, if called upon, to repeat the chapter and verse. If I do not quote verbatim from these Blue-books it is because it would be unreasonable in me to trespass upon the indulgence of the House. In the next place, I shall forbear to discuss questions of international law, not that I think it unimportant, because I hold that no position is less defensible and no position less tenable than that we may exclude the question of international law from the consideration of this subject from the frivolous reason that the Americans have a municipal law. But as the case is clear upon the municipal law, I am ready to confine myself to that in the practical view of the case which I have prescribed to myself. I am sorry to say that the propositions that I have to support, as embodying my conscientious convictions, are unfortunately propositions which attach very strong blame to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, I shall not attempt to qualify these opinions by any expressions of regret. These things are of little value in hostile discussion. It is better for a man to speak out what he has to say, leaving it to those who may follow him to contradict, correct, or expose him if he has made statements or expressed opinions not supported by the facts. What I have to say is this: In the first place, so far as I can judge, concealment was practised towards the American Government in respect of the enlistment question; and, in the second place, not only was concealment practised, but the American Government were deluded and misled by representations, which I do not say were intended to mislead, but were evidently such that they must mislead, if properly considered. I say this—that the municipal law of the United States was not only broken, but it was broken in defiance of the advice of those who were chosen as counsellors—it was knowingly broken on the part of the agents of the British Government. I do not say that in these papers is to be found the proof that this was done under the direction of the British Government. In that respect I venture to differ from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo; and, permit me in passing to say, I could not but listen with regret to the observations expressed from the Treasury bench, not only on those portions of the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo in which he introduced, by way of illustration, certain passages from Irish history, but on the general tendency of that speech to throw blame on one particular Member of the Cabinet. I must say, in justice to the hon. Member for Mayo, that although it may be good tactics to strive to keen out of view one's own incapacity by introducing exciting matter, the hon. Gentleman has no cause for any such expedient, because he has amply proved, by argument, his full ability to deal with the merits of the question. But I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that point. I think he stated these things were done under the direction of Her Majesty's Government. I confess I do not discern that on the face of the papers. But, in my view, it matters little whether they were done under the direction of the Government or not, if the Government made themselves parties to the acts by their subsequent approbation. And here, Sir, I cannot help regretting deeply the injustice done to Mr. Crampton by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). One proposition that I state with the greatest confidence is this—that injustice was not done to Mr. Crampton by any Member of the Government, but it was done by the hon. Member for Montrose. The hon. Member, with his regard for America, was not willing to inculpate America; and, with his regard for the Government, was not willing to inculpate the Government. So, following the example of President Pierce, and passing by both the British and the American Governments, he threw the blame upon Mr. Crampton, and said that Mr. Crampton, when he had taken the lawyer's opinion, ought to have stopped the scheme of recruiting of his own accord. I give Mr. Crampton credit for taking a lawyer's opinion. It was a wise and prudent step; but when it is said he should have stopped the scheme of recruiting of his own accord, I ask, was it within Mr. Crampton's province to give up that scheme? Can it be said that it rested with him to disobey the orders on that subject which he had received from the Government of which he was the representative? In my opinion, Mr. Crampton sailed as near the wind as he possibly could; and, in justice to Mr. Crampton, it must be remembered that, when he had taken the opinion of a distinguished American lawyer, he sent home that opinion to his Government, and wrote to Lord Clarendon— Your Lordship will no doubt perceive that the provisions of the Neutrality Act restrict our operations within very narrow limits. I take it that it was a fair intimation that in his opinion the whole thing should be abandoned. That suggestion, unfortunately, was not adopted by the Government at home. Mr. Crampton had then proceeded to act in accordance with what he deemed to be the spirit of the intention of Her Majesty's Government, and the result is that Her Majesty's Government has been unreservedly acquitted by the Government of the United States of the matter, and Mr. Crampton has been dismissed from his post as Minister at Washington. With respect to these circumstances, however, the proposition that I am prepared to maintain is this—that there is not one hair's breadth of distinction between the position of Mr. Crampton and the position of Her Majesty's Government, of which he was the representative. I think, as far as I can judge, that the zeal of Mr. Crampton, and, perhaps, what he believed to be the intentions of the Government, but were not the instructions of the Government, were the source of the evils which have arisen. Everything which Mr. Crampton did was approved by the Government at home; every claim that Mr. Crampton made was maintained by the Government at home, and I entirely decline to draw the least distinction between the original responsibility of Mr. Crampton, as the subordinate person, and the subsequent responsibility of the Government by its unrestricted posterior approval of Mr. Crampton's conduct. But I say that, at first, Mr. Crampton concealed those proceedings from the American Government, and that is a point of great importance. The hon. Member for Mayo has quoted a passage from Lord Clarendon's despatch of the 15th July, in which Lord Clarendon says, that he has instructed Mr. Crampton, above all, to have no concealment from the American Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester says, that if that were so, then Mr. Crampton had been guilty of a serious offence in having resorted to that concealment which he had been told to avoid. The American Government, not doubting the assurance conveyed by Lord Clarendon, said the same thing, and laid on Mr. Crampton's shoulders this burden—that, having received strict instructions not to practise concealment, he did practise concealment. The hon. Member for Mayo has stated that there does not appear in these papers any instruction to Mr. Crampton not to practise concealment, and he has called upon the Government to point out to him where that instruction is. The Attorney General followed, and he did not answer that appeal. The Home Secretary spoke later in the evening, and did not answer that appeal. The appeal must be renewed, for this House has a right to know from Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that Lord Clarendon instructed Mr. Crampton to have no concealment from the American Government. If he did so instruct Mr. Crampton, then undoubtedly the American Government are justified in the distinction which they have drawn between the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers and that of their representative; but, if Lord Clarendon did not so instruct Mr. Crampton, and if the reference in the despatch of July 15 is erroneous, then it is impossible to find words to describe the injustice inflicted on Mr. Crampton—because Mr. Crampton has been made to bear the responsibility of concealment, which the hon. Member for Montrose well said was the fatal error from the outset, whereas the responsibility of that concealment belongs to the Government. I frankly own I think it does belong to the Government, for, although reference is made in the despatch of July 15 to some instruction not to practise concealment, there is no passage in any prior despatch, or, indeed, in any despatch, prior or subsequent, to that effect. The material point in the case is, whether concealment was or was not practised? The hon. and learned Attorney General yesterday evening replied to that question in the negative, supporting his statement by reference to the circumstance that Mr. Crampton had pointed out to Mr. Marcy that the British Government had established, or intended to establish, a depôt at Halifax for the purpose of recruiting. And this is what induced me to say the Attorney General had not read the papers; because my hon. and learned Friend gave two references to despatches, neither of which contain a word as to the depôt at Halifax; but there happens to be a third extract which does refer to it. I presume the person who prepared the references for the Attorney General had unfortunately placed the wrong figures in the margin, or they were wrongly supplied at the moment, and my hon. and learned Friend, not having read the papers himself, was unable to correct the error. However, it is quite true Mr. Crampton did say to Mr. Marcy that the British Government intended to establish a depôt at Halifax. It is not in the Blue-book, but it is in the 14th page of the last papers presented to Parliament. I think there is no doubt it was mentioned, but it is a fact for which I do not think Mr. Marcy had any great reason to feel obliged, inasmuch as this depôt was the subject of great discussion in the public journals, and it is just possible Mr. Marcy might have acquired a knowledge of its existence without any such communication being made by Mr. Crampton. The question is, did you conceal from the American Government that which was the whole matter and the cause of the complaint? The American Government never complained of the establishment of the depôt at Halifax. There is not a word which implies such a complaint on their part. They knew quite well that the establishment of such a depôt at Halifax, whether prudent or not, was perfectly within the rights and competence of the British Government, and I am perfectly ready to say that I and my right hon. Friend near me (Sir James Graham) are equally responsible for that act in conjunction with the Members of the present Government, because that Resolution was the last step taken within our cognizance before we were compelled to quit the Cabinet of my noble Friend on the question arising on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. But that was never made the subject of complaint. What the American Government have complained of is the employment of an agency within the United States, not only to give information, but to tempt, to induce by the offer of valuable considerations, the subjects of the United States to go beyond the United States for the purpose of enlisting in our service. That is the subject matter of their complaint, and I want an answer to this question—Did Mr. Crampton tell or did he not tell the American Government that he, on the part of the British Government, was about to establish such an agency or not? Mr. Crampton says he did not tell the American Government the details. I must say that appears to me an unworthy mode of dealing with a question so important. This is not a question about details. It is a question about a measure, constituting the corpus of the complaint on the part of the American Government—namely, the employment of an agency within the United States for the purpose of disseminating information and inducing their subjects to go beyond the United States to enlist in the service of a foreign State. Did Mr. Crampton communicate that or did he not? If not, it is useless to talk of not concealing, when you conceal not a detail but the very head and front of the offending—the very ground and foundation of the whole case. I say, without the smallest doubt, that Mr. Crampton did not communicate any such purpose to the American Government; and I say so, because there is the declaration, express and positive, of the American Government, and because that declaration is entirely uncontradicted by anything stated on the part of the British Government; and because there is nothing in the statement of Mr. Crampton himself which sustains the allegation that he made such a communication to Mr. Marcy. This fact stands the first great proposition in the case—that the going about to establish an agency within the United States, for the purpose of inducing American citizens to go beyond the border and be enlisted, was concealed from the American Government. That is the charge of concealment, and it will be well if the Government can give some answer to it. But that is not the only charge I have to bring against the Government. There was more than concealment in the matter. I request hon. Gentlemen to look at the 14th page of the last papers which have been laid upon the table, and there they will find that Mr. Crampton, referring to his despatch of the 22nd of March of last year, gives us a large part of a despatch which was not given in the original Blue-book. He there gives his account of his conversations with Mr. Marcy, and states the substance of his communications with that Gentleman. He says:— I took good care to explain to Mr. Marcy, with perfect frankness, our position and intentions as regards this matter. I said, besides reading to him my letter to Mr. Barclay, that we were certainly anxious to obtain efficient recruits from whatever quarter they should come, and that depôts for enlistment had been established in the colonies, where those who should voluntarily present themselves would be received and enrolled; but to inquiries which had been addressed to me by persons in this country, I had invariably replied by referring them to the provisions of the Act of Congress of 1818, and stating that neither I nor any of the agents of Her Majesty's Government could either 'enlist' them in the United States, or 'hire and retain' them to go to any of the British dominions, with the intent of there enlisting; that consequently all I could do was to give such persons the information of which I was in possession, as to terms, and the time and place at which they might, if so disposed, be received into the British service, being aware of no law which prevented citizens of the United States or others from emigration from this country, for whatever purpose they might think proper. Is that a promise to the American Government? It appears to me to be not only a promise, but a promise of a most solemn character, Mr. Crampton's own communication to Mr. Marcy resting upon Mr. Crampton's allegations now produced by himself in self-defence. Was that promise kept? Did Mr. Crampton confine himself to the communication of information? Is there a man in this House who will rise and say he did so? If he did not, how are we to meet the charge of the American Government, when they say we deceived and deluded them—that we threw them off the scent and induced them to believe that although proceedings were going on in the Union we had nothing to do with them—because they gave credence to our assurance, as conveyed by Mr. Crampton, that whatever agency was employed in the United States it was the agency of unsupported and unrecognised volunteers with which the Government had nothing to do. But was there nothing more? There was a certain Angus M'Donald, who appeared to think that free trade being a very good thing, it might properly be applied to recruiting, and who, upon receiving a remunerative price for the passage, offered to take persons to the British dominions. Well, we laid hold of this convenient despatch to Mr. M'Donald, carried it with great pomp to the American Minister, who read the indignant and almost ferocious terms in which the offer of Mr. Angus M'Donald was repudiated. Upon the very day of the conversation with Mr. Marcy, to which I have referred, this letter was written to Angus M'Donald, and it will not be very uncharitable to suppose it was written for the purpose of being exhibited to Mr. Marcy. It was, however, read by Mr. Marcy, was regarded by that gentleman as an important fact, and led to the expression of great satisfaction on the part of the American Government. Let me say I was very sorry to hear the criticisms of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) upon the conduct of the American Government upon this subject. If peace be our object, together with the maintenance of the honour of England, I would ask whether the attainment of those objects are likely to be promoted by private Members setting themselves up as judges of the conduct of the American Government? I would not hesitate to give my judgment upon the conduct of that Government if that were the question before us, but it is not. But if it be true that the American Government is "pettifogging and litigious," then I say, instead of that being a reason why we should trample upon the laws of the United States, it is a reason why, if not out of regard for them, at least in consideration for the great country which we represent, we should have held those laws more sacred, and have avoided still more carefully to give so litigious and pettifogging a people the slightest reason for complaint. A comparison has been made between the proclamation of Mr. Angus M'Donald and that of the Nova Scotian Government, and it has been argued that what