of your proceedings, as reported in your dispatch (No. 57) of the 12th ultimo, with respect to the proposed enlistment, in the Queen's service, of foreigners and British subjects in the United States." Mr. Marcy assumes, and argues upon the assumption, that the meaning of this passage was that the enlistment of the persons mentioned, and which were approved of by Her Majesty's government, were to take place in the United States; whereas the sentence, according to its obvi[560] ous meaning, *relates to foreigners and British subjects resident

in the United States. The word "in" has reference to the place where they resided, and not to the place where they were to be enlisted; and if any doubt could arise on this point, that doubt must have been removed by the concluding passage, which adverts to the neutrality law of the United States, and says that Her Majesty's government would on no account run any risk of infringing that law. This construction of the passage under consideration does not appear to have occurred to Mr. Marcy at the time when the dispatch of the undersigned of the 12th of April was communicated to him by Mr. Lumley. So far from it, Mr. Marcy expressed to Mr. Lumley his satisfaction with that dispatch, and desired that he might be furnished with a copy of it, in order that he might show it to his colleagues.

The undersigned must also further observe that Mr. Marcy, in the same dispatch, has misconceived the meaning of an expression used by the undersigned in making an offer, above referred to, that any man who might have been enlisted within the United States should be im

mediately discharged and sent back. The reference there made. [561] to British law was merely *intended to indicate that if persons

had been enlisted under the circumstances supposed, such enlistment would have been at variance with British, as well as with American, law; but the undersigned did not mean that respect would not be paid, in the discharge of men, to the principles of the law of the United States alone, should that law appear to have been violated in a single

case.

In reply to the general statements of Mr. Marcy's dispatch, the undersigned must repeat that Her Majesty's government gave the most positive orders that no man should be enlisted or engaged within the territory of the United States, and that the neutrality laws of the United States should be strictly and scrupulously respected. But Mr. Marcy now contends that this was not enough; and though, in conversation with Mr. Crampton, on the 22d of March, 1855, he said that he could not object to any number of persons going to Nova Scotia to be there enlisted, provided the neutrality laws of the United States were not infringed, he now argues that the enlistment in Nova Scotia of persons coming thither from the United States was a violation of the policy of

the United States, and that not to respect that policy was an of [562] fense on the *part of Great Britain against the sovereign rights of the United States.

Now, in reply to this, the undersigned begs to observe that the policy of a nation in regard to its internal arrangements must be sought for in the laws of that nation; that what those laws forbid it must be understood to be the policy of the state to prohibit; and that what those laws do not forbid, it must be understood to be the policy of the state to allow. In every state, whatever may be its form of government, there is a sovereign power; that sovereign power may impose upon the subjects or citizens of such state what duties, obligations, and restrictious it may think fit; and it is a necessary conclusion that when the sovereign power puts a limit to its enactments, whether of obligation or

of prohibition, it means to leave its subjects or citizens free in regard to all matters not within the enactments of the law. This principle is indeed admitted by Mr. Buchanan's note of the 6th of July, wherein he lays it down that the neutral policy of the United States is "defined and enforced” in the statute of 1818.

Different countries have different laws in regard to the enlist[563] ment of their subjects and *citizens in the military and naval service of other states, and these laws vary according to the different policy of these countries with respect to such matters.

In Great Britain the law not only prohibits recruiting or enlisting within the British dominions for the service of any foreign state, without the permission of the sovereign, but it goes farther, and prohibits any subject of Her Majesty from so enlisting, even elsewhere, without the royal permission. The policy of Great Britain hence appears to be to prevent British subjects from entering at all into the service of foreign states without the permission of the Crown.

The law of the United States appears to be different. Her Majesty's government understood, and that understanding is confirmed by Mr. Buchanan's note of the 6th of July, that the law of the United States only forbids enlistments, recruiting, and contracts or engagements within the United States, and hiring or retaining persons to quit the United States with the intent to be enlisted elsewhere, but it does not forbid citizens of the United States, who may have used their natural right of

quitting the United States, to enlist into the service of a foreign [564] state, when they have left their own country. The sovereign

power of the United States might, if it had chosen to do so, have tollowed its citizens with a prohibitory enactment beyond the territory of the United States, but it has not thought fit to do so, and the just and inevitable conclusion is that what it might have forbidden, but has not forbidden, it has designedly allowed that is to say, in other words, that it is the policy of the United States to prevent foreign enlistment within the United States, but that it is not the policy of the United States to forbid citizens of the United States to enlist, when out of the United States. into the service of foreign states, if they should choose to do so.

