Strobel, first company foreign legion," dated "Provincial Secretary's office, 3d May, 1855," in these words:

"Dear Sir: I am directed by his Excellency the Lieutenant Governor to introduce to you the bearer, Lieutenant Kuntzel. He comes with a letter to Sir Gaspard from Mr. Crampton. You will please explain to him the steps necessary for him to take to secure a commission."

On the 13th of May, the second or third day after Mr. Crampton's arrival at Halifax, J. W. Preston, lieutenant of her Majesty's 76th regiment, who had charge of the depot at Niagara for the reception of recruits sent from the United States, wrote to Captain Strobel as follows:

"My dear Strobel: I am directed by the general to acquaint you that Mr. Crampton wants to see you, at his house, at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning; be punctual. If you like, come up to my room at half-past 9 o'clock, and we will go together.'

These letters corroborate Captain Strobel's statement, that Mr. Crampton, while at Halifax, was engaged about the recruiting business within the United States. He afterwards went with Captain Strobel to Quebec, for the same purpose.

Passing, without comment, the plan for recruiting, which Strobel says was prepared at the request of Mr. Crampton, and approved by him and Sir Gaspard le Marchant, I propose to offer some remarks upon the instructions furnished by Mr. Crampton, while in the provinces, to the recruiting agents who were to go to "Buffalo, Detroit, or Cleveland," "to make known to persons in the United States the terms and conditions upon which recruits will be received into the British service." This paper will be found, with the letters referred to, in Hertz's trial. Its genuineness, I presume, will not be questioned. It is framed with great adroitness, and, as it may be resorted to for a defence of Mr. Crampton's conduct, it is entitled to a careful consideration.

These instructions show that the persons sent into the United States to raise recruits therein for the foreign legion were authorized agents of British officers, and received directions for the guidance of their conduct from her Majesty's minister to this government. It is thought to be unreasonable in this government to complain of any of her Majesty's officers, because the agents thus employed were "enjoined carefully to refrain from anything which would constitute a viclation of the law of the United States.' A similar injunction to the agents first employed was also contained in the directions which preceded the instructions issued by Mr. Crampton in May; and he well knew how utterly it had been disregarded by them. As his visit to the British provinces had special relation to the recruiting service, it cannot be presumed that he was uninformed of what had then happened to those agents in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, through which cities he passed on his way to Halifax. This government had, as early as March, ordered prosecutions against the recruiting agents in those cities for having violated the law of the United States; many had been arrested for that offence, and against several of them grand juries had found bills of indict

ment. Instead of disconnecting himself from the proceedings which had led to this disastrous result, Mr. Crampton went to Halifax and Quebec to make further arrangements for sending other recruiters into the United States. He could have had no sufficient reason to believe that those who received fresh instructions, however cautiously devised, would pay any more regard to his injunction not to violate the law of the United States than Hertz and others had done. His experience of the past should have deterred him from renewing the experiment. As these instructions were furnished to many agents, they doubtless were framed with a view to bear a critical inspection, and, in case of emergency, to be adduced as proof to show that special regard was intended to be paid to the United States neutrality law. They will, however, hardly answer that purpose. There can be no doubt that these revised instructions were intended to impress the recruiting agents with the expediency of greater circumspection in their business, but it is evident that the motive for this caution had much more respect for the success of the recruiting project than for the United States law. This is apparent from the following paragraph of these instructions:

7. It is essential to success that no assemblages of persons should take place at beer-houses, or other similar places of entertainment, for the purpose of devising measures for enlisting; and the parties should scrupulously avoid resorting to this or similar means of disseminating the desired information, inasmuch as the attention of the American authorities would not fail to be called to such proceedings, which would undoubtedly be regarded by them as an attempt to carry on recruiting for a foreign power within the limits of the United States; and it certainly must be borne in mind that the institution of legal proceedings against any of the parties in question, even if they were to elude the penalty, would be fatal to the success of the enlistment itself,"

Though the last instructions are a restriction upon the construction which Lord Clarendon has given to the law and rights of the United States, they would, even if literally observed, infringe both. This government maintains that in every instance where a person, whether a citizen or a foreigner, has been brought to the determination to leave this country for the purpose of entering into a foreign service as a soldier or sailor by any inducements offered by recruiting agents here, the law of the United States has been violated. There certainly can be no doubt of the violation of the law of the United States in every case where one party, the recruit, has been induced by the terms offered to him actually to leave the United States for the purpose of entering into foreign military service, and the other party has furnished the means and borne the expense of taking him to a foreign depot in the expectation that he would consummate the act by an enlistment. It will not, I presume, be denied that several hundred cases of this kind actually occurred in carrying out the scheme of British recruitment. The very design of employing agents for such a purpose, to act within the limits of the United States, involved in its consequences an infringement of that law.

It is the solemn duty of the government of the United States to

maintain this construction of their neutrality law, and the attempt to set up and sustain a different one has created much surprise; that it has been done by a friendly government, with which the United States are most anxious to maintain and strengthen the relations of amity, is the cause of deep regret.

When the President presented the case to the consideration of her Majesty's government, with the assurance that he had such informa tion as compelled him to believe that British officers, in eminent stations, were implicated in a scheme which had resulted in an infringement of the rights of the United States and a violation of their law, and asked for some satisfaction for the wrong, he certainly did not expect that the conduct of these officers would be justified upon principles which impair the sovereignty of the United States as an independent nation, and by an interpretation of their law which makes it entirely ineffective for the purposes intended.