was against the law if done within the boundaries of the United States was not against the law if done beyond those boundaries. Upon that, all I can say is, I cannot conceive a sorrier answer to the American Government than that things which were not lawful for a man to do because done by a private individual within the dominion of the United States, might lawfully be done by the British Government immediately upon the borders of the United States. But that is not the question at issue. Compare the proclamation of Mr. Angus M'Donald with that of Mr. Wilkins, and with the actual proceedings of the British Government in the United States. Mr. M'Donald disseminated the information that, upon certain terms, he was prepared to send recruits to a British colony. Mr. Crampton and his agents disseminated information, too, and advertisements appeared in German newspapers published in the Union, that persons were required to go abroad—sometimes it was said as mechanics, but everybody understood the kind of machinery they would be expected to use. The only difference was, that they provided a free passage, or paid money for the purpose of enabling such persons to go there. Therefore, it stands thus—we actually paraded, in the face of the American Government our condemnation of the unfortunate Angus M'Donald, and thus, perhaps, ruined his innocent and well-intended enterprise, while at the same time we ourselves were doing all that he promised to do, superadding the provision of a free passage, or paid money to meet the expense. I think no one will deny that a Government who by its agents pursued that course, and afterwards signified its approval of their acts, is not only fairly chargeable with concealment, but it is also liable to the charge of having deluded the American Government. Therefore, nothing is more unjust than the charge which is made against the American Government of having at first confined its complaints to the proceedings of unauthorised persons, and subsequently extended those complaints to the British Minister and his subordinates. The American Government at first confined their representations to the unauthorised persons, because it believed the representations which were made to them by the authorised representative of the British Government; but they extended their complaints when they found that those representations were not based upon truth. Aiming as I do at a plain and intelligible statement, I must say that the American Government was deceived by the proceedings of the British Government, and I say we intentionally broke the law of the Union. My hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) tells us not to judge generally of intentions. I agree with him, except so far as we can infer them from acts, and from these acts we may reasonably infer that we knew what we were about. Mr. Crampton—and I give him credit for it—began his proceedings by taking the opinion of a most eminent American lawyer—one in whom, according to Mr. Crampton's significant description, he had perfect confidence, not only as to professional ability, but also as to political principles—that is to say, a man who, he believed, could confidently be reckoned upon as having no feeling adverse to the interests of Great Britain. That gentleman seems to have given a very wise and prudent opinion; but whether it was so or not, it was one upon which, I conceive, Mr. Crampton was bound to act. Why did Mr. Crampton take that opinion? He himself, at page 131, gives us the reason. He says he took it because he did not understand the neutrality laws, and therefore he says— I requested an eminent American lawyer, in whose judgment and professional ability I felt entire confidence, to draw up for me an opinion on the subject; and a copy of this opinion I thought it right to transmit to Her Majesty's Consuls in the chief cities of the Union, and a copy of it accompanied my despatch to your Lordship of the 13th of March. Now, in this opinion it is distinctly laid down that any person would be found guilty of offending against the neutrality laws who either gave money or money's worth to any other person within the territories of the Union in order to induce or enable him to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign service. Why do I say that we intentionally broke the law? I will show you from the declaration of a British officer how he understood the meaning of that opinion. Mr. Lumley, who still remains in America, and who has entirely identified himself with the proceedings of Mr. Crampton, says at page 15, in a letter to Consul Dyer— But a promise to pay the travelling expenses or to provide for the family of any person who may join Her Majesty's service, as proposed by your correspondent, would not deprive such emigration of its voluntary character, but would constitute a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States, and no proposition of this nature can therefore be entertained by Her Majesty's Minister or Consuls. So it stands upon these documents themselves that the counsel of the British Government stated that giving either money or money's worth to persons to induce them to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting would be a violation of the law of the United States; and it stands upon these documents, also, that Mr. Lumley, on the 13th of May, representing Mr. Crampton, wrote to Consul Dyer to say that a promise to pay travelling expenses constituted a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States. The meaning, therefore, of these laws, as expounded, was known and admitted by the agents of the British Government. That was on the 13th of May. On that day Mr. Lumley stated a promise to pay travelling expenses would be a violation of the law. Where was Mr. Crampton on the 13th of May. He was at Halifax. What was Mr. Crampton doing at Halifax at the time when Mr. Lumley was thus soundly expounding the American neutrality laws? Mr. Crampton was committing that very breach of the neutrality laws—ay, and something even beyond that—which Mr. Lumley was denouncing from his office at Washington. If you turn to page 133, you will see that Mr. Crampton begins by saying that he left Washington on the 2nd of May to go to Halifax; that he arrived at Halifax on the 11th; it was there that— Stroebel, who had already brought with him some men from New York and Boston, and who appeared to be well acquainted with the condition and desires of his countrymen in the States, positively asserted that he knew many hundreds of Germans in the cities and country in the vicinity of the great lakes who only required to be informed of where they could be received in Canada, and to be supplied with the small sums which would cover their travelling expenses, immediately to present themselves on British territory for enrolment in Her Majesty's service. They required something more than a promise of travelling expenses; they wanted the money in hand; the promise of travelling expenses was declared illegal by Mr. Lumley at Washington—Mr. Crampton at Halifax says— This plan, seeming to me to present a better prospect of success, and at the same time to be unobjectionable as regarded the laws of the United States, was adopted.'' After this, will any Gentleman rise in this House and state that the laws of the United States have not been violated? Is it possible to carry evidence further? I have shown you the American construction of the law, and I certainly hold that the American Courts and Government were better entitled to construe their own municipal law than any foreign Government. I should like to know how we should deal with the American Minister who was in this country, doing certain acts contrary to our construction of the law, judicial and otherwise, and should bring forward some ingenious view taken on the other side of the Atlantic with respect to that construction in order to justify his acts? But the case does not stand upon the opinion of your own American lawyer; it stands upon Mr. Lumley's declaration on the part of the British Government, that it was a breach of the law to promise to pay these travelling expenses, combined with Mr. Crampton's simultaneous declaration that at that very period, at Halifax, he agreed to a plan for paying hard cash to persons then in the United States to enable them to find their way to Halifax and enlist. That is what I call an intentional breach of the American neutrality laws. It is unnecessary to go through the various cases; I am sorry to say they are too many. My right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) has mentioned the case of Mr. Smolenski and the contract with Mr. Howe. There is no answer to that case except this—that Mr. Howe was not diplomatically employed by the British Government in the United States. There were, in fact, no means of getting hold of this gentleman—as one of the newspapers said of him, he was too slippery. But there is one case to which I shall refer for a few moments—I mean the case of Consul Mathews. The Attorney General yesterday seemed to suppose that this was a question where the evidence was all on one side: that on the one side we had the testimony of Hertz and Stroebel, and on the other the assurances of Mr. Crampton and the three consuls. That is one reason why I congratulate the Attorney General on his felicitous and all but total ignorance of what the Blue-books contain, for it is impossible he can have read the Blue-books and imagine that that is the whole issue raised. Now, I throw over Hertz and Stroebel altogether, and am only sorry that that mass of affidavits from one person and another, swearing to all sorts of things, should have been produced as public documents,—those affidavits being the most worthless trash ever printed in this world. I do more than reject the testimony of Hertz and Stroebel. I do not attend to the allegations of the American Government; I look solely to the evidence afforded by our own officers and our own agents. I will not remark on the dove-like innocence of the Government in conferring commissions in the Queen's service upon gentlemen of this not very doubtful character. But, treating as you please the evidence of Hertz and Stroebel, is it true that the charges are denied by Mr. Crampton and the three consuls? With regard to these three consuls, I may observe that the evidence is not equally full as to all. I have read a most manly letter written by Mr. Barclay, and, looking to the character of the allegations made against that gentleman, whether as regards the bark Maury, or as respects recruiting, I think it is clear that Mr. Barclay was free from all complicity. I should also give entire credence to the assertions of Consul Mathew, but those assertions prove the very worst part of the case. The Attorney General says, there has been no breach of the municipal law of America. I am clear, then, that his studies must have stopped short of the thirty-fourth page of the Blue-book, or he would have found there evidence which, to my mind, is conclusive on this case. In the first place, I think there is no doubt that Hertz was engaged in breaking the law. In the second place, there is no doubt that Howe was the recruiting agent in connection with Hertz, and if Howe was found supplying Hertz with money it must be presumed that Howe was cognizant of the use which Hertz was about to make of it. That principle, at least, would apply to such a case occurring in this country. I have heard the Attorney General speak most ably in this House with respect to a charge of bribery at an election. If the name of Howe had been Frail, and it had been proved that Frail bad handed money to Hertz for certain purposes, the Attorney General would not, I think, have had much difficulty in identifying Frail with those purposes. But between this Howe and Mr. Hertz comes in a third person, and that third person is Consul Mathew. He says, in the thirty-fourth page, that Hertz's confession was a tissue of falsehoods, and he was determined to know nothing about Hertz or anything of his proceedings. Well, that is the kind of answer we sometimes receive in committee-rooms in this House when inconvenient questions are put to witnesses about acts done at elections and money misapplied there; in that case they tell us they know nothing of the use to which that money was applied. Consul Mathew says—"At his (Hertz's) earnest request I transmitted a sealed letter to Mr. Howe, and handed him a reply, containing, I believe, money." Well, that is very cautious on the part of Consul Mathew, when we remember that his belief was not formed without good and sufficient grounds, for this reason—that he took a receipt for the money—"for which," he says, "Hertz gave a receipt, made out to Mr. Howe, and inclosed by me to him." Mr. Mathew I was always very judicious; the receipt was not made out to him; Hertz swears wrongfully that the receipt was made out to Consul Mathew; but it was made out to Howe; Mr. Mathew handed money from Howe to Hertz; he took a receipt from Hertz and sent it back to Howe. On a second occasion," he says, "I declined to give him the money, though merely the channel of transfer; and the amount was sent to the proprietor of an hotel, from whose bookkeeper he received it. These are not chance or casual expressions, for much further on in the book Consul Mathew travels over the same ground. He twice handed money from Howe to Hertz; he sent the money by a circuitous channel; and there is no doubt he sent it in that way in order that it might be the more difficult to trace. Can there be a doubt as to the character of that act? Is there any lawyer who will say that in a Committee of this House Consul Mathew would not have been held to be implicated in the proceedings of Howe, or that the American Government were not right in the view they took upon this point? Then, shall I be told that this was the proceeding of Consul Mathew—that the British Government had nothing to do with it? Now, Consul Mathew, upon the whole, behaved with considerable prudence and propriety, for, although he had done these acts, yet, at any rate, he was determined that the responsibility should not rest with him, and therefore, he took very good care to inform Mr. Crampton. Mr. Crampton, at page 35, acknowledges the receipt from Consul Mathew of the letter to which I have just been referring, and says— I have in the meantime forwarded a copy of your despatch to Her Majesty's Government, and I have satisfaction in assuring you that I can see nothing in any of your proceedings in regard to this matter which appear to me to be incorrect, or derogatory to your office. I apprehend, therefore, that Mr. Crampton is pretty clearly responsible for the whole of Mr. Mathew's proceedings. But does the responsibility stop there? Mr. Crampton again, with perfect propriety, sent home to Lord Clarendon Mr. Mathew's letter, together with his own letter of approval, and on the 2nd of November Lord Clarendon acknowledges the receipt of that communication in the following terms:— I have received your despatch of the 15th ult. and its enclosures, respecting the proceedings which have been taken in the United States' District Court at Philadelphia, in the case of Henry Hertz, who has been pronounced guilty of having violated the neutrality laws by enlisting recruits for the British army; and I have to state to you that I approve the answer which you returned to Mr. Consul Mathew's communications to you upon this subject. Consul Mathew thus identifies himself with Mr. Crampton, Mr. Crampton identifies himself with Lord Clarendon, and Lord Clarendon we can only regard as the organ of the British Government. What is the explanation of these facts? There are plenty more, but I will not weary the House with going through them, for the length of these discussions even now bewilders one, and it is necessary to throw overboard much matter. The acts which I have detailed were contrary to the municipal law of America, not only as construed by the executive Government, by the Courts, by the Attorney General of America, but as construed by the confidential adviser of Mr. Crampton, as construed on the 13th of May by the British Mission at Washington itself. Here, however, we are traversed by the opinion of Judge Kane. In September, Judge Kane delivered a judgment, in which he stated distinctly that the payment of passage money, the giving an inducement in money or money's worth to people to enlist in a foreign service, was a breach of the American law; but it is said "oh, that was in September; look at his opinion in May! In September the American Government had entered into a controversy with the British Government, in May it was supposed that they were merely persecuting a few wretched unspported individuals." It is thus coolly insinuated that Judge Kane prostituted the judicial conscience, and gave, in September, a contrary opinion as to the construction of a law to that which he had given in May, in order to serve a political purpose. I hope that all Members of this House will show some respect for the feelings of the Americans. There is nothing of which the Americans are more justly proud, nothing in which they associate themselves more closely with the great country from which they have sprung than the character of their judicature, and the character of their laws and of their courts is established in the world. How should we look upon a charge against one of our own eminent Judges, first, of having given two opposite constructions of a law within a few months, the second being a false construction, in order to please a Government of the day? But the charge rests upon a very sandy foundation; there is no evidence of any real contrariety in Judge Kane's opinions. The allegation of the British Government is, that in May, Judge Kane said it was not contrary to the American law to pay the passage of a person going to enlist abroad; but while the opinion of September is authentically reported in the official reports of the proceedings of the Court, the opinion of May is a paragraph out of a newspaper, a paragraph which grossly misquotes the American law, by asserting that it is an offence in an American citizen to go beyond the boundaries of the United States with intent to enlist. Of course an abridgment, a mere synopsis of what is said, does not contain those details and explanations without which it is impossible to give judicial force and meaning to the words of a magistrate. But, after all, there is nothing in Judge Kane's opinion, assuming the paragraph to be correct. He says:—"I do not think that the payment of the passage from this country of a man who desires to enlist in a foreign port comes within the Act." That is his bare and naked proposition; but you insert in it other words—you say that because the payment of the passage of a man does not in itself constitute an offence, ergo, the payment of the passage of a man by the British Government does not constitute an offence. The two cases are very different. Suppose my right hon. Friend near me and I reside in the United States; he is rich and I am poor; I tell him that my feelings are with the old country in the war in which she is engaged, and that I will go to Halifax and enter her service if he will assist me. I do not apprehend that my right hon. Friend would be guilty of an offence if he complied with my request. Would not that be a totally different case from the payment of money by the British Government to its agents for the purpose of inducing men to go; That is not all. Judge Kane's opinion was given at the end of May, but what were you doing at the beginng of May, in April, in March? Then you had the construction put upon the law by your own lawyer, yet you fall back for your justification upon an unauthenticated paragraph in an American newspaper coming long after the acts with which you are charged had been committed. Such is the celebrated case of Judge Kane's opinion! In the beginning of March your own lawyer told you the meaning of the American law; why did you not act upon it? Why did you, long after it had been communicated to you, and long before Judge Kane opened his mouth, give men free passages and hard cash, and offer them other inducements to enlist! The two chief points urged in defence of the Government are the apology and the abandonment. I have already spoken of the apology—now where is the abandonment? This is one of the most mysterious and singular parts of a case which contains much that is singular and mysterious. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) said the mistake was no sooner discovered by the Government than it was corrected: and last year a question was put by the vigilance of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), to which the noble Lord at the head of the Government gave an answer that was very satisfactory to the country. The noble Lord said that, not only had recruiting been abandoned in the United States, but that even our depôt at Halifax had been abandoned—that the exercise of an unquestioned right had been foregone rather than the risk should be run of having the slightest misunderstanding with the American Government. I am astonished to see the evidence as to this point; it absolutely demands a full, detailed, and careful explanation. On the 22nd of June, Lord Clarendon addresses a letter to Mr. Crampton, which may be construed as an order for the abandonment of the recruiting scheme. The noble Lord states that the abandonment takes place by the desire of the Minister for War, and that similar letters will be addressed to the Governors of Nova Scotia and Canada. If letters containing those orders had been so sent the proceedings would have been altogether discontinued; the subsequent correspondence assumes that they were discontinued, and consequently when the American Government at a much later period complained of their continuance they were taunted with the fact that even before they had had time to make a complaint—namely, on the 22nd of June, the scheme had been abandoned. Was it or was it not abandoned? Now, I am confident that the letter of the 22nd of June was intended to be sent; but some unfortunate mishap appears to have befallen it; we do not know the course it took, and no explanation respecting it is given. A careful consideration of the dates of the alleged abandonment is important, because the Americans have been condemned in this country as highly unreasonable on account of having complained of acts which had been put an end to long before those complaints were made. That is a most important statement, if true, but a most extraordinary figment if not true, and a grievous wrong to the American Government. I am convinced that there was no intentional misstatement made with regard to the time at which the abandonment of the recruiting system by her Majesty's Government took place; but at the same time let us see at what time the abandonment really did take plane: and to arrive at that we must consider the statements of Mr. Crampton and Sir Gaspard le Marchant as to when they first became cognisant of the wishes of the Government in that respect. Mr. Crampton states that he first became aware of the desire of the British Government to abandon the scheme of recruiting on the 2nd of August. Sir Gaspard le Marchant, whose position was of still more importance, because Halifax was the great centre of operation, states that it was on the 17th of August that he first received an intimation that he was to cease his proceedings, and even then he did not receive the intimation from the Colonial Secretary at home, but through Mr. Crampton. Her Majesty's Government found out, therefore, that during this period these proceedings were going on and were being complained of, and yet to those complaints they retorted that they had abandoned the scheme of recruiting long ago, and Lord Clarendon, in a somewhat contemptuous tone, stated that recruiting had long ceased, at the same time expressing the opinion that the American Government had not appreciated as they ought to have done the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers in abandoning those proceedings. He stated that the abandonment of recruiting took place on the 22nd of June; but, as I have pointed out to the House, the letters ordering a discontinuance of the system reached Mr. Crampton only on the 2nd of August, and Halifax on the 17th of the same month. It appears to me, then, that we originally commenced a system of concealment towards the American Government; and not only did we do that, but we also adopted measures calculated to mislead them. It appears that we took the most trustworthy opinion as to the law of the United States, and not only acted against that opinion, but continued to do so for many months after the time at which we professed to have abandoned the course which we had commenced. After this can the House say that the American Government had no just cause for complaint? Can we refuse to admit a wrong to America, because the Government assert that no wrong whatever has been done? It appears to me to be that sort of case which scarcely admits of further argument or illustration. If it is to be made a matter of dispute that any cause of complaint has been given to the Government of the United States, then I think that we may fold our arms in despair and say, "Even in this imperfect world some things have hitherto been held to be real, and beyond the possibility of a doubt; but henceforth nothing is certain, there is nothing upon which reliance can be placed, there is nothing which may not be made a subject for captious disputation." It is said that there is nothing in the instructions of the British Government to cause a wrong to the American Government. Now, what is the real fact? That there was not a single act with which the Government were not acquainted. Lord Clarendon, arguing with the American Government, says that anything short of the conclusion of an actual contract to enlist within the limits of the United States may be done, and innocently done. Now, that is one way of avoiding responsibility, because a contract is governed by the lex loci, and therefore a contract to enlist could not be concluded at all; and he then goes on to say to the agents of the Government, "You may persuade persons to enlist, you may assist them in so doing, you may pay their passage to a place where they can be enlisted," although such an opinion was contrary to the opinion of the American courts, contrary to the opinion of his own law officers, and contrary to the declaration of Mr. Lumley himself, the agents of the British Government. Well but, says the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, "The American Government has accepted the apologies which have been made." Now, Sir, I admit that such is the case, and I do not seek to detract from the force of what they have done. But a most extraordinary state of things has been brought about. The American Government acquits the British Government, but at the same time punishes Mr. Crampton and the three consuls; while the British Government maintains and acquiesces in the acts of its agents, and yet accepts with satisfaction its own acquittal. This is a simple unadorned statement, it contains no heightening epithets, and, indeed, I do not think that any epithet could heighten it. Mr. Crampton has been made a scapegoat—by whom is a question which I will not discuss—but I want to know what single act of Mr. Crampton has not been fully covered by the British Government—and whether it would not be contrary to the character and practice of this House, when there is no single action of Mr. Crampton which has not met with the approval of the Government, to allow any distinction to be drawn between the proceedings of Mr. Crampton and those of the British Government. I admit fully the honourable conduct in this respect of those who sit upon the Treasury bench, because they have not attempted to draw any such distinction in debate; but whether they have not practically drawn that distinction is a matter open to more argument. The dismissal of Mr. Crampton was either right or wrong. Now, the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) says that it is the undoubted right of any State to ask for the withdrawal of any Minister accredited to it at its own pleasure, and without assigning any reason. Now, I am not, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, qualified professionally to deal with that subject; but, from referring to authorities upon the subject, I am inclined to think that some reason should be assigned, and in the present instance the American Government have admitted that principle, because they have assigned a reason. But, Sir, what an extraordinary course is that adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman! The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the American Government had a perfect right to demand the dismissal of Mr. Crampton, and he gives that as a reason for supporting the conduct of a Ministry which, when the demand was made, refused to comply with it. That, Sir, appears to me a considerable anomaly. The American Government had either received just cause for offence or not. If it had, then it had a right to make a demand, which ought to have been complied with. If it had not, then it had no right to make the demand for the recall of Mr. Crampton, and the dismissal of that Gentleman ought not to have been accepted as it has been. And whatever happens, the Government ought not to allow matters to remain in their present doubtful and anomalous state; for to allow Mr. Dallas to remain here, and at the same time, by not replacing Mr. Crampton, to exhibit a certain amount of ill-feeling to the American Government, does not redound to the credit or honour of the country. It is true that if we send a substitute for Mr. Crampton, it is going far towards admitting that the Americans have received just cause of offence; but that they have, can any one in this House seriously doubt? It is impossible for any hon. Gentleman to read the Blue-book and question whether the law of America has been broken. I will not enter into the inquiry whether the question was one which it was worth the while of the American Government to raise; that is a matter for them to judge. It might have been a more generous course not to raise it, but no one can dispute its right to raise it. We commenced by a course of concealment, and even now, so far as the vast majority of the public and even of Members of this House is concerned, the whole affair is so complicated with dates and events, which require great pains and study to extract from these papers, so long buried in the archives of the Foreign Office, that very imperfect information exists. The ultimate judgment, however, of this House and of the country is not doubtful, as may be gleaned from the character of this debate. At the commencement of the debate, several hon. Members rose to deprecate the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo; but all carefully avoided giving any opinion on, or defending the conduct of, the Government. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner) deprecated the policy of raising the present discussion, but he carefully avoided giving any opinion upon its merits. The hon. Member for Montrose carefully avoids defending the proceedings of the Government, but he says that they do not deserve the censure of this House of Commons, and, to prove his position, he has condescended to throw upon Mr. Crampton the responsibility which ought to belong to his employers. It is impossible that the result of this discussion can have any effect on the real question, whether the law of America has been broken. The evidence on that point is smashing—it is impossible to resist it—it only required to be sifted. There is no principle on which the contrary can be maintained, unless a principle which would render all construction impossible and all intercourse between nations absurd. I do not deny that it is a question which deserved discussion in this House. I do not know what may be the intentions of the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion, not being in his counsels; but he has acted on his privilege as an independent Member. The debate which has taken place will, I believe, not be altogether free from inconvenience, but I am certain that it will have this great advantage, that it will tend to the real elucidation of the facts. It is for the true, substantial, and permanent interest of the two countries that the facts should be elucidated. If the American people are made aware of the facts, they will take care that their Government does not heedlessly carry them into a quarrel. The English people, too, when properly informed on the subject, will also exercise a similar salutary influence, and this debate is the first effort made to bring a knowledge of the facts to the mind of the English people. Hitherto, the facts have never been brought to the test of argument. They have been the property of the writers or of persons using them for purposes of their own; and they were now for the first time exposed to free discussion. I was sorry when the noble Lord at the head of the Government attempted to put a close to this debate last night, but I do not suppose that the discussion is of the most agreeable character to the Government. I grant that my noble Friend acts on a sound general rule in giving the weight of his authority against the practice of frequent adjournments of debate; but the importance of this matter is hardly to be overstated. The facts with respect to American law are too clear for sophistry itself to disguise. If it were possible to insure the real study of the Blue-book by all the Members of this House, there would be no serious difference of opinion remaining as to whether the American law had been observed or not. If persons responsible for the consequences of their opinions were prepared to take up this question, I should not hesitate to give my adhesion to an authentic expression of the sentiment of the House; but, in an abstract vote of censure, I am not prepared to participate. When the hon. Gentleman opposite said this was a party question, I could not help hoping that he would not give the weight of his character against party combinations in this House, which are associated with some of the best chapters in our history. When I look back to the period when party combinations were strong in this House—when Sir Robert Peel was on those (the Opposition) benches, and Lord John Russell on these, I think, though many mistakes and errors were committed on both sides, that, on the whole, the Government of the country was honourably and efficiently carried on. I believe that the day for this country will be a happy day when party combinations shall be restored on such a footing. But this question, instead of being a party question, is a most remarkable illustration of the disorganised state of parties; and of the consequent impotency of the House of Commons to express a practical opinion with respect to the foreign policy of the country. Under these circumstances, the only resource left to me is the undisguised expression of the opinions, which I strongly and conscientiously (perhaps erroneously) feel after the study of these papers. I have had the privilege of expressing those opinions freely and strongly—a privilege which I would not have waived on any account when I consider the bearing of the case with respect to the American alliance, which I so highly prize; or with respect to that which I still more highly prize and more dearly love—the honour and fair fame of my country.