Such being the state of this matter, it is obvious that the British government cannot justly be charged with any disregard of the policy of the United States, nor with any disrespect to their sovereign rights by taking into the Queen's military service any persons who, having come from the United States, freely and without contract or engagement, into a British territory, might then be willing to enlist.

The real questions at issue between Her Majesty's government [565] and that of the United States are, whether the British govern ment ordered or contemplated any violation of the neutrality laws of the United States; whether, if the British government did not order or contemplate such violation, those laws were nevertheless violated by persons acting with the authority or approbation of the British government; and lastly, whether, if any violation of the law of the United States did take place, sufficient.satisfaction has been given to the government of that country.

In regard to the first point, the British government neither ordered nor contemplated any violation whatever of the laws of the United States; but, on the contrary, issued the most positive and repeated orders that those laws should not be infringed by any persons acting under their authority.

In regard to the second point, Mr. Marcy alleges that, notwithstanding the orders of the British government, officers and agents of that

government did, within the United States, do things which were a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States; and Mr. Marcy

specifically makes this charge against Mr. Crampton, Her Maj[566] esty's minister at Washington, and against Her Majesty's * consuls at Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York.

With respect to Mr. Crampton, the undersigned has to state that Mr. Crampton positively and distinctly denies the charge brought against him. He declares that he never hired, or retained, or engaged a single person within the United States for the service of Her Majesty, and that he never countenanced or encouraged any violation of the law of the United States. The charge brought against Mr. Crampton is mainly founded upon evidence given by Strobel on the trial of Hertz, and on the so-called confession of Hertz himself. One of those persons, Strobel, was, in consequence of his misconduct, dismissed from employment by the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia at Halifax, and afterwards applied to Mr. Crampton, and endeavored to extort money from him by a threat, which was of course disregarded. The undersigned has the honor to transmit, as inclosures to this note, documents which sufficiently prove that both Strobel and Hertz are wholly unworthy of credit. It is impossible for Her Majesty's government to set the assertions of such men as these against the declaration of Mr. Cramp[567] ton, a man of unquestionable honor.

The undersigned must indeed remark that the whole proceeding in regard to the trial of Hertz was of such a nature that whilst Her Majesty's ministers and Her Majesty's consuls might be, and indeed were, inculpated by the evidence of unscrupulous witnesses, that minister and those consuls had not any means or any opportunity of rebutting the charges which were thus incidentally and indirectly brought against them.

With regard to Her Majesty's consuls at Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York, they all equally deny the charges which have been brought against them; and they declare that they have in no way whatever infringed the laws of the United States.

With respect to Mr. Roweroft, Her Majesty's consul at Cincinnati, the undersigned has to observe, that legal proceedings against that gentleman are still pending. As to the origin, character, and nature of those proceedings, the undersigned might have much to say; but as they are still pending, he abstains from doing so. He must, however, be permit

ted to remark, that it would at all events be inconsistent with the [568] plainest principles of justice to assume as established charges

which are still the subject-matter of judicial investigation. The accusation against Mr. Mathews, Her Majesty's consul at Philadelphia, rests entirely upon assertions made by Hertz. Those assertions are positively denied by Mr. Mathews, and Her Majesty's government can scarcely believe that the Government of the United States, with the knowledge which it will have obtained of the character of Hertz, will hesitate to concur with the government of Her Majesty in giving credit to Mr. Mathews.

With respect to Mr. Barclay, Her Majesty's consul at New York, he declares that he neither favored the alleged recruiting nor participated in it, nor was informed of the hiring, retaining, or engaging any man for that purpose.

Her Majesty's government cannot but accept the denial of these gentlemen as more worthy of belief than the assertions and evidence of such men as Hertz and Strobel.

But Mr. Marcy considers that the conduct of Mr. Barclay in

[569] the affair of the bark Maury ought to be an additional reason why Her Majesty's government should recall him. Upon this the undersigned must observe that Mr. Barclay received information, on oath. from persons in the service of the United States, leading to the belief that the bark Maury was fitting out with designs hostile to British interests, and at variance with the neutrality laws of the United States. It was Mr. Barclay's bounden duty to communicate that information. without delay, to Her Majesty's minister at Washington. Mr. Barclay did so, and his direct action in the matter was then at an end. Mr. Crampton submitted this information to the proper authorities of the United States, in order that they might determine what proceedings, if any, it might be right to take thereupon. The officers of the United States considered the prima facie case against the Maury to be suffi cient to call for proceedings on their part. Such proceedings were aecordingly instituted by them, and not by Mr. Barclay, whose conduct in regard to the Maury was in strict performance of his duty, and received the approval of Her Majesty's government.