Some satisfaction for the injury was confidently expected, but nothing that can be regarded in that light has been offered; and this government is compelled, in vindication of its rights and laws, to take a course which it sincerely hoped her Majesty's government would have rendered unnecessary.

Her Majesty's minister to this government, Mr. Crampton, has taken a conspicuous part in organizing and executing the scheme for recruiting for the British army within the United States. Were it possible, with due regard to the evidence and disclosures in the case, to assign him a subordinate part in that scheme, even that would not allow the President to change the course which he is obliged, under the circumstances, to pursue towards him. Any participation in the project, as it has been developed, of raising recruits in this country for the British service, was incompatible with his official relations to this government. His connexion with that affair has rendered him an unacceptable representative of her Britannic Majesty near this government, and you are directed by the President to ask her Majesty's government to recall him.

Mr. Rowcroft, the British consul at Cincinnati, and Mr. Matthew, the British consul at Philadelphia, are implicated in the recruiting project, and you are further directed by the President to ask for their removal for that cause.

The persons connected with the British consulate at New York have been actively engaged in furthering the recruiting scheme. Mr. Stanley, the assistant or clerk of the consul, has taken a more open and effective part than the consul himself, and is now under an indictment for violating the law against foreign recruiting. The consul, Mr. Barclay, could not but know of Mr. Stanley's conduct in that matter, but he still retains him in the consulate. Besides the responsibility that rightfully attaches to Mr. Barclay for the improper conduct of an employee in his office and under his immediate and daily observation, this government is satisfied that he has himself not only favored the recruiting for the British army, but has participated in it. Moreover, the improper conduct of Mr. Barclay in the case of the barque Maury has justly given offence to the commercial community in which he resides and with which he has official connexion.

For these reasons this government deems it proper to instruct you to ask the government of Great Britain to withdraw Mr. Barclay from the post of British consul at New York.

You are directed by the President to read this despatch to the Earl of Clarendon, and, should he desire it, to hand him a copy.

The copies of the original documents to which I have referred are contained in Hertz's trial. I send you herewith an authentic report of that trial, which you will offer to Lord Clarendon as a document connected with this despatch. I also send herewith a copy of the proceedings of the Chamber of Commerce in the city of New York relative to Mr. Barclay's conduct in the case of the barque Maury. This, also, you will present to Lord Clarendon, as furnishing one ground for the request herein made for the withdrawal of Mr. Barclay. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,

W. L. MARCY.

JAMES BUCHANAN, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Marcy.

[Extract.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, February 1, 1856.

SIR: I had an interview, by appointment, on Tuesday last, with Lord Clarendon at the Foreign Office. After some preliminary conversation on the subject of the approaching peace with Russia, I informed him I had come on purpose to read to him your despatch to me of the 28th ultimo, (December,) in reply to his despatch to Mr. Crampton of the 16th November last. Before proceeding to this, however, I expressed my desire to correct an error, or rather an omission, in his report of a remark made by myself, contained in his despatch to Mr. Crampton. He said he would be very sorry if any such error had been committed by him; that nothing certainly was further from his intention." I replied that I had not the most remote idea he had done this intentionally, and I had no doubt it was a mere inadvertence; but still, it was proper for me to correct it. I then read to his lordship the following paragraph from his despatch to Mr. Crampton of the 16th November:

"Before I proceed to offer any remarks upon this despatch, (your No. 118, of the 13th October,) 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 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 July, which he thought would finally settle the question that had arisen between the two governments.

I then observed that his lordship's omission consisted in not having Ex. Doc. 35-5

added the qualifications which I made at the time to this remark, that when I received your despatch of the 15th July I had not the least idea of Mr. Crampton's complicity in the business of recruiting. (In truth, I never had until I received your private letter of the 2d September.) His lordship said he "did not recollect that I had made this remark at the time; though this was quite probable, as he did recollect I had previously informed him, more than once, when speaking in reference to the satisfaction I had expressed in transmitting to you his note to me of the 16th July, that I had no idea at the time of Mr. Crampton's complicity in the affair." I stated it was quite certain I had made this remark to him at the time. I had always been on my guard in conversing with him on the subject, from the time I first heard from you of Mr. Crampton's alleged complicity. He said he had no doubt I was correct in my recollection; and I told him that in this I could not be mistaken, not only because my memory was distinct, but because I had made notes of our conversation soon after it occurred. He said, for his own part, he never had time to make such notes, and repeated he had no doubt my statement was correct, and expressed his regret that he had not embraced my remark in his despatch to Mr. Crampton, but observed that he did not see its importance. I told him it might, possibly, be of some consequence to myself, and I had ever considered Mr. Crampton's complicity in the affair a matter of very grave importance. I then mentioned that in other respects his statement was not altogether correct, and I repeated to him the language which I had employed on the occasion, as follows:

"I did not deem it necessary to communicate this despatch (that of the 15th July) to your lordship until I should hear from Mr. Marcy on the subject of your note of the 16th July, which I thought at the time would finally settle the question, because I had not then the least idea of Mr. Crampton's complicity in the business of recruiting."

*

*

*

*

Yours, very respectfully,

*

*

*

*

JAMES BUCHANAN.