explained. His expression with regard to Judge Kane was, that Judge Kane had—no doubt, conscientiously—changed his opinion with respect to the neutrality-laws; and that if so eminent a Judge as that had been in doubt as to the real interpretation of the law, it was excusable in an English consul.


said, he was conscious of the disadvantage of following so accomplished a speaker as the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; but he was greatly relieved by the impossibility which he felt in believing that the right hon. Gentleman was in earnest in the arguments which he had used. He was utterly unable to see in what way the right hon. Gentleman connected his arguments with the conclusion at which he had arrived. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by telling the House that he should not vote in the same lobby with the hon. Member for Mayo; but he went on to deliver a speech which, if it was sincerely felt, was completely irreconcilable with the conclusion which he had enunciated. He could not, therefore, but think that what they had just heard was a mere intellectual exercitation, which, indeed, if it were to have any effect at all, must lead to an entirely different vote to that which the right hon. Gentleman said he meant to give. True, the right hon. Gentleman told the House very clearly what it was that he should have wished to see. He complained very much that the angels on the other side had feared to tread where the hon. Member for Mayo had rushed in, and he avowed that if the party on the opposite benches had not felt their obligation to their country to be greater than their views of personal interest, and if they had led this attack, he would have been in their ranks, provided they had directed it to seizing the Government from the hands of those who now held it. But, further than that, the right hon. Gentleman had been bold enough to say that the American Government did not know their own case, and that they ought not to have arrived at the satisfactory termination of the matter that they had. After telling the House that he would dismiss altogether from consideration the evidence of Hertz and Stroebel, and the affidavits subsequently made, the right hon. Gentleman, by some mysterious and wonderful process, would make it appear that the American lawyers did not know their business—that they did not understand their own law, and that, in point of fact, there were abundant materials on which to form a conclusion which were never produced at the trial. The right hon. Gentleman's view of the present position of this question was, that the English Government were happy to acquiesce in their own acquittal, and that Mr. Crampton was the scapegoat whom they were willing to sacrifice as the price of their own exoneration; but he was surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman, who had evidently studied these papers with the greatest care, should expect the House of Commons to adopt an opinion entirely at variance with that which the American Government had expressed, and had placed on record in Mr. Marcy's despatch of the 27th of May. Surely, the American Government knew their own case better and were better able to say what ought to satisfy them than the right hon. Gentleman, and they in Mr. Marcy's despatch had stated, that they were abundantly satisfied with the explanations which they had received from the British Government, and that they were perfectly convinced that there never was any intention on the part of the British Government to offend either against the municipal law or against what they were fond of calling "the Sovereign rights of the United States." The real position of the matter was simply this—and it was, no doubt, perfectly well known to the acute mind of the right hon. Gentleman. The American Government, in effect, say in this despatch:— You (the British Government) have exonerated yourselves, but your agents have acted indiscreetly—they have been led into the commission of acts which we perfectly see were altogether foreign to your instructions, and you are therefore bound to recall them. To this the British Government replied, by asking for the evidence on which the American Government had arrived at this conclusion. To what evidence did the American Government point? Why, to that very evidence which the right hon. Gentleman has himself admitted to be altogether unworthy of belief. The British Government said, in reply, that they could not accept such testimony in the face of the declarations of our Minister and of our consuls as conclusive proof of their indiscretion. Mr. Marcy did not complain of our not adopting the American view of the matter; on the contrary, he allowed, in the fairest manner, that there might be a difference of opinion as to the correct conclusion to be drawn from the evidence produced, with reference to the complicity of Mr. Crampton and the consuls; but he maintained that his Government were bound to accept the conclusion drawn by their own courts of justice, and that, consequently, as we would not withdraw Mr. Crampton, they were compelled to dismiss him. How could that possibly be represented as an intentional insult to this country? Nothing was more common in life than that from the same facts, different conclusions should be drawn. Nothing could be more natural and reasonable, therefore, than the position in which the matter at present stood. The American Government said, they were perfectly satisfied with the conduct of our Government; but that they differed from us as to the bearing and value of certain evidence affecting our agents, and they, not being bound to attach so much moral weight to their declarations as we did, had determined to act upon their own conclusions and to dismiss them. That was the simple state in which the matter now stood. The right hon. Gentleman, however, maintained that the American Government ought not to have been so easily satisfied, that they ought to have formed an entirely different conclusion. This, he submitted, was not the view which this country ought to take of the matter. It was exactly one of those things which had been wisely deprecated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). The adoption of this view of the matter in the House of Commons would produce ten times as much mischief as any argument, any representation, which could be found in the despatches of Mr. Marcy or in the disquisitions of Mr. Caleb Cushing. Now, before examining the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, and in order to fix the data on which this question ought to be argued, it was necessary to ascertain first of all, what the law of the case was. He had observed in the American despatches, and in the arguments addressed to the House, a great deal of looseness and want of precision in the representations of the law upon this subject. At one time the whole complaint in the American papers was, that there had been an invasion of the municipal law of the United States. ["Hear, hear!"] At another time, as the hon. Member who cheered had no doubt seen, they altogether abandoned that position, and rested their case more particularly and more anxiously upon what they called an invasion of their rights of sovereignty. Then there was a third view of the matter put forth, especially by American writers—that the offence committed by this country consisted not in a direct invasion of the municipal law, nor in any breach of the international law, but in an attempt to evade, and by so evading, to break the municipal law. It was requisite that these matters should be well understood. In the observations which he was about to make, he should particularly refer to an opinion of Mr. Cushing, which had been put forward as a sort of manifesto of all that jurisprudence could supply upon the subject, and which some person had been at the expense of printing and extensively circulating, no doubt with a view to this discussion. In this document the argument was based not so much upon the municipal law of the United States as upon an exposition of international law. Upon an examination in the original language of the citations from the writings of jurists made by the Attorney General of the United States, it would be found that their result was, that international law went only to the extent of forbidding any nation actually to enrol or enlist soldiers in the territory of another. [''Hear!"] Actually to enlist or enrol. The hon. Member who cheered would probably think, for a moment, that he might understand the full meaning of those words. The offence, therefore, prohibited by the international law was the actual enrolment or enlistment of soldiers—What Wolfius, who was one of the authorities referred to, termed the inscriptio militiæ. That was the full limit of the international law applicable to this case. The American. Attorney General, in page 11 of this great pamphlet, referred especially to a treatise of Mr. Wheaton on international law, a translation by Mr. Laurence, and the admirable commentaries of Mr. Chancellor Kent. Mr. Wheaton, in speaking of the time when the municipal law, first adopted in 1790, and re-enacted in 1818, was introduced into America, cited the authority both of Wolfius and Vattel, in order to show that the levying of troops was an exclusive prerogative of sovereignty which no foreign Power could lawfully exercise, within the territory of another State, without its express permission. That was the only principle which was furnished by the international law in reference to this subject. The municipal law of the United States went much further; for it not only enforced this principle of the international law, but also prohibited any person from hiring or engaging any citizen of the United States within the territories of those States to go to a foreign country to be there enrolled or enlisted in the service of a foreign Power. It was necessary to observe, that under the municipal law it was requisite that the offence should be committed within the territory of the United States. With regard to the third point of the argument, that of the evasion of the municipal law of the United States, it was necessary to remember that the principle of the law of the United States was, that an American citizen might, with perfect liberty, expatriate himself. There was in the American law no such principle as that which prevailed in the law of England, and was embodied in the Act against enlisting in the service of foreign Powers, passed in the year 1819. The Americans had admitted the possibility of persons being naturalised in their country with great facility, and they had a corresponding principle that their citizens might expatriate themselves, and put on a different citizenship, except only to the extent to which they were absolutely forbidden by their laws. That principle was very well expressed by Mr. Marcy in a despatch which would be found in page 43 of the supplemental papers. Mr. Marcy wrote to M. Molina, the Minister of Costa Rica:— The right of expatriation is not, I believe, withheld from the citizens of any free Government, or from residents under its jurisdiction. * * * The liberty to go where hopes of better fortune may entice them belongs to free men, and no free Government withholds it. Therefore, in considering the argument on which a great deal of stress had been laid—that the British Government were exposed to censure because their proceedings were deliberately intended to enable parties to evade the law of the United State —it must be remembered that there was no principle embodied in the law beyond the letter of its enactment. The law was in restraint of natural liberty, and the principle therefore was natural liberty, except so far as it was expressly and positively restrained. You could not violate the principle of such a law unless you violated its letter. It must be construed strictly; it could not by construction be extended beyond the letter of the enactment. It was idle to speak of a breach of international law where there was no breach of the municipal law of the United States, because the municipal law went beyond the international. If there were no breach of the municipal law, agrave; multo fortiori there could be no breach of international law, or of the rights of sovereignty or national privileges of America. The whole of that argument was, if he might say so, very respectfully, most idle, for their rights of sovereignty were nothing in the world more than the power of preventing the enrolling of soldiers within their territory. These rights of sovereignty were embodied in their own municipal law, and consequently the question was reduced to whether we had violated the letter of that law. That law, let it he remembered, must be construed strictly, and not in an enlarged and indefinite extent. It must be taken according to the letter, according to the exact restraint which it put upon what was otherwise the natural right and liberty of the citizens of the United States. With this introduction he would approach the arguments which had been urged with so much force and so much ingenuity by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who began with a reference to the document published by Mr. Angus M'Donald, Had the right hon. Gentleman understood the bearing of that document, he would have abstained from the remarks and the arguments which he had founded upon it. He had said that Mr. Crampton not only practised concealment towards the American Government, but was also guilty of a species of false suggestion, because he went to the American Government, referred to this document, and produced a letter, which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose was written for that very purpose, in which he stated that he had prohibited its publication. The right hon. Gentleman would be so good as to bear in mind that the manifesto was published in the United States—that it professed to be issued on the authority, in the same, and with the voice of the British Government, and that, holding out an offer on behalf of that Government to every individual who might be willing to accept the terms of the proposal, it formed the foundation for a contract with all who were prepared to comply with the specified conditions. If the handbill bearing the signature of "Angus M'Donald" had been published with the sanction and authority of Mr. Crampton, that gentleman would indeed have been obnoxious to the censure sought to be cast upon him, for the document would have amounted to a proposal to certain individuals then being in the United States to enter the service of a foreign Power. There would then have been a clear hiring and retaining within the United States of persons who were willing to go abroad for the purpose of being enlisted. Nothing could be more precise or intelligible than the proposals set forth in Angus M'Donald's placard. They comprised a bounty of £6 or 30 dollars, "together with the pay of 8 dollars a month, rations, good clothing, and warm quarters." But it was, above all things, important to bear in mind that this manifesto, so far from being sanctioned, was expressly repudiated by Mr. Crampton. [Sir F. THESIGER: The Bill stated what had been actually done.] The hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in the construction which he put upon the handbill, for it clearly stated that "the British Government offer," not that it had offered. That the Bill did not refer to a past transaction was, moreover, clear from the concluding passage:— It is hoped that those effective men who are now suffering and in distress will avail themselves of this rare opportunity of bettering their condition before it is too late. Upon the receipt of the information that such a handbill was in existence, Mr. Crampton wrote the following letter to Consul Barclay:— Washington, March 22, 1855. Sir—I have received your letter of the 21st instant, inclosing a printed handbill, signed Angus M'Donald, and informing me that the said M'Donald states to you that he has issued it by the authority of Her Majesty's Government. I have to state to you that Angus M'Donald has no authority from Her Majesty's Government for the issue of the handbill in question, or for hiring or retaining any person in the United States to go beyond