sent, with the most insulting and offensive exposition of the reasons for this act, and several journals friendly to the present government followed in the same spirit. When we take into view the existing dif ference between the two governments about enlistments, and the still more dangerous questions behind, concerning Central America-all of which are well known to the people of the United States-what will be the inference naturally drawn by them when the news shall first burst upon them? Will it not be that this fleet has reference to these questions, and is intended as a menace? I need not say what will be the effect on my countrymen. They well know that no reason ever existed in point of fact for apprehension on account of Russian privateers, and still less, if that be possible, for an expedition to Ireland; and they will not attribute the sending of the fleet to these causes. The President, in his message to Congress early in December, will doubtless present to that body the present unsatisfactory condition of the Central American questions; and it will require the cool and clear heads of the public men of both countries to prevent serious consequences from these questions. Now, it so happens that the news of the sending of the British fleet will arrive in the United States but a short time before the date of the message, and will almost necessarily be connected in public opinion with these dangerous questions, thus rendering them more complicated. If you will at the present moment, and before we can hear from the United States, voluntarily withdraw your fleet upon the principle that the danger from Russian privateers, of which you had been informed, did not in point of fact exist, and at the same time do justice to the government of the United States for having so faithfully preserved its neutrality, this would be to pour oil upon the troubled waters, and could not fail to produce the best results. You might address a note either to Mr. Crampton or myself, stating that the fleet had been withdrawn; and I am persuaded that this act of justice would have a most happy effect.'

His lordship, in reply, said, in substance, (for I will not undertake to repeat his very words,) that he thanked me for my suggestion, and would take it into serious consideration; but, of course, he could do nothing without consulting the cabinet. Of this, however, he could assure me most positively, as he had done at our former interview, that nothing could be further from their intention than any, even the most remote, idea of a menace in sending out the fleet. Immediately after our conversation on Thursday last, he had sent to the Admiralty and requested that orders might be issued that the vessels sent out should not go near the coasts of the United States. Sir Charles Wood and Admiral Berkeley had both informed him that it was never their intention that they should approach our coasts, and he could assure me that none of these vessels would ever go "poking" about our ports. Besides, he said, Sir Charles Wood had informed him that but three vessels had been sent out-one to Bermuda, and the other two to Jamaica. [I observed this was a mistake, but I would not interrupt him.] He replied, this was the information he had received from Sir Charles.

[No. 272.]

Lord Clarendon to Mr. Crampton.

FOREIGN OFFICE,

November 16, 1855.

SIR: In my despatch to you, No. 250, of the 2d instant, I enclosed the copy of a despatch from Mr. Marcy, which had been read to me, and placed in my hands by Mr. Buchanan.

Before I proceed to offer any remarks upon this despatch, it will be proper to state that when it was read to me by Mr. Buchanan I had no cognizance of Mr. Marcy's despatch of the 15th of July to which it alludes, and of which a copy was also transmitted to you; and upon my observing this to Mr. Buchanan, he said he had not thought it necessary to communicate it to me, as, before it had reached him, he had received my note of the 16th of July, which he thought would finally settle the question that had arisen between the two governments. Her Majesty's government shared the opinion of Mr. Buchanan. They did not doubt that the frank expression of their regret for any violation of the United States law, which, contrary to their instructions, might have taken place, and of their determination to remove all cause for further complaint by putting an end to all proceedings for enlistment, would have satisfactorily and honorably terminated a difference between two governments whose duty it was to maintain the friendly relations which have hitherto, and to their great reciprocal advantage, happily subsisted between Great Britain and the United States. But as this expectation has been disappointed, and as a spirit altogether at variance with it has been manifested by the government of the United States, her Majesty's government, while they fully appreciate the friendly motives which actuated Mr. Buchanan, are now disposed to regret that he withheld the despatch of Mr. Marcy, as it would have called their attention to proceedings against which the United States government thought itself called upon to remonstrate, and which would at once have been inquired into, as her Majesty's government, in a matter which concerned the law of the United States, were scrupulously desirous that no just cause for complaint should arise.

