military service, in violation (as was alleged) of the act of Congress of the 20th of April, 1818. The undersigned had hoped, from the answer which he received from Mr. Buchanan on the 18th of July, that the explanations and assurances which he had given on this subject in his note of the 16th of that month would have proved as satisfactory to the government of the United States as they appeared to be to Mr. Buchanan; and it was therefore with no less disappointment than regret, that her Majesty's government perused the letter addressed by Mr. Marcy to Mr. Crampton on the 5th instant, of which the undersigned encloses a copy to Mr. Buchanan in case he should not have received it from Washington. In this letter, Mr. Marcy, laying less stress than Mr. Buchanan did upon the alleged infraction of the municipal laws of the United States, dwells chiefly upon the point, which was but slightly adverted to by Mr. Buchanan, of an assumed disregard of the sovereign rights of the United States on the part of the British authorities or the agents employed by them. Her Majesty's government have no reason to believe that such has been the conduct of any persons in the employment of her Majesty, and it is needless to say that any person so employed would have departed no less from the intentions of her Majesty's government by violating international law, or by offering an affront to the sovereignty of the United States, than by infringing the municipal laws of the Union to which Mr. Buchanan more particularly called the attention of the undersigned. Her Majesty's government feel confident that even the extraordinary measures which have been adopted in various parts of the Union to obtain evidence against her Majesty's servants, or their agents, by practices sometimes resorted to under despotic institutions, but which are disdained by all free and enlightened governments, will fail to establish any well-founded charge against her Majesty's servants. The British government is fully aware of the obligations of international duties, and is no less mindful of those obligations than is the government of the United States. The observance of those obligations ought, undoubtedly, to be reciprocal; and her Majesty's government do not impute to the government of the United States, that while claiming an observance of those obligations by Great Britain, they are lax in enforcing a respect for those obligations within the Union. But as this subject has been mooted by Mr. Marcy, her Majesty's government cannot refrain from some few remarks respecting it. The United States profess neutrality in the present war between the Western Powers and Russia; but have no acts been done within the United States, by citizens thereof, which accord little with the spirit of neutrality? Have not arms and ammunition, and warlike stores of various kinds, been sent in large quantities from the United States for the service of Russia? Have not plots been openly avowed, and conspiracies entered into without disguise or hindrance, in various parts of the Union, to take advantage of the war in which Great Britain is engaged, and to seize the opportunity for promoting insurrection in her Majesty's dominions, and the invasion thereof by an armed force proceeding from the United States? Her Majesty's government have been silent on these matters, which they did not consider indicative of the general feelings of the American people; for, remembering the many ties and sympathies which connect the people of the United States with the two powerful nations who are engaged in the present contest with Russia, they were convinced that a free, enlightened, and generous race, such as the citizens of the great North American Union, must entertain, on the important questions at issue, sentiments in harmony with those which animate not only the British and French nations, but the great mass of the nations of Western Europe; and her Majesty's government would not have adverted to the exceptional course pursued by a certain number of individuals, if it had not been for the above-mentioned statements in Mr. Marcy's note. But her Majesty's government think themselves entitled to claim the same credit for sincerity of purpose and uprightness of conduct which they readily allow to the government of the United States; and to expect that their assurance should be received, that as they have enjoined on all her Majesty's servants a strict observance of the laws of the United States, so they have no reason to believe that any of her Majesty's servants, or any agents duly authorized by those servants, have disregarded those injunctions in respect to the matters which form the subject of this note. The undersigned requests Mr. Buchanan to accept the assurance of his highest consideration. Hon. JAMES BUCHANAN, &c., &c., &c. CLARENDON. Mr. Buchanan to Lord Clarendon. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note, dated on the 27th instant, from the Earl of Clarendon, her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to the note of the 5th instant, addressed by Mr. Marcy, the Secretary of State, to Mr. Crampton, her Britannic Majesty's minister at Washington, on the subject of the enlistment and engagement of soldiers for the British army within the limits of the United States; and he will not fail to transmit to Washington a copy of his lordship's note by to-morrow's steamer. The undersigned forbears to make any observations on this note, or to interfere in any manner with the correspondence commenced at Washington between the Secretary of State and Mr. Crampton, as he has received no instructions which would warrant him in so doing. The undersigned has the honor to renew to the Earl of Clarendon the assurance of his distinguished consideration. JAMES BUCHANAN. The Right Honorable the EARL OF CLARENDON, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Buchanan to Lord Clarendon. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note which the Earl of Clarendon, her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, addressed to him on the 16th instant, in answer to his note of the 6th instant, on the subject of the enlistment and employment of soldiers for the British army within the United States; and the undersigned will have much satisfaction in transmitting a copy of his lordship's note to the Secretary of State by the next steamer. The undersigned has the honor to renew to the Earl of Clarendon the assurance of his distinguished consideration. SIR: I herewith send you papers containing the report of the trial of Hurtz, for a violation of our neutrality laws by enlisting soldiers for the British army. The testimony shows that Mr. Crampton and several other British officials are deeply implicated in the transaction. Lord Clarendon's note, in answer to yours bringing the subject to his notice, assumed that none of her Majesty's officers had been in any way engaged in the plan of recruiting within the United States. Had the facts been as he assumed them to be, and this government had had no reason to believe that the measure was not designed to draw recruits from the United States, his lordship's reply would have been satisfactory. Subsequent developments show that Lord Clarendon was misinformed as to the true state of the case. The second despatch to you on the subject showed that the ground of grievance was not confined to the mere fact of a violation of our neutrality laws by British officers. It presented the case as a national offence committed by them, irrespective of those laws. These officers may have contrived to shield themselves from the penalties of our laws, and yet have committed an offence against our sovereign territorial rights. This latter aspect of the case was distinctly presented in my last despatch to you on the subject. It was this view of the case which the President wished you to present to her Majesty's Minister of Foreign Relations. It is important, with reference to proceedings against British officers residing within the United States, that the President should know whether the government of Great Britain mean to justify or condemn their conduct. The disclosures which have been made leave no doubt of the fact that some of these officers have taken an active part in raising recruits in the United States. If their conduct was unauthorized and is condemned, it is proper that this government should be apprized of the fact, as well as of the punishment which has been, or is proposed to be, inflicted upon them; but if, on the other hand, the British government approve of the course pursued by its officers, it is important that its determination in that respect should be known. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, JAMES BUCHANAN, Esq., &c., &c., &c. [No. 94.] * Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Marcy. * * [Extract.] W. L. MARCY. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, * * * * SIR: In my last despatch, No. 93, of the 28th untimo, I stated that I had not then time, before the closing of the bag, to make the observations I had intended on the subject to which it refers, but intimated that I might do so this week. The alleged agency of Mr. Crampton in the recruitment of British soldiers within the limits of the United States presents a serious aspect. From the information contained in your despatch (No. 91) of the 9th June, we had reason to expect a different course of conduct on his part. I need scarcely say that, had I been informed that her Britannic Majesty's representative at Washington had placed himself in the position attributed to him by Captain Strobel, I should not have expressed to Lord Clarendon my satisfaction in transmitting to you his note of the 16th July. It is remarkable that Lord Clarendon, in his note to myself of the 27th ultimo, whilst commenting on your note of the 5th September to Mr. Crampton, should have been totally silent in regard to that gentleman after what you had said respecting his conduct. I cannot but regard as offensive the remark of his lordship on "the extraordinary measures which," he alleges, "have been adopted in various parts of the Union to obtain evidence against her Majesty's servants, or their agents, by practices sometimes resorted to under despotic institutions, but which are disdained by all free and enlightened governments;" though he would doubtless say these were not intended to apply in an offensive sense to the American government. He probably alludes to occurrences at Cincinnati and other places. If arms and ammunition, and warlike stores of various kinds, have been sent in large quantities from the United States for the service of Russia, as his lordship alleges, this is nothing more than our citizens had a right to do, subject to the risk under the law of contraband. Similar articles have been sent from the United States to Great Britain in large quantities. Besides, at the present moment, and ever since the commencement of the present war, many of our vessels have been engaged as transports, by Great Britain and France, to carry troops and munitions of war to the Crimea. When this business first commenced, I was applied to by masters and agents of American vessels for information as to what penalties they would incur by engaging in it, and I stated to them that their vessels would be lawful prize if captured by the Russians. For this reason I advised them to obtain an indemnity from the government employing them against this risk. The "plots" to which his lordship refers relate chiefly, I presume, (for I do not know,) to the proceedings and address of the "Massachusetts Irish Emigrant Aid Society" at Boston, on the 14th August. These were republished in the London Times on the 11th September; and you will find an editorial, on this subject, on the following day. * * * * * * * * * But I have not since taken any action upon your No. 102, for the plainest reason. I had, previously to its arrival, transmitted to you a copy of Lord Clarendon's note, already referred to, of the 16th July, on the subject of the enlistment and employment of soldiers for the British army within our limits, and had informed his lordship, in acknowledging the receipt of this note, that I should have much satisfaction in transmitting a copy of it to the Secretary of State. Of course it would have been improper for me to take any new step in this matter until I should learn whether this note would prove satisfactory to yourself. Again: your No. 102 states that, after many months had elapsed, British officers were still proceeding to violate our laws, and persist "in carrying on the obnoxious scheme without any open disapproval by the home government, or any attempt |