§ MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, he considered that it Was quite unnecessary for him to inform the House that he was not satisfied with the answer he had received a short time since from the noble Lord at the head of the Government with regard to the relations between this country and America. When he recollected that the noble Lord had already granted a day for the discussion of that question before the papers bearing upon it were completed, and When he recollected, also, that the Home Secretary thought proper to taunt the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) with anticipating a coming discussion by a premature expression of opinion, he (Mr. Moore) must say the answer of the noble Lord was as unexpected as it was unsatisfactory. He thought it right to state why he conceived that that answer ought not to be satisfactory to the House, and why he should deem it his duty to persevere in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, 2094 whenever he should have an opportunity of doing so. When the noble Lord stated that the Whole of the papers relating to the dispute between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States had not been laid upon the table, he (Mr. Moore) at once acceded to the suggestion, that the discussion of the subject should be postponed until the papers had been laid before the House in a complete form. He did not think, however at the time that the production of the papers to which the noble Lord referred could by any possibility alter or modify, in any essential particular, the nature of the question which the House would Ultimately have to decide, and he must say that opinion had not been changed by the production of the papers he had had the misfortune to read that day. They were told by the noble Lord that it would be unwise, even now, to stir the question, and that it might be injurious to the public service, in connection with the pending negotiations, if that House were to give expression to its opinions Upon a subject supposed to be connected with the matter to which those negotiations referred. It was his conviction that they had heard too much of Parliamentary discussion being injurious to the public service. They were told the same thing during the late war, and the country had, in consequence, drifted into war without knowing it, and in the very worst state of preparation. He did not believe that discussion would have been injurious then, nor did he believe that it would be injurious now. He thought, on the contrary, that, whatever had been done well during the late War had been done under the pressure of public opinion in that House and out of it, and that all the mismanagement had been worked out in the holes and corners of official intrigue. He was bound to say, explicitly, that he saw nothing in the conduct of the negotiations which ought to induce the House of Commons to pause in pronouncing an opinion, and that it would be unwise and injurious not only to the public service, but to the credit and honour of the country, to leave the management of the question to the undirected discretion of the Government. But there was a much more important question than this involved. What was the state of public opinion at the present moment? Why, there were tens and hundreds of thousands of men, not ignorant or unwise, but men of sound understanding, and with a right-minded 2095 sense of justice, who had a strong conviction that this country had been humiliated and wronged in the late transactions, and who thought that, although there was no case for present hostilities, yet that there was reason for a watchful and resentful jealousy of outrage upon our honour hereafter. Public opinion had been drifting, in fact, into a state which might be the prelude to war, since a feeling of national humiliation, and a sense of national exasperation might hereafter lead to hostilities. Was it wise and just, therefore, in the House of Commons to remain silent, and to leave the public to sit down and bite their thumbs in ignominious silence? Was it not their duty, on the contrary, to prevent such a feeling from growing and festering in the minds of the people of England; and was it not the duty of the House of Commons, as the guardians of the national honour and the representatives of public opinion, to pronounce a verdict upon this question which should be worthy of their reputation for justice, fair dealing, and good faith among other countries. Such a course would tend more to win respect than all the crafty circumlocution of all the protocols in the world. If the United States' Government had been "deceived, irritated, and offended," as an hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House had asserted, was it not the duty of that House, not only to the Government but to their fellow-subjects, to pass its censure upon those by whom the interests of the two countries had been perilled? If, on the other hand, our representative in the United States had done nothing but what he had a right to do by the American laws, and what he was bound to do by the interests of the public service at home, it was the duty of that House to sustain and defend him as a faithful subject of the Queen, and all the more because he had been unjustly attacked. What would the House do with Mr. Crampton, with Lord Clarendon, with the Government itself? If Mr. Crampton had behaved properly throughout these transactions he deserved the thanks of the country, the failing arms of which he had endeavoured to recruit, and of the Sovereign in whose service he had suffered so much obloquy. But if, on the other hand, Mr. Crampton had been engaged in a secret conspiracy to violate the laws of the country to which he was accredited, then to defend, sustain and reward such conduct was a gross in 2096 justice to the interests and dignity of this country. But there was another course which it was impossible to reconcile with national honour. To say that a Minister had done his duty to his Queen and country, and to receive with open arms, the Minister of that power which had treated him with obloquy and indignity, was a course calculated neither to obtain the present respect of the people of that country, nor its future forbearance. It was inconsistent with the dignity of this country and of its foreign relations, and would be regarded by the people of America as the act of a Minister who had neither the heart to atone for an offence nor the spirit to resent an indignity. It would not do to say that Mr. Crampton had been dismissed because he had not been acceptable to the taste of the people of America. He had not been dismissed upon any such grounds, or from any fastidious fancy or caprice. The gravest allegations were brought against Mr. Crampton's character and conduct, and it concerned the honour of the country that inquiry should be made into the truth of those allegations, and that the House of Commons should pronounce such a verdict as would prove to the people of America and the nations of the world that, whatever blunders our diplomatists or Cabinets might make, the people of this country were not responsible for them. The House of Commons was, he thought, bound to pronounce an opinion upon this most important matter, and unquestionably, whenever the forms of the House allowed, he would bring the subject before them.