With regard to the last point the undersigned must refer to the [570] offers of satisfaction, and to the explanations already made, and

to the repeated expression of sincere regret of Her Majesty's gov ernment, if, contrary to their instructions and to their reiterated directions, there has been any infringement of the laws of the United States. The undersigned has now had the satisfaction of communicating to the Government of the United States the statements and declarations of Her Majesty's minister at Washington, and of Her Majesty's consuls at Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York, as to the conduct imputed to them.

The Government of the United States had been led to suppose that the law and the sovereign rights of the United States had not been respected by Her Majesty's government, and, relying upon evidence deemed to be trustworthy, they believed that that law and those rights had been infringed by British agents.

If such had been the case, the Government of the United States would have been entitled to demand, and Her Majesty's government would not have hesitated to afford, the most ample satisfaction, for no discredit can

attach to the frank admission and complete reparation of an [571] *unquestionable wrong. Her Majesty's government, however, une

quivocally disclaim any intention either to infringe the law, or to disregard the policy, or not to respect the sovereign rights of the United States; and the Government of the United States will now, for the first time, learn that Her Majesty's minister at Washington, and Her Majesty's consuls at New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati solemnly affirm that they have not committed any of the acts that have been imputed to them. The Government of the United States will now, also, for the first time, have an opportunity of weighing the declarations of four gentlemen of unimpeached honor and integrity, against evidence upon which no reliance ought to be placed. The undersigned cannot but express the earnest hope of Her Majesty's government that these explanations and assurances may prove satisfactory to the Government of the United States, and effectually remove any misapprehension which may have hitherto existed, and he cannot doubt that such a result will afford as much pleasure to the Government of the United States as to that of Her Majesty by putting an end to a difference which has been deeply regretted by Her Majesty's government, for there are no two coun[572] tries which are bound by stronger ties or by higher considera

tions than the United States and Great Britain to maintain unbroken the relations of perfect cordiality and friendship.

The undersigned requests Mr. Dallas to accept the assurance of his highest consideration.

CLARENDON.

[For inclosures see Senate Documents, first and second sessions. Thirty-fourth Congress, vol. 14, 1855-56.]

Mr. Marcy to Mr. Dallas.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, May 27, 1856.

SIR: The President has carefully considered the note of the 30th ultimo, addressed to you by the Earl of Clarendon, Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, relative to the questions which have arisen between this Government and that of Great Britain on the subject of recruiting within the United States for the British army, and has directed me to present to you his views thereon, for the purpose of having them made known to Her Majesty's government.

He has been much gratified by the conciliatory spirit of that [573] note, and by the desire *manifested by the Earl of Clarendon to

adjust the existing difficulties, and to preserve and strengthen the friendly relations between the United States and Great Britain. The vast interest which the government and people of both countries have in upholding and cherishing such relations cannot be more solemnly impressed upon Her Majesty's government than it is upon that of the United States.

The unequivocal disclaimer by Her Majesty's government of "any intention, either to infringe the law, or to disregard the policy, or not to respect the sovereign rights of the United States," and their expression of regret "if, contrary to their intentions and to their reiterated directions, there has been any infringement of the laws of the United States," are satisfactory to the President. The ground of complaint, so far as respects Her Majesty's government, is thus removed.

But the President extremely regrets that he cannot concur in Lord Clarendon's favorable opinion of the conduct of some of Her Majesty's officers who were, as this Government believed, and, after due considera

tion of all which has been offered in their defence, still believes, [574 implicated in proceedings which were so clearly an infringement

of the laws and soverign rights of this country. In respect to such of these officers and agents as have no connection with this Government, it has nothing to ask from that of Her Majesty; but the case is different in relation to Mr. Crampton, Her Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to this Government, and the consuls at New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. The President is gratified to perceive that Her Majesty's government would not have hesitated to comply with the request to withdraw these officers from their official positions, if it had entertained the views here taken of their conduct iù regard to recruiting contrary to the law and sovereign rights of the United States.

I scarcely need say that, in making this request, no interruption of the diplomatic relations between this Government and Great Britain was anticipated; but, on the contrary, the President was, and is, sin