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 information 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, JAMES BUCHANAN, Esq., &c., &c., &c. W. L. MARCY. RCY. 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 no then the least idea of Mr. Crampton's complicity in the business of recruiting." * * * * Yours, very respectfully, * * * * JAMES BUCHANAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, February 27, 1856. In answer to that part of the resolution of the Senate of the 25th instant, which calls for evidence and documents to show the connexion of agents and officers of Great Britain with the alleged violation of the laws and sovereign rights of the United States, the Attorney General has the honor to lay before the President a copy of a correspondence and accompanying documents, with the attorneys of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, the southern district of New York, the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and the southern district of Ohio; and also a transcript of his official opinion of the 9th of August, pursuant to the President's order of the 6th of August last. C. CUSHING. To the PRESIDENT. List of papers accompanying the report of the Attorney General to the President, of February 27, 1856. The President of the United States to the Attorney General, August 6, 1855. Mr. Cushing to the President, August 9, 1855. EXECUTIVE MANSION Washington, August 6, 1855. The reports of the district attorneys of the southern district of New York and the eastern district of Pennsylvania, on the subject of the levy of troops in the United States by official or other agents of Great Britain, are returned herewith to the Attorney General, and his opinion is required upon the question, whether or not the acts reported are in violation of the municipal law and of the national sovereignty and neutrality; and especially upon the question, what legal responsibility, if any, those acts devolve on the British minister and British consuls. FRANKLIN PIERCE. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, August 9, 1855. SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith the considerations of law applicable to the enlistment of troops within the United States by the British government, in so far as the facts appearing in the documents before me concern the personal action either of the British minister or of the British consuls in the United States. There is no room for doubt as to the law regarding the general question. In the first place, the act of Congress of April 20th, 1818, contains the following provision: "SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, enlist or enter himself, or hire or retain another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the limits of, or jurisdiction of the United States, with intent to be enlisted or entered into the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, as a soldier, or as a marine or seaman on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding three years. (3 Stat. at Large, p. 448.) Of course, as the levy of troops within the United States for foreign service is forbidden by law, no such right has, by Executive permission, been given to Great Britain. To the contrary of this, the British government was expressly notified, by letter of Mr. Marcy to Mr. Crampton of April 28th, 1854, that no enlistments in the United States would be permitted either to Great Britain or to Russia. (Ex. Doc., 1st session 33d Congress, vol. xii, No. 103, p. 5.) In the second place, independently of the municipal relations of the acts in question, they constitute, whether they be the acts of the British government or of its minister and consuls, a violation of the sovereignty and of the neutral rights of the United States. The rule of public law is unequivocal on this point, and is correctly stated as follows, by Wolf: "Since the right of raising soldiers is a right of majesty, which |