the limits of the same with intent to be enlisted in Her Majesty's service. This would constitute an infraction of the Neutrality Laws of the United States (Act of Congress, 1818, s, 2); and Her Majesty's Government, however desirous they may be to obtain recruits for the British army, are still more anxious that the laws of a State with which Her Majesty is at peace should respected. It was clear from this extract that Mr. Crampton put the same construction on the handbill for which he (the Solicitor General) was contending, and that, perceiving that it might be taken to constitute an infraction of the neutrality laws of the United States, he, so far from deluding the American Government, or attempting, as had been insinuated, to throw dust in their eyes, at once denounced and repudiated it. It had, indeed, been darkly hinted against him that though he disavowed this particular document, he had acted in the spirit of it, and had agents actively employed throughout the Union in obtaining recruits, and offering proposals similar to those which it contained. But there was not the slightest foundation for any such statement. Except in the tainted testimony of Hertz and Stroebel—witnesses whom the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted to be utterly unworthy of credit—there was not a particle of evidence throughout these proceedings to show that Mr. Crampton had done, or had given to any human being authority to do, anything at all approaching to what was proposed to be done by Angus M'Donald. Dismissing, then, their testimony, the matter rested without any foundation, and that point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument fell to the ground. With respect to the payments made by Consul Mathew to Hertz in the name of Mr. Howe, it had suited the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to call in question the accuracy of the newspaper report which represented Judge Kane as having expressed an opinion that those payments did not involve an infringement of the municipal laws of the United States; he said it was a mere newspaper report, and was totally without foundation. He (the Solicitor General) accepted without reserve the doctrine that we should not require the American Judges to bend to our interpretation of the law. He concurred in the eulogiums pronounced upon those learned persons, and admitted that he had no fault to find with the judgment delivered in this particular case by Judge Kane; but he certainly did think it a little hard, that while the right hon. Gentleman had impugned the accuracy of the report attributing a certain opinion to the Judge in question it had never occurred to him to inform the House that the American Attorney General had himself quoted and relied on that opinion, and that the statement of the Attorney General coincided exactly with the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. Writing to Mr. Van Dyke, on the 12th of September, 1855, Mr. Caleb Cushing alluded to Judge Kane's judgment in these terms— This Government has, of course, addressed to that of Great Britain such demands of public redress and satisfaction in the premises as the national honour requires. But the Government of Great Britain, with extraordinary inattention to the grave aspect of its acts, namely, the flagrant violation of our sovereign rights involved in them, has supposed it a sufficient justification of what it has done to reply that it gave instructions to its agents so to proceed as not to infringe our municipal laws; and it quotes the remark of Judge Kane in support of the idea that it has succeeded in this purpose. It may be so. Judge Kane is an upright and intelligent Judge, and will pronounce the law as it is, without fear or favour. That upright and intelligent Judge, pronouncing the law with such conscientious accuracy, had given it as his opinion that "the payment of the passage of a man who desired to enlist in a foreign port did not come within the Act of 1818, commonly called the Neutrality Law." If this were so, what became of the whole fabric of argument attempted to be raised on the allegation that money had been paid for travelling expenses by Mr. Crampton? Setting aside the evidence of Hertz and Stroebel, who, on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself, were totally unworthy of credit, there was not the faintest pretext for anything that Mr. Crampton, or any agent acting in the name of the British Government, had paid one farthing for the purpose of hiring or retaining any person to enlist in the service of England. The next point taken by the right hon. Gentleman was, that Mr. Crampton had concealed from the Minister of the United States the means of employment he had provided for the persons whom he desired to hire with the view to enlistment. But did Mr. Marcy make that complaint? No. It was left entirely to the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that of which Mr. Marcy never dreamt. He would venture to trouble the House with the statements of Mr. Marcy himself, which would be found in the last papers laid upon the table. In his last despatch Mr. Marcy, speaking of Mr. Crampton's representation of what took place on the 22nd of March, and citing a passage in Lord Clarendon's letter of the 30th of April, said— I repeat now, with entire consciousness of its accuracy, what I stated in my letter of the 28th of December last, that at that interview on the 22nd of March—the only one I ever had with Mr. Crampton, as he admits, in which the recruitment business was alluded to—he (Mr. Crampton) 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 army. But I am quite certain, that on no occasion has he intimated to me that the British Government, or any of its officers, was, or had been, in any way concerned in sending agents into the United States to recruit therein, or to use any inducements for that purpose. Nor did he ever notify to me that he was taking, or intended to take, any part in furthering such proceedings. Such a communication, timely made, would probably have arrested the mischief at its commencement. If he had then apprised me of the system of recruiting which had at that time been already arranged and put into operation within the United States by British agents, and under his superintending direction, he would have been promptly notified, in the most positive terms, that such acts were contrary to the municipal law, incompatible with the neutral policy of the country, a violation of its national sovereignty, and especially exceptionable in the person of the representative of any foreign Government. Here they came to the introduction into the language employed upon this matter of the word "recruiting," a word used by Mr. Marcy throughout the correspondence in the most general sense, but which was not to be found in the American law. The complaint of Mr. Marcy was, that Mr. Crampton never represented to him that agents had been sent into the United States by the British Government to obtain recruits. But this was begging the very question in dispute. If the word "recruiting" was taken to mean enlisting, hiring, or engaging, where was the evidence that such a thing had taken place? There was not a tittle of proof, save the testimony which the right hon. Gentleman admitted to be unworthy of credit. It was impossible to peruse Mr. Marcy's letter without observing that he took for granted the very point in controversy, and assumed that there bad been concealment on Mr. Crampton's part. Having now gone over the principal topics adverted to in the eloquent address of the right hon. Gentleman, the House would perhaps permit him to recall to its recollection the actual issue before it. The House was called upon to pronounce that Her Majesty's Ministers should have been satisfied with the means adopted by the American Government to try the facts of this case. The House was already acquainted with the nature of the evidence adduced before the court of law; but he hoped that he would be excused for asking their earnest attention to the manner in which the American jury who heard the case was sought to be influenced. The real issue to be determined was this:—Ought our Government to have been content with the judicial investigation that took place in the United States, and with the decision in which it resulted? In Mr. Crampton's last despatch an account was given of the way in which the persons composing the grand jury were got together, nominally to find a Bill against Mr. Hertz, but, in reality to find an indictment against our Minister. Hon. Gentlemen had complained that newspaper reports of the trial were relied upon; but the truth was, that we had no other evidence of the proceedings before the Court except that furnished by the American journals. He held in his hand a pamphlet containing a republication of the shorthand report of the trial taken specially for The Pennsylvanian newspaper. The impartiality of this report might be judged of from the fact that all the inflammatory harangues of Mr. Van Dyke, the District Attorney of the United States, were given to the letter, whereas the speeches of the counsel for the defence were almost suppressed. The following was the language addressed to the jury by the District Attorney, acting under the immediate direction of Mr. Cushing— I have said that the war in the Crimea was conducted by the British, French, and other nations, as allies, against the single Power of Russia. I have said that the consequences of that war had been disastrous to the besieging parties, and that the signs of the times indicated a still more humiliating fate. The English army having met the most serious losses, the Government of Great Britain, in direct violation of her duty towards us, and with a design of misleading those residents of the United States who did not fully comprehend the nature of our laws, devised a plan for the purpose of partially regaining the position and standing which, in the absence of the proper exercise of the advanced military experience of the age, they had lost. A plan for this purpose was adopted and attempted to be carried out by his Excellency John F. Crampton, the Minister Plenipotentiary of Her Majesty, assisted by several agents of the British Government, within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, and I think you will be satisfied Mr. Crampton thus acted with the knowledge and approbation of his Government. In a subsequent part of the same address, after a very animated appeal to the jury, altogether dropping the name of Hertz and levelling the accusation against Mr. Crampton, and alleging that our Minister and his associate representatives "gave directions to Captain Stroebel to repair immediately to all the recruiting offices in the United States and order the persons engaged in those offices to adopt the system which they had prepared for the guidance of the recruiting agents;" the District Attorney exclaimed, "Honourable and generous Great Britain! and oh, most faithful British Ministers!" Referring to the final speech of the District Attorney, on summing up the evidence, the pamphlet stated that Mr.Van Dyke— Closed his remarks by a severe commentary upon the baseness and perfidy of the persons engaged as the chief actors in this flagrant attempt to violate and evade the laws and treaty obligations of the United States, and expressed the hope that the result of this case would vindicate the action of the Government in their determination to maintain our national integrity with every nation of the globe, whether it is or is not in accordance with the sinister purposes of Great Britain. By forcing this indictment thus against this defendant the President of the United States has struck as near the Throne of Her Majesty as he is enabled to do in the shape of a criminal prosecution. The extended privileges and peculiar protection given to a foreign Minister prevents, so far as he is concerned, the application of the criminal code of the country, although such foreign Minister may be proved guilty of acts which, if committed by a private individual, would make him a felon. Alluding to Mr. Crampton, the Hon. Joseph Howe, and Sir Gaspard le Marchant, the speaker continued— You, gentlemen, may rest assured that in due time they will be called upon by our able and faithful officers at Washington to make proper atonement for the gross insult which they have offered to our laws and our people. These were some of the statements made at a trial the record of which the American Government alleged compelled them to conclude that the acts complained of were done with the knowledge and at the instigation of Mr. Crampton. If language such as that had been used against America by the Attorney General of this country in conducting a prosecution on behalf of our Government, would not offence have been justly taken by the United States? Would anybody have regarded an investigation thus conducted as a satisfactory and impartial trial, the result of which could be accepted as a dispassionate judicial decision? Such, assuredly, would not have been the opinion entertained of it. And yet, how stood the question? The inquiry was simply this:—Ought Her Majesty's Ministers, under such circumstances, at once to have consented to recall their Minister, at the suggestion of the American Government, upon the proofs appealed to by that Government, and in opposition to the assurances of Mr. Crampton, and of all the official personages with whom he acted? He thought the House of Commons would be of opinion that, under the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government had acted rightly. That was the simple question that was at issue between the House and the American Government. The American Government were bound to accept, and they did accept, the assurance—nay, the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him was one of the first who would claim for that assurance the fullest and most ample credit. That right hon. Gentleman must recollect that all that had been done had been nothing more than what might be called the natural consequences of those proceedings which were commenced while the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government of Lord Aberdeen. The Foreign Enlistment Act must be taken as the law of this country, and one of the bases of those proceedings. We were also bound to accept this, that it was the result of the statutes for the enlistment of soldiers. Was there a place in Europe where we could go in order to enlist soldiers with so much propriety as to the United States? And why? The States contained very many of the subjects of Her Majesty, and they had become a place of refuge to numbers who owed no allegiance to the Government of the United States beyond that due from temporary residents. If, therefore, the Foreign Enlistment Act were part of the law of the land, and it came to be part of the obligation of the Ministry to execute it—and the right hon. Gentleman would not say that it should be suffered to remain a dead letter—he (the Solicitor General) demanded to what part of the globe England could resort with greater reason to carry it into effect than the United States? Not only were we likely to find a greater number of natural-born subjects ready to respond to our invitation in the United States than elsewhere, but it was a country where the municipal law with regard to the allegiance of its citizens was lighter and more easily relaxed than in any other country; and, therefore, in resorting to it we were resorting to a place where the Foreign Enlistment Act could be carried into effect with the least injury to the municipal law. He trusted, then, that the House would feel that the British Government were under no obligation to recall Mr. Crampton on the representations of the American Government. The American representations would be found to be faulty in their basis; and he hoped the House would agree with him that he had been enabled to show that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, built on the part of the correspondence which he had selected for reading, were simply a false conclusion—a conclusion not warranted by any justifiable view or interpretation of the municipal law of the United States, or of the exigencies of the international law.


