The audacions falsehoods which this man has ventured to put forward in regard to myself, would of themselves be sufficient to convince me of the falsehood of those which he has made regarding you or Mr. Howe; and I should imagine that such statements, from such an individual, would meet with no credit from any reasonable or respectable person.

It is not unnatural that you should wish to have an opportunity of clearing yourself from such imputations, nor should I feel at liberty to direct you not to take such measures as may be within your power to do so.

The matter to which Hertz's trial refers is, however, under discussion between Her Majesty's Government and that of The United States, and I have deferred, in my own case, taking any public notice of such statements as those of Hertz, or of the proceedings of The United States' authorities in this case, until such time as a fitting opportunity shall be afforded to me for doing so in the proper quarter, and in a manner more complete than can be afforded by indirect action in an American court of justice, and I would recommend you to pursue the same course.

I have in the meantime forwarded a copy of your despatch to Her Majesty's Government, and I have satisfaction in assuring you that I can see nothing in any of your proceedings in regard to this matter which appear to me to be incorrect, or derogatory to your office. I have, &c.

G. B. Mathew, Esq.

JOHN F. CRAMPTON.

No. 43.-Consul Mathew to the Earl of Clarendon.—(Rec. Oct. 29.) (Extract.) Philadelphia, October 16, 1855.

UPON the rejection of the motion for a new trial, made on behalf of Hertz, Mr. Van Dyke, The United States' District Attorney who had prosecuted him, read, in alleged mitigation of any future sentence upon him, a document signed, but evidently not drawn up by Hertz, as his "confession," in which Her Majesty's Minister at Washington and I are placed, with other gentlemen, under serious accusations.

Having fully made known to Mr. Crampton (who informs me that a copy of my despatch will be transmitted to your Lordship) the particulars of any communications on my part with Hertz, I will confine myself to the plain declaration that his representations of my words and acts are grossly untrue.

I have abstained, under Mr. Crampton's advice, from taking any steps by affidavits or otherwise to refute this tissue of perjuries, but I am perfectly prepared to do so.

I had cause at an early date to suspect that Hertz (who now avows his first aim to have been to receive money at my hands, that

is, to implicate me) was employed for that purpose. I am not, therefore, surprised to find that the District Attorney, Van Dyke, had in his possession, previous to the pretended trial, various private papers of Hertz, and among them the letters of Mr. Lumley and of Mr. Stanley, referred to in his "confession" under date of October 1.

As Her Majesty's Consul for Pennsylvania, I am amenable by law to The United States' Courts; but I conceive that, for this very reason, I am entitled to protection against extraneous accusations, in lieu of being assailed by the chief legal functionary in this State through a witness of whose perjury he can scarcely be deemed ignorant, and in a mode which seems as if designed to preclude the possibility of defence or reply.

I must beg to draw your Lordship's attention to the letters of the Attorney-General of The United States, Mr. Cushing, produced in Court by Mr. Van Dyke.

Your Lordship will regret to observe that this high functionary has omitted the important fact that, in deference to this country, all enlistments for the Foreign Legion were wholly stopped throughout the British North American Colonies, thus depriving these prosecutions of the possibility of any beneficial ulterior result.

Mr. Cushing has also thought fit to draw the erroneous inference of the employment of Her Majesty's Consuls in these enlistments, and cannot assuredly find any warrant for the allegation that your Lordship desired the violation (in spirit, if not in letter) of The United States' laws. After pointing me out as a proper object of suspicion, he further endeavours to deprive me of what seems to me the undoubted right of international comity, that of denying the imputations cast on my official character by a perjured witness. The Earl of Clarendon.

GEO. B. MATHEW.

No.44.-Report-United States v. Henry Hertz, et al.-(Communicated to the Earl of Clarendon by Mr. Buchanan, November 1.)

A Pamphlet.

No. 45.—Mr. Marcy to Mr. Buchanan.—(Communicated to the Earl of Clarendon by Mr. Buchanan, November 1.)

SIR,

Washington, October 13, 1855. THE copy of Lord Clarendon's note of the 27th ultimo, which you transmitted to the Department with your despatch No. 93, has been received. I have laid it before the President, and am directed to make the following reply:

The case presented to Her Britannic Majesty's Government in my note to Mr. Crampton, contained a distinct charge, that British officers and agents had infringed our laws enacted for the main