This despatch, however, of which Mr. Buchanan has given me a copy, together with Mr. Marcy's despatch of the 13th of October, have now been considered with all the attention that is due to them; and, in conveying to you the opinion of her Majesty's government, I shall endeavor to exclude from discussion the subjects which are foreign to the question immediately at issue, and which might lead to irritation; and this course will be the more proper as her Majesty's government observe, with satisfaction, that Mr. Marcy's note of the 13th October is not framed in the tone of hostility which characterized his note of the 5th of September to you.

It appears that two distinct charges are made against the officers and agents of her Majesty's government:

First. That they have within the United States territory infringed the United States law; and secondly, that they have violated the

sovereign territorial rights of the United States by being engaged in "recruiting" for the British army within the United States territory.

Now, with respect to both these charges, I have to observe that the information possessed by her Majesty's government is imperfect, and that none of a definite character has been supplied by the despatches of Mr. Marcy, inasmuch as no individual British officer or agent is named, and no particular fact or time or place is stated; and it is therefore impossible at present to know either who is accused by Mr. Marcy, or what is the charge he makes, or what is the evidence on which he intends to rely.

Her Majesty's government have no means of knowing who are the persons really indicated by the general words "officers and agents of her Majesty's government;" whether such persons as those who [have] been under trial are the only persons meant to be charged, or, if not, who else is to be included, or what evidence against them is relied upon by the United States government.

It is true that you and her Majesty's consuls are personally charged in Mr. Marcy's note to you of the 5th of September; but neither you nor they are alluded to in Mr. Marcy's despatch of October 13 to Mr. Buchanan, which might not unreasonably have been expected, if it really be the intention of the United States government to charge you or them with being "malefactors sheltered from conviction,' (to use the official language of the United States Attorney General.) They must, therefore, request the United States government to make and establish more distinct charges, with proper specification, against particular individuals by name; and that government will, I am confident, not deny the justice and the necessity of giving each person implicated the opportunity of knowing what is alleged against himself, and of dealing with the evidence by which the charge may be supported.

I shall accordingly abstain from offering the remarks which a perusal of the evidence at the recent trials and the character and conduct of the witnesses have naturally suggested; nor will I observe upon the temper and spirit in which the officers of the United States government have throughout proceeded, and which displayed their desire rather to influence the public mind against her Majesty's government, than simply to prove the facts necessary to convict the accused parties; this tone and spirit being the more remarkable when it is remembered that the proceedings complained of had been for some time definitely abandoned, out of deference to the United States government, and that the question to be determined was the character and complexion of acts done many months previously under a state of things no longer existing.

With reference to the second charge made by Mr. Marcy-namely, that of violating the sovereign territorial rights of the United States, by recruiting for the British army within their territories"I have to observe, that apart from any municipal legislation in the United States on the subject of foreign enlistment, or in the entire absence of any such legislation, Great Britain, as a belligerent nation, would commit no violation of the "sovereign territorial rights of the United States' simply by enlisting as soldiers, within British terri

tory, persons who might leave the United States territory in order so to enlist. The violation alleged is the recruiting within the United States; but to assume that there was in fact any such "recruiting," (that is, hiring or retaining by British officers,) is to beg the question.

It appears to her Majesty's government that, provided only no actual recruiting" (that is, enlisting or hiring) takes place within the United States, British officers who, within the United States territories, might point out the routes which intending recruits should follow, or explain to them the terms upon which they would be accepted, or publish and proclaim such terms, or even defray their travelling expenses, or do similar acts, could not be justly charged with violating such sovereign territorial rights. It has been legally decided in the United States that the payment of the passage from that country of a man who desires to enlist in a foreign port does not come within the neutrality law of the United States, and that a person may go abroad, provided the enlistment be in a foreign place, not having accepted and exercised a commission.