I leave it to the House and the country to decide between the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. The powerful speech of my right hon. Friend has, in my opinion, completely exhausted this subject, and at this late hour I would gladly abstain from trespassing upon the time of the House, were it not that, having used some strong expressions with reference to this subject on a former evening, it may fairly be expected that I should now vindicate that language. I am also desirous of stating frankly my opinion—an opinion in which I am glad to find myself supported by the right hon. Member for Oxford University—that the time has arrived when the House of Commons may fairly and properly address itself to the consideration of this painful subject. Indeed, I conceive that if we were now to shrink from the discussion of this question we should be wanting in duty to our country. The papers before us are now completed, and they tell a most discreditable tale, made worse by the last which have been produced; and I can well understand that Her Majesty's Ministers may desire to avoid a discussion, and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House may well have thought that a reasonable request on the part of the Government. I will go further, and will make this admission—I am willing to admit that hon. Members who are prepared to disregard the plausible request made by the Government incur thereby considerable responsibility. But the crisis is one of no ordinary importance. The circumstances of the case are peculiar as well as important, and I think we are bound to ask ourselves—will the discussion of this question at the present moment be prejudicial to the public interests? My firm persuasion is that, instead of being injurious to the public interests, the discussion of this subject now can do nothing but good. My belief is that the settlement of our delicate relations with the United States will be promoted if it be known to the public and to the American citizens that there is a party—an independent party—in this House (and I care little whether, as regards the division in the lobby, I stand in a large or small majority) which will consider the papers before us dispassionately, and raise its protest against the rashness and imprudence by which the peaceful relations between the two countries have been imperilled. Entertaining these views, I feel bound to tender my thanks to the hon. Member for Mayo for the decision and vigour with which he has disregarded the appeals that have been made to him, and has decided to bring the matter before the House of Commons, and to have a discussion of this question upon its merits. The only point, with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Mayo, on which I differ from the right hon. Member for Oxford University, is as to the course which my right hon. Friend intends to adopt. Whether or no the hon. Member for Mayo intends to press his Motion to a division I cannot tell. [Cheers from the Ministerial benches.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer; I really know not why. [Renewed cheering.] I have no influence with the hon. Member for Mayo. There is no party connection between that hon. Gentleman and myself. But if he takes a division upon this subject, I, for one, shall undoubtedly go with him into the lobby. I was taken to task the other night for having used strong expressions upon this subject. Those expressions have been repeated during the present debate. I find that my opinion has been fully borne out, and I beg to state that I do not recede from one word I uttered on the occasion to which I refer. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department asked last night, what was the real object of this Motion, which he said he did not understand. I think possibly the eyes of the right hon. Baronet may have been opened by the speech of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford to-night; but if that is not the case, I have no hesitation in stating what I consider to be the charges against Her Majesty's Government upon this subject. My opinion is, that no dispassionate man can rise from a careful perusal of the papers upon the table without feeling that the conduct of the Government has been such as to compromise its character, to endanger the peace of the world, and to bring us to the verge of a war with America. The result of this conduct has been that Her Majesty's Government have offered humiliating apologies to the United States, and have been subjected to the indignity of having their Ambassador dismissed;—a most painful state of affairs, to which I am convinced Her Majesty's Government would not have submitted if they had not been conscious that their conduct with regard to the question of enlistment had been indefensible. How is it that the Government have been involved in this dilemma? I maintain that it has been by the most unwise and imprudent disregard of the most obvious requirements both of general international law and of the municipal law of the United States. The Solicitor General has spoken a good deal upon that subject to-night, and I confess I was rather amused at that part of his speech in which he expressed a great desire that any one who wished to understand the question should read the authors upon international law in the original languages. The right hon. Member for Oxford University dwelt in terms of lamentation upon the small portion of mankind, not excluding this House, who were disposed to study Blue-books; but I am inclined to think that the number of persons who will dive into international law in the original languages is still more limited. I was also rather amused at the extreme dexterity and ingenuity with which the Attorney General endeavoured last night to draw us away to the only part of the American law on the subject which has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. The Home Secretary and the Solicitor General have followed in the same attempt. They have all endeavoured to fix our attention upon that part of the American law under which, no doubt, American citizens are perfectly free to enlist into a foreign service, or to do anything else they please when out of the United States; but that point of law has nothing to do with the question relative to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government; and I think they would have dealt more ingenuously with the House if they had dwelt upon that part of the American law which happily does not require a reference to the "original" language, for nothing could be more plain to the understanding of the most unlearned reader than the municipal law of the United States. Under that law, according to Mr. Crampton himself, it is clearly an offence to hire or detain any person to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted; and, in my opinion, it has been by an entire disregard of that law that Her Majesty's Government have involved us in the painful difficulty in which we now find ourselves placed. I will here advert to the first despatch of Lord Clarendon, addressed to Mr. Crampton, and in which the latter was desired to communicate with Sir Gaspard le Marchant and the British consuls in the United States on the subject of the recruitment. Before that despatch there was one sent out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert), who was at that time in office, the colleague of the right hon. Member for Oxford University; and here I cannot help expressing my regret that the Government of that day did not abstain altogether from any communication with Mr. Crampton. The Government made a serious mistake in entertaining the idea of drawing recruits from America for our army; but, entertaining it, there was only one mode in which it could be carried out with any degree of prudence, and that was by limiting their efforts to our own colonial possessions. If our Government had opened recruiting offices at Halifax and Quebec—where we know that loyal colonists were anxious to enter into our service—colonists whose assistance was rejected by the Minister of the Crown—and had abstained from any communication either with Mr. Crampton or with the British consuls in the United States, I think they might have added valuable recruits to the army; and if citizens of the United States had chosen voluntarily to engage in our service, they could have been enlisted without furnishing ground of complaint to the American Government. Again, passing on to the next stage of the proceedings, I cannot understand how our Government, after receiving the despatch of Mr. Crampton, dated March 26, giving an account of his first interview with Mr. Marcy, and showing clearly what the feeling of the American Cabinet was, could entertain the idea of persevering for another day in their unwise and imprudent policy of attempting to raise recruits in the United States. They ought to have abandoned their intentions immediately. And here, Sir, I must refer to the conduct of Lord Clarendon in this matter, though, I can assure the House and the Government, without the slightest degree of personal disrespect. If I were to speak of Lord Clarendon in terms of personal disrespect, sure I am that such language would find no response either in this House or in the country; but we must not be induced by feelings of a private nature to compliment away the interests of England, or to abstain from expressing the opinion which, as public men, we entertain upon a question of national importance. It was only the other evening that we heard from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London a rhetorical flourish with respect to the conduct of Lord Clarendon, in which the noble Lord expressed his wish that the same Statesman, whose name was connected with the pacification of the East, should also have the honour of putting an end to the differences with the West. That was a very amusing rhetorical sentence, but I am sorry to say that I cannot subscribe to the justice of the compliment to Lord Clarendon. In the East, I find the name of Lord Clarendon attached to a Resolution which no Minister of England ought to have signed. Last night we were told by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government that the fortifications of Ismail are to be dismantled,—an object with respect to which Lord Clarendon sustained a signal defeat at Paris. Here, again, in the West, the name which is most conspicuous in these unfortunate transactions with the United States is that of Lord Clarendon. I agree with the right hon. Member for Oxford University, that it would be most unjust to separate Lord Clarendon from his colleagues in this matter. No doubt the whole Government is responsible for the acts of one of their body, but, nevertheless, there are certain facts and circumstances involved in these proceedings which we are inevitably driven to connect with the name of Lord Clarendon. That noble Lord, instead of taking the only prudent course which was open to him as soon as he received the first warning of the feeling of the American Government—instead of at once abandoning the idea of raising recruits in the United States, sent out a despatch dated April 12, in which no intimation whatever is conveyed to our agents in America, that they should not proceed any further in the matter. What had happened in the meantime? The American Government had taken alarm; the people of the United States had found out what was going on; and as soon as the papers issued by Mr. Angus M'Donald became known, Mr. Crampton sought an interview with Mr. Marcy, the result of which he communicated in a despatch to Lord Clarendon. What was the language of Mr. Marcy— Mr. Marcy observed that he had never doubted that no sort of countenance would be given by Her Majesty's Government to persons who should use their name in any attempt to violate the neutrality laws. He added, however, that the proceeding in question had been brought under his notice, and that orders had already been given to the District Attorney of the United States to institute legal proceedings against Angus M'Donald, or any other persons who should be found to have rendered themselves liable to the penalties of the act of Congress regarding the enlistment of citizens or residents in the United States for the service of a foreign Power. (Cries of "Divide!") I assure the House that if they will favour me with their attention I will be as brief as possible. What followed immediately upon this? Here I touch the ground so powerfully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. But I have a new charge to make, and that is that the American Government were deceived—whether intentionally or not—the American Government were deceived by Her Majesty's Ministers. On the pages of the Blue-book there appear to me to be three instances in which the American Government were misled and deceived by Mr. Crampton and the agents of the British Government. The first was in Mr. Crampton's letter to Consul Barclay on the handbill of Angus M'Donald, which was read to Mr. Marcy, and which was as follows— I have to state to you that Angus M'Donald has no authority from Her Majesty's Government for the issue of the handbill in question, or for hiring or retaining any person in the United States to go beyond the limits of the same with intent to be enlisted in Her Majesty's service. This would constitute an infraction of the neutrality laws of the United States (Act of Congress, 1818, s. 2); and Her Majesty's Government, however desirous they may be to obtain recruits for the British army, are still more anxious that the laws of States with which Her Majesty is at peace should be respected. How could the American Government draw any conclusion from this letter but that the attempt was to be abandoned? The second was in Mr. Crampton's interview with Mr. Marcy; and the third was in that communication between Mr. Lumley and Mr. Marcy, in which Mr. Lumley read Lord Clarendon's letter, and assured Mr. Marcy that Mr. Crampton had determined not only that there should be no violation of the law of the United States, but no evasion of that law. What was the language of Mr. Marcy on hearing Lord Clarendon's letter read? Mr. Marcy was completely misled by the language of Mr. Lumley, which was to the effect that the Government had abandoned the attempt to recruit in the United States. Where was Mr. Crampton at this very moment? Why, he was at Halifax devising those means by which the law of the United States was to be evaded, Mr. Buchanan wrote to Lord Clarendon on the 6th of July, and complained of these deceptive practices. Mr. Buchanan said— When intimations were thrown out that British consuls in the United States were encouraging and aiding such enlistments, Mr. Crampton, Her Britannic Majesty's Minister at Washington, exhibited to the Secretary of State a copy of a letter which he had addressed to one of these consuls, disapproving the proceeding, and discountenancing it as a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States. After this very proper conduct on the part of Mr. Crampton, it was confidently believed that these attempts to raise military forces within the territory of a neutral nation, from whatever source they may have originated, would at once have been abandoned. This reasonable expectation has not been realised, and efforts to raise recruits within the United States for the British army are still prosecuted with energy, though chiefly in a somewhat different form. Mr. Marcy, in his despatch of the 28th of December, again complains of the same fact—that the Government of the United States had been misled. The Solicitor General said to-night, that Mr. Marcy made no such complaint. I think I may say of him what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) said of the Attorney General—for I very much suspect that he also has not read these papers. Mr. Marcy, in his despatch of the 28th of December, regrets that the instructions of the British Government to their agents were not made known to the American Government, and complains of the deception thus practised upon him. This despatch was answered by Lord Clarendon in a manner that gave considerable offence to the American Government. Mr. Marcy had expressed in strong but dignified terms, of which no complaint could be made, the feelings of the American Government on finding that officers of the British Government were involved in these transactions; and this despatch was followed by one from Lord Clarendon which, I regret, was not marked by the tone which usually characterises the noble Lord's despatches. Lord Clarendon complained of conspiracy, and used bad reasoning and vituperative language, in which he compares an Irish public meeting at Boston, or some other part of America, with the act of the British Government deliberately adopted and carried out by their agents. Lord Clarendon, in that despatch, fully justifies the conduct of the British officers in America. I will remind the House what the conduct of these officers was, and I will not depend either on the confession of Hertz, or the evidence of Stroebel, but mainly on the admission of the British officers themselves. I will call attention to the instruction given to Mr. Crampton, and then to the interview between Mr. Crampton and Mr. Stroebel, at Halifax, showing the connection between Mr. Crampton and Stroebel. I should like to know whether the Government are prepared to deny these two facts adduced in the trial of Hertz, that a cipher, stated to be in Mr. Crampton's handwriting, was drawn up to carry on a secret communication between Mr. Crampton and Mr. Stroebel when the latter was recruiting in America. The other fact is the allegation that when this Captain Stroebel went to the United States, he adopted the name of Smith for purposes of concealment, and that correspondence was carried on by him under the name of Smith, with a British officer, named Preston, in cipher in order to avoid detection. If this is true, what becomes of the assurances that there had been no evasion of the law of the United States? How can this be reconciled with the openness and want of concealment that are now urged by the Government? Is it true that these men were enjoined to travel as private persons in order to avoid observation? Is it true that they were hired in the American States as railway labourers, and told to go as railway labourers to Halifax? Is it true that Mr. Crampton carried on this cipher correspondence, and that the name of Smith was adopted for disguise? It is only fair to put these inquiries to the Government. If these things are true, the defence set up by the Government vanishes altogether, and I have no hesitation in saying, in the face of Parliament and the country, that, if these facts are true, I, as an English Gentleman, am entirely ashamed of them. At this late hour I will not dwell upon that point. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial side.] I can easily understand the unwillingness of Gentlemen opposite to listen to these things. I think that extremely natural; but I do not understand how they should think, as it seems they do, that they only sit here to interrupt those who perform their duty. I will now touch for a moment—and it shall only be for a moment—upon the question of the conduct of the consuls, because, here again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University has entirely occupied the ground. I think the consuls have been most unfairly treated. They ought never to have been involved in these transactions. I have been struck, on reading these papers, with the obvious reluctance of Mr. Crampton, Sir Gaspard Le Marchant, and every one of these gentlemen, to be so involved. It really seems that Her Majesty's Government were the only parties unconscious of the danger. Their officers would not touch the matter one bit further than they were obliged, although they had not the moral courage to do what Vattel tells us agents ought to do under such circumstances, namely, disobey the orders received from the Government at home. It is clear that Hertz received money through Mr. Mathews, who sent back the receipt to Mr. Howe; but it is said, "Hertz is a man of bad character." If he had not been a man of bad character he would never have been a party to these transactions. No honourable persons would have undertaken the duties these men discharged, and if Hertz and Stroebel had not been men of bad character they would not have been fit for the task assigned to them by Her Majesty's Government. I cannot refrain from alluding, for a moment, to those last despatches. As I said at the outset, they are most remarkable, and make the case worse than it was before. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General rather boasted of the complete acceptance in these despatches of the apology of the British Government; but it seems to me the language of acceptance contains one of the bitterest sarcasms I ever read. [Cries of "Divide!"] Let me entreat the attention of the House, for the sake of this great question, if not for the sake of the Gentleman putting it before them, to the boasted acceptance of the disclaimer. What is the language of Mr. Marcy? He says— The Earl of Clarendon, in behalf of Her Majesty's Government, disclaims all intention to violate the laws, compromise the neutrality, or disregard the sovereignty of the United States, by enlisting troops within their territory. The President unreservedly accepts and is folly satisfied with this disclaimer. Of course the unlawful acts in question were not authorised by the British Government, but the fact is nevertheless well established that they were done, and done in the name, and at the expense, of the British Government.'' Is that an acceptance of a disclaimer? Did any one ever read a more palpable sarcasm? It is perfectly clear that the writer of that despatch felt, that in drawing the distinction which he was attempting to draw between the conduct of the Government and the conduct of Mr. Crampton, he was attempting that which was impossible. The Solicitor General has adverted to this distinction, and has said, that in his conduct Mr. Crampton was guilty of indiscretion and inadvertence. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I said the charge against Mr. Crampton was one of indiscretion and inadvertence.] Exactly so. I had not in the least misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. He told us that the charge against Mr. Crampton by the American Government contained in this despatch was indiscretion and inadvertence. Will the House allow me to read the passage which refers to Mr. Crampton? Instead of a charge of indiscretion and inadvertence, Mr. Marcy, in his last despatch, thus wrote with regard to Mr. Crampton— It is not the least of the causes of complaint against Mr. Crampton that, by his acts of commission in this business, or in failing to advise his Government of the impracticability of the undertaking in which he was embarked, and the series of illegal acts which it involved, and in neglecting to observe the general orders of his Government and to stop the recruiting here the moment its illegality was pronounced by the proper legal authorities of the United States, he was recklessly endangering the harmony and peace of two great nations which, by the character of their commercial relations and by other considerations, have the strongest possible inducements to cultivate reciprocal amity. Having read that passage, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he can call that a charge of inadvertence and indiscretion? No, Sir, the charge is of a very different nature. I do not understand how Her Majesty's Government could have consented to accept the distinction which the American Government has drawn, considering that Lord Clarendon, in the very last speech which he made in reply to Lord Elgin, declared that if the Government consented to recall Mr. Crampton, they would be taking apart which was shabby and dishonourable. But this is the dilemma to which Her Majesty's Government has been reduced by the course they have taken. And what is their excuse? The plea they have urged is, that they have made most ample apology for any offence against the United States, The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford has expressed a doubt this evening whether any apology was made or not. Whether apology has been made or not, it cannot be denied that the Government have urged the fact of apology in vindication. No doubt in all cases between nations, as between individuals, the wrongdoer is right in offering apology; but, while we respect the moral feelings of the man who makes apology, we are inclined to call in question his judgment, which places him in a position in which; apology is necessary. I think the representatives of England in this House and the people of this country have a right to complain that Her Majesty's Government have placed this country in such a position that we have been obliged to make humiliating apologies to the United States. Let me now advert for a moment to the particular time when this attempt was made to raise troops in America. It was made at a moment when it was the duty of any Government to have taken the greatest possible care not to add to the difficulties already existing with regard to the United States. The delicate question of Central America had been long hanging over us. It still remains to be settled. If anything made the conduct of the Government more imprudent than it otherwise would have been, it was embarking in this dangerous attempt to raise soldiers within the United States at a time when it was peculiarly important to give no just cause of offence to that country. Sir, on both sides of the Atlantic every party and every honest man must hope that no indiscretion of any Government, in either country, will lead to the terrible calamity of war between England and America. I can imagine nothing which either country could gain by such a calamity. Either might gain temporary glory, but what compensation would that be for the destruction of commerce, the interruption of social progress, the waste of blood and treasure, which must inevitably result from such a contest? Such, I think and hope, will be the feeling of many thousands on both sides of the Atlantic. If, unhappily, the national honour or the national interests should require the institution of such a struggle, then, no doubt, the people of this country and our fellow-subjects in the American provinces would rally loyally round the Throne. But all must earnestly pray that such a day may be far distant. Upon both sides of the Atlantic there would be an outcry against the Government which should embark upon such a melancholy contest without the justification of a righteous cause.


Sir, notwithstanding the doubt which the right hon. Baronet who addressed us last expressed as to whether the hon. Member who made the Motion would think it necessary to press it to a division, and notwithstanding the effort made by the hon. Gentleman who just now presented himself (Mr. John MacGregor) unfortunately for himself a little too late, I do hope the House will think it necessary to pronounce an opinion upon the Motion which has been submitted to them, and which is no less than a vote of censure upon the Government. I trust the House will feel it a duty not longer to delay pronouncing an opinion upon this question, and not allow to remain in suspense the question whether the Government which hitherto has enjoyed the confidence of the House and of the country is henceforward to rest under the censure of this important body. The hon. Member who made the Motion began by saying that he called upon the House to pronounce an opinion in a judicial capacity, and that the debate should be conducted with judicial calmness. But no sooner had the hon. Member made the exhortation than he began, and continued during the remainder of his speech, to indulge in a perfect tissue of personalities and invective—ripping up everything he could find in the treasures of his memory, putting forth all the calumnies which in former times had been uttered against my noble Friend, Lord Clarendon, and, by dwelling upon the name of my noble Friend in every alternate sentence of his speech, the hon. Member endeavoured to create an impression that there was something in these transactions to separate Lord Clarendon from his colleagues, and that the censure of this House, which he invoked, should fall upon that one Member of the Government, and not equally upon all. The tenour of that speech was as unconstitutional as, I trust, the result of the Motion will be unsuccessful. It has been well said by those who followed the hon. Member that there is no individuality in that Member of the Government who is charged by the office he holds with the conduct of these great transactions, but that all his colleagues are equally responsible as himself. I can assure the House that the whole Government are prepared, in the fullest sense of the word, to adopt the entire responsibility for anything which Lord Clarendon has said or written upon this question. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) began by referring to the origin of these transactions—namely, that Act authorising the Crown to raise foreign troops for the purposes of the war. He told us how, in 1813, there were I don't know how many thousand men in arms, and that ten years after the war began there was a great increase in the force with which we began, while, one year after the late war had commenced we had not completed the number of men which had been voted by Parliament. I shall not go back to the discussion which took place upon that Bill; but the ground upon which we proposed it to Parliament, and upon which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone) concurred, was that, in a country whose army was raised by voluntary enlistment, and not by conscription, the means of rapidly increasing the number of soldiers did not exist to such an extent as to render a recourse to other means unnecessary. That Bill having become law, it became the duty of Her Majesty's Government to carry it into effect. We heard that there were a number of persons residing in the United States, some of them British subjects, some Germans, who had removed from their own countries from various causes, who were desirous of joining the ranks of the British army and to take part in a war which they considered to be a rightful and a just war. We determined to endeavour to avail ourselves of the aid of those persons, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) and those who sit near him were parties to that determination. I cannot allow my right hon. Friend, who must admit that he was a party to the establishment of a recruiting system in Nova Scotia, to say that that system was not intended solely for the enlistment of British subjects resident in the British provinces, but it was intended distinctly and avowedly to enlist persons coming from the United States; and I cannot allow my right hon. Friend to own himself a party to that arrangement without having been aware of the results that must flow from it. That system was determined upon; but at the same time the Government determined also that nothing should be done that was at variance with the municipal laws of the United States. A distinction has been attempted to be drawn between national law and municipal law, between the internal regulation and the sovereign rights of a nation; but that sophistry has been blown away by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who demonstrated in the clearest manner that municipal law could not be construed beyond its enactments, and therefore it is a fallacy to say you can conform to the municipal law forbidding enlistments, and yet be violating international rights. The question is, was the municipal law of the United States violated? I maintain that it was not. Certainly, it was not violated by order of this Government—it was not violated in consequence of any instructions issued by them, or to their knowledge, by any officers acting under their instruction. It is contended that it was violated by their officers acting indiscreetly and with over zeal. Those officers deny that assertion; and according to their interpretation of the law of the United States it is manifest that they did nothing at variance with that law. Who is to interpret that law? It is said that there was a counsel who gave an opinion; but there was also a Judge who gave an opinion; and if Judge Kane knew then what the law of the United States was, then it is clear that nothing was done by our agents that was a violation of the law. It is said that Judge Kane afterwards altered his opinion; but when was that? In September. He gave his first opinion in May. Our operations ceased in July; and therefore, so far as the conduct of the officers of this Government is concerned, that was borne out by the high authority of a Judge of the United States. It is also said that, notwithstanding, proof was given to the Government of the United States that things were done which were a violation of their laws. No doubt things were done in violation of their laws, but it was by persons not authorised to act by any person commissioned by the British Government, and against them prosecutions were instituted which in some cases succeeded, in others failed. It has been said that no prosecutions could be instituted against Mr. Crampton, because he was protected by his diplomatic character. That argument does not apply to the consuls. If they had, as is contended by the United States Government, violated the law, why were they not prosecuted? The right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson) referred to the case of Mr. Curtis in Prussia; but Mr. Curtis was actually prosecuted. We thought, and still believe, that the proceedings upon that trial were not fair and just, and the same opinion seems to have existed in Prussia, for, although Mr. Curtis was condemned, the King immediately ordered his release and granted a full pardon. Why did not the American Government act in the same manner towards our consuls? Of the three consuls who have been dismissed none have been brought to trial. Proceedings against Stanley have also been discontinued by the authority of the United States' Government; and, therefore, I am warranted in saying that the accusations agoinst Mr. Crampton and the three consuls rest upon the testimony of those witnesses who are admitted on all hands to be men of the vilest and basest character, and to be utterly unworthy of credit. Then it is said that we practised deception and concealment upon the United States' Government. Why, Sir, Mr. Crampton, in his conversation of the 27th of March, stated fully and fairly to the American Government that which they must already have known without his statement—namely, that the British Government were taking measures in Halifax to receive those persons coming from the United States who might be willing to engage in our military service. But then it is said that Mr. Crampton did not go afterwards to Mr. Marcy and tell him day by day what he was doing. Why did not Mr. Marcy send for Mr. Crampton if he were informed that proceedings were taking place on the part of British authorities which were at variance with the law of the United States? Why, if any Minister of a foreign Power in this country were supposed to be acting at variance with British law, does any man suppose that our Minister for Foreign Affairs would not send for him the very next day after receiving such information, ask him for explanations, sift the matter to the bottom, and allow no misunderstanding to exist? Is that the conduct of the American Government? No. Month after month they allow these things to go on, never send for Mr. Crampton, never tell him what it was supposed he was guilty of doing; they allow these things to accumulate in order that, when the proper time arrives, they may either take advantage of them, and act upon them, or deal with them as matters which do not deserve consideration. Then I say, Sir, there was an abstinence on the part of the United States' Government from those steps which it was their duty to take if they thought that the agents of foreign nations were violating the laws of the Union. But then when Her Majesty's Government, at a very early period, found that these proceedings were likely to produce embarrassment between the two countries, they suspended—or, rather, they definitively stopped of their own accord—these arrangements. An hon. Gentleman has criticised the dates, and has stated that these instructions were not acted upon till August. Surely, however, a question of weeks or days is immaterial in a matter of this sort, the fact being, that the British Government, when it learned that these proceedings were likely to be embarrassing, of its own accord directed that they should be suspended. Then hon. Gentlemen say there was no apology made. Why, what more full apology, what more complete reparation could one Government make to another, when they found that certain proceedings of theirs might furnish grounds of complaint, than putting an end to those proceedings? Don't tell me of verbal apologies! I say the apology of deeds was one infinitely more valuable—infinitely mere satisfactory to the Government of America—a greater proof of the desire of the British Government that nothing should occur to interrupt the friendly relations between the two countries than any verbal apology that could have been offered. I say, then, Sir, there is no question about concealment, there is no question about deception, there is no question about our not having made reparation for the offence, if any offence had been committed. But, it is declared, we ought to have acknowledged that we did wrong. Why, we did not believe we had done wrong; we did not believe we had deliberately violated the laws of the Union; we neither intended this, nor do we believe, in our understanding of those laws, that they have been violated by any authorised British agent. We, however, received complaints from the United States' Government, and intimations that our agents ought to be withdrawn. In reply to that we sent detailed statements from them, proving, as we thought and hoped, to the satisfaction of the United States' Government that their impression was erroneous, and that nothing had been done which justified the dissatisfaction they had expressed. In answer to that the United States' Government said they were satisfied with regard to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, that all questions between the two Governments had ceased and were settled; but that, nevertheless, they still retained their opinion in respect to the British agents, and that they therefore deemed those agents unacceptable organs of communication between the two Governments. What, then, was the course which we had to pursue? We had to determine whether, in such a state of things, we should give measure for measure, retaliate upon Mr. Dallas the measure adopted with regard to Mr. Crampton, and withdraw the exequaturs from the American consuls in England in return for the withdrawal of their exequaturs from the English consuls in the States. Sir, the Government did not deem it their duty to advise Her Majesty to take those steps; and, notwithstanding what has been said in debate, I am still of opinion that that decision has met, and will continue to meet, the approval and concurrence of the country. Sir, it is indeed a curious circumstance to watch the language of hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this debate. Both sides are vehement in their declaration of the vast importance of maintaining peace between the two countries. All abound in their assurances that that wish is at the bottom of their hearts, and is the most anxious object of their lives. And yet, here happening to be a case in which a question has arisen between two countries which, as far as the Governments are concerned, has been terminated in a manner deemed satisfactory to both, Gentlemen on the other side of the House are loud in their denunciations that the honour and dignity of England have been insulted through the affront offered to her Government. The intercourse of nations takes place between Governments, and an insult to the Government is an insult to the country. These Gentlemen, then, so anxious for peace, tell you that England has been insulted, treated with contumely, contempt, and indignity. What is the effect likely to be produced? Why, to excite in the people of England a spirit of resentment towards their neighbours and kindred in the United States. Anybody who is acquainted with the character of Englishmen must know, to tell them they have been insulted, treated with contempt, exposed to indignity, will naturally exasperate them—the bulk of the nation, without, perhaps, very much investigating the foundation of such assertions, will take them upon trust, especially when they come from such high authority. They will say, "If the leaders of a great party—the country party—hold that language, we must indeed have been grossly insulted, and let us resent the insult so offered to us." Then I say that, as far as hon. Gentlemen opposite go, they lay the foundation for animosity between the two countries. After that comes my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, and he tells the Americans that their Government has been deluded, has been persuaded to accept an apology which they ought not to have accepted; that their laws have been violated designedly, and intentionally, by the Government of a foreign country; and that, so far from meeting that injury in the manner which becomes the Government of a great and independent nation, their Government have accepted an apology and expressed themselves satisfied, when, on the contrary, they ought to have declared themselves affronted and injured. Why, Sir, is that the way to create good feeling between the two countries? Is that the way to persuade the American people to cultivate the most friendly feelings towards this country? Sir, many Gentlemen told the hon. Member for Mayo that his Motion was calculated to injure the public service, and well did they anticipate the result. Well did they foresee, in endeavouring to dissuade him from proceeding with his Motion, the consequences likely to result from it, when on both sides of the House topics have been started, arguments have been employed, which, instead of leading to the closer union of the two nations, instead of effacing mutual animosity are calculated to excite angry passions, to enlist the feelings of the two countries in the differences which have unhappily arisen to embitter their intercourse, and render it more difficult to bring about a more amicable understanding on the points at issue. I will not at this late hour detain the House with many more observations; it is quite unnecessary to do so. The House is now called upon to determine whether there shall be passed upon the Government a vote of censure. The hon. Member for Mayo began his speech by deprecating all quibbling evasion, as he called it—all words which might be distorted into something beyond what they really expressed. Sir, I think he might have criticised his own Motion. I think it would have been much more manly and straightforward on his part if, instead of contenting himself with a sort of evasive declaration that the Government are not entitled to the approbation of the House, he had at once come forward and expressed the feeling which was no doubt uppermost in his mind, that the Government has made itself deserving of the censure of the House. It would have been much more manly and straightforward to have moved a clear and distinct vote of censure, than to disguise disapprobation under the pretence of refusing approbation which has not been asked for. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University says, that he shall give us the benefit of his vote, and I should be sorry indeed if anything I have said should induce him to alter his determination. I know we must not look a gift horse in the mouth; and I shall not examine the reasons of my right hon. Friend's vote. I only hope the reasons he has given will induce those hon. Members who have not yet made up their minds which way they shall vote, to go into the lobby with him. The reason he gives is that it is impossible at the present moment to form an Administration founded on a successful censure of the existing Government; a reason certainly not highly complimentary to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I think many Gentlemen will be of opinion that that difficulty could easily be got over—that it could very well be solved by half an hour's private conversation between the right hon. Gentlemen who sit there (Sir J. Graham and Mr. Gladstone) and the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would not, therefore, accept from the House a vote founded on so great a political misconception. We stand upon what we think better and higher ground. We are of opinion—although it may be presumptuous to state it—that we have during a difficult period conducted the affairs of the country to the satisfaction of the nation, and with honour and advantage to the public interest; we believe that the confidence which this House has hitherto shown us is shared by the country at large. It is upon that ground that we are prepared to go to a division. We ask for a continuation of the confidence of the House, not upon the ground that there may be a difficulty in finding other persons to fill our places, but because we think we have done nothing to forfeit their good opinion. Trusting to these considerations, trusting to the good opinion which the House has hitherto expressed towards us, trusting to the goodwill which we believe is felt for us by the country, and not to the argument of my right hon. Friend that no other Government can be formed, we challenge the hon. Member for Mayo to come to a division, and we feel confident that the result will be such as we think our conduct deserves.

MR. JOHN MACGREGOR rose to address the House amid considerable confusion and cries for a division. Few sentences could be heard consecutively, but the hon. Gentleman was understood to blame the Government for the course they bad taken in reference to recruiting in the United States, which he thought was clearly a violation of their municipal law; and to deprecate any disturbance of the amicable relations between the two countries.


moved the adjournment of the debate. [Cries of "dissent."] He thought he was perfectly justified in taking that course, not from a wish to offer any remarks of his own, although he had frequently risen without being able to catch the Speaker's eye, but to give several Gentlemen on that side of the House an opportunity to express their opinions. ["Oh!"] Certainly, after the determination which some hon. Members had shown not to give a patient hearing to the right hon. Baronet near him (Sir J. Pakington) it was hardly to be expected that they would listen to less influential speakers. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government was sincere in desiring that publicity should be given to this question, any opposition to an adjournment upon his part would at least present an odd appearance.


I hope that the House will allow me to take this opportunity—not to reply, because that I have no right to do, and, if I had, there is nothing for me to reply to—but to answer what, to use the words of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, I may call the calumnious imputations cast upon me by himself and by the Attorney General.


I used the word "calumnious" in reference to statements made by others which the hon. Member made use of, and not to anything which fell from himself.


The noble Lord stated that I adduced calumnious stories against Lord Clarendon, and the Attorney General said that I was actuated by personal ill-feeling towards that noble Lord. Now, Sir, to that imputation I can only say that it is entirely unjust and untrue. I do not believe that any one who has been within the scope of the personal influence of that noble Lord could bear any ill-feeling towards him, and I think that no one is so much indebted as that noble Earl to personal good-feeling—not so much, perhaps, on account of successes achieved as on account of blunders escaped from. The noble Lord says that I have raked up old and calumnious stories from the life of Lord Clarendon, and one of his colleagues has termed them obscure. Now, I have yet to learn that I am not justified in citing the public acts of a public man; and as to the incidents to which I have referred being obscure, they were discussed for two nights in this House, and I certainly am surprised to hear the noble Lord apply the word "calamnious" to that which he knows to be true.


I used the word "calumnious" as referring to those calumnies which were disseminated against my noble Friend Lord Clarendon, with regard to the trial to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.


I have stated nothing which is not strictly true.

Motion made and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned" put and negatived.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Mr. Hayter, one of the Tellers for the Ayes, acquainted Mr. Speaker, that three Members had not voted; whereupon Mr. Speaker having desired the Members to come to the Table, Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Traill, came to the Table accordingly, and stated that they were in the House when the Question was put, and having declared themselves with the Ayes, Mr. Speaker desired their names to be added to the Ayes:—Whereupon the Tellers announced the numbers: Ayes 274; Noes 80: Majority 194.

List of the AYES.
Acton, J. Duncan, Visct.
Adair, H. E. Duncan, G.
Adair, Col. Duncombe, hon. Col.
Agnew, Sir A. Dundas, F.
Anderson, Sir J. Dunlop, A. M.
Antrobus, E. Du Pre, C. G.
Atherton, W. East, Sir J. B.
Bailey, C. Ellice, E.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Esmonde, J.
Ball, J. Ewart, W.
Baring, H. B. Ewart, J. C.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T. Farrer, J.
Bass, M. T. Feilden, M. J.
Baxter, W. E. Fenwick, H.
Beamish, F. B. Fergus, J.
Berkeley, Sir M. Ferguson, Col.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Ferguson, Sir R.
Bethell, Sir R. Ferguson, J.
Biddulph, R. M. FitzGerald, Sir J.
Biggs, J. FitzGerald, rt. hn. J. D.
Biggs, W. FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.
Black, A. Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W. W.
Blakemore, T. W. B. Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.
Bland, L. H. Foley, J. H. H.
Blandford, Marquess of Forster, C.
Bonham-Carter, J. Forster, J.
Bouverie, rt. hn. E. P. Fortescue, C. S.
Bramston, T. W. Fox, W. J.
Brand, hn. H. Freestun, Col.
Brocklehurst, J. French, Col.
Brotherton, J. Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Brown, W. Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Bruce, Lord E. Glyn, G. C.
Buckley, Gen. Goddard, A. L.
Byng, hon. G. H. C. Goderich, Visct.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Gordon, hon. A.
Carnac, Sir J. R. Gower, hon. F. L.
Castlerosse, Visct. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Caulfield, Col. J. M. Greene, T.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Gregson, S.
Cavendish, hon. G. Grenfell, C. W.
Challis, Mr. Ald. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Chambers, M. Grey, R. W.
Chaplin, W. J. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Cheetham, J. Grosvenor, Earl
Cholmondeley, Lord H. Gurney, J. H.
Clay, Sir W. Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.
Clifford, H. M. Hankey, T.
Cobbett, J. M. Hanmer, Sir J.
Cobbold, J. C. Harcourt, G. G.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. Harcourt, Col.
Coles, H. B. Hardinge, hon. C. S.
Collier, R. P. Hastie, Alex.
Colvile, C. R. Hastie, Archibald
Cowan, C. Headlam, T. E.
Cowper, rt. hon. W. F. Heard, J. I.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Heathcote, hon. G. H.
Crossley, F. Herbert, H. A.
Currie, R. Heywood, J.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Higgins, Col. O.
Deasy, R. Hindley, C.
Deedes, W. Hogg, Sir J. W.
Denison, E. Holland, E.
Denison, J. E. Horsman, rt. hon. E.
Dering, Sir E. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
De Vere, S. E. Hughes, W. B.
Dillwyn, L. L. Hughes, H. G.
Drumlanrig, Visct. Hutchins, E. J.
Drummond, H. Hutt, W.
Duke, Sir J. Ingham, R.
Ingram, H. Price, W. P.
Jackson, W. Pritchard, J.
Johnstone, J. Ricardo, O.
Keating, H. S. Ricardo, S.
Kendall, N. Rice, E. R.
Kershaw, J. Richardson, J. J.
King, hon. P. J. L. Ridley, G.
Kingscote, R. N. F. Robartes, T. J. A.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Rolt, P.
Kirk, W. Russell, F. C. H.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Russell, F. W.
Lee, W. Sandon, Visct.
Lemon, Sir C. Sawle, C. B. G.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C. Scholefield, W.
Lindsay, W. S. Scobell, Capt.
Littleton, hon. E. R. Scrope, G. P.
Lowe, rt. hon. R. Seymour, H. D.
Luce, T. Seymour, W. D.
M'Cann, J. Shafto, R. D.
MacGregor, James Shee, W.
MacGregor, John Shelburne, Earl of
MacTaggart, Sir J. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Magan, W. H. Sheridan, R. B.
Marjoribanks, D. C. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Martin, P. W. Smith, A.
Massey, W. N. Smollett, A.
Matheson, Sir J. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Milligan, R. Spooner, R.
Mills, T. Stafford, Marquess of
Michell, W. Stanhope, J. B.
Moffatt, G. Stirling, W.
Monck, Visct. Strickland, Sir G.
Moncreiff, rt. hon. J. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Monsell, rt. hon. W. Sturt, H. G.
Montgomery, Sir G. Talbot, C. R. M.
Morris, D. Tancred, H. W.
Mostyn, hn. T. E. M. L. Thompson, G.
Mowatt, F. Thornely, T.
Mowbray, J. R. Thornhill, W. P.
Mullins, J. R. Tite, W.
Muntz, G. F. Tomline, G.
Napier, Sir C. Traill, G.
Newark, Visct. Uxbridge, Earl of
Nisbet, R. P. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
North, F. Vivian, H. H.
Oakes, J. H. P. Waddington, H. S.
O'Brien, Sir T. Warner, E.
O'Brien, J. Watkins, Col. L.
O'Connell, Capt. D. Watson, W. H.
Oliveira, B. Welby, Sir G. E.
Osborne, R. Wells, W.
Ossulston, Lord Whatman, J.
Owen, Sir J. Whitbread, S.
Paget, Lord A. Wickham, H. W.
Palmerston, Visct. Wilkinson, W. A.
Patten, Col. W. Willcox, B. M'G.
Pechell, Sir G. B. Williams, T. P.
Peel, Sir R. Williams, W.
Peel, F. Wilson, J.
Pellatt, A. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Perry, Sir T. E. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Phillimore, J. G. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Pigott, F. Wrightson, W. B.
Pilkington, J. Wynne, W. W. E.
Pinney, Col. Wyvill, M.
Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.
Portal, M. TELLERS.
Portman, hon. W. H. B. Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Price, Sir R. Mulgrave, Earl of
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Baldock, E. H.
Archdall, Capt. M. Baring, T.
Baring, hon. F. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Bellew, T. A. Lisburne, Earl of
Bignold, Sir S. Lockhart, W.
Blackburn, P. Lovaine, Lord
Bond, J. W. M'G. Lushington, C. M.
Bowyer, G. Macartney, G.
Bramley-Moore, J. MacEvoy, E.
Bruce, Major C. Maguire, J. F.
Buck, Col. Malins, R.
Butt, G. M. Meagher, T.
Cecil, Lord R. Miall, E.
Cocks, T. S. Murrough, J. P.
Cole, hon. H. A. Naas, Lord
Conolly, T. Napier, rt. hon. J.
Devereux, J. T. Newdegate, C. N.
Dunne, Col. Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.
Evelyn, W. J. Parker, R. T.
Fellowes, E. Peacock, G. M. W.
Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Roebuck, J. A.
Floyer, J. Seymer, H. K.
Follett, B. S. Smijth, Sir W.
Forester, rt. hon. Col. Smith, J. B.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Somerset, Col.
Gladstone, Capt. Stafford, A.
Graham, Lord M. W. Swift, R.
Greene, J. Tempest, Lord A. V.
Grogan, E. Thesiger, Sir F.
Hadfield, G. Tollemache, J.
Hamilton Lord C. Verner, Sir W.
Hamilton, G. A. Vernon, L. V.
Hamilton, rt. hn. R. C. N. Waddington, D.
Hanbury, hon. C. S. B. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Handcock, hon. Capt. H. Warren, S.
Holford, R. S. Wyndham, H.
Hume, W. F. Wynne, rt. hon. J.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Jolliffe, H. H.
Kennedy, T. TELLERS.
Knox, hon. W. S. Moore, H. G.
Liddell, hon. H. G. Baillie, H. J.

Main Question again proposed.

Debate arising.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.