It would, indeed, be a violation of territorial rights to enlist, and organize, and train men as British soldiers within the United Statesand whether or not this has been done by British authority is the question involved in the first of Mr. Marcy's charges—but it is decidedly no violation of such rights to persuade or to assist men merely to leave the United States territory and to go into British territory, in order, when they arrive there, either to be voluntarily enlisted in British service or not, at their own discretion. There can be no question that the men who went to Halifax were free, and not compelled to be soldiers on their arrival. Upwards of one hundred Irishmen in one body, for instance, if her Majesty's government are rightly informed, refused to enlist on arriving there, and said they came in order to work on a railway. They were, therefore, not enlisted, hired, or retained as soldiers in the United States: no attempt was made to enforce against them any such contract or engagement.

Mr. Marcy cites no authority for the position he has assumed in relation to this particular doctrine of the effect of foreign enlistment on sovereign territorial rights; but the practice of nations has been very generally adverse to the doctrine, as proved by the numerous instances in which foreign troops have been, and still are, raised and employed.

It cannot therefore be said that Mr. Marcy's doctrine is in accordance with the general practice of nations; and high authority might be quoted directly adverse to any such doctrine as applicable to free countries" ubi civitas non carcer est." But even admitting the alleged doctrine as to the bearing of the principle of territorial sovereignty, its application must obviously be subject to many limitations in practice.

Her Majesty had (for instance) internationally an unquestionable right to recall to her standard displayed upon her own territory those of her own subjects capable of bearing arins who might be transiently or temporarily resident in a foreign country, and her Majesty would not thereby incur any risk of violating the "territorial sovereignty" of such country. Again: in the case of political refugees driven

from their own country, an essentially migratory class, owing a merely local and qualified allegiance to the United States, is it to be contended that to induce such persons by any fair means short of "hiring" or enlisting them to leave the United States in order to enrol themselves on British territory as volunteers in a war in which many of them feel the strongest and most natural desire to engage, is to violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States?

It is, of course, competent to any nation to enact a municipal law, such as actually exists in many countries, forbidding its subjects to leave its territory, but in such cases "civitas carcer est ;" and it may be the duty of other countries to abstain from actively assisting the captives to escape from the national prison in order to serve another master; but the government of the United States has enacted no such law-it justly boasts of its complete freedom in this respect, "civitas non carcer est;" all residents therein, whether foreigners or citizens, are perfectly free to leave its territory without the permission of the government, at their own absolute discretion, and to enter the service of any other State when once within its frontier. To invite them or persuade them to do what is thus lawful can constitute no violation of the territorial rights, which the sovereign power has never claimed or exercised.

It is moreover to be observed that in this case no United States citizens, as far as her Majesty's government are aware, were engaged; both those actually enlisted within the British North American provinces and those expected were, to the best of our belief, exclusively foreigners, and not citizens of the United States.

Without entering further into the discussion of this peculiar doctrine, I will only remark that, at all events, it was not proclaimed or insisted upon by the United States, either at the commencement of the war, or when the desire of her Majesty's government to raise a foreign legion was first published, or when a recruiting station was first opened at Halifax.

The United States, therefore, although always and most properly insisting on their right and intention to punish violations of their municipal law, took no step to proclaim or vindicate the particular doctrine now set forth until a very late period of the discussion, and after the time for giving effect to it had gone by. The charge of "violation of sovereign territorial rights" cannot, therefore, in the opinion of her Majesty's government, be fairly urged as a separate and different charge from that of violation of the municipal law of the United States. But the municipal law was certainly not violated by the orders, nor, as far as they believe, by the officers of her Majesty's government; and her Majesty's government and her Majesty's minister at Washington gave reiterated orders to all concerned carefully to abstain from such violation; and if the British government did not purposely cause the United States law to be violated, then the territorial rights of the United States, whatever they may be, were not, as has been said, intentionally violated by Great Britain " as a nation," even if it should be shown that the municipal law of the Union was infringed.

Before I conclude this despatch it may be useful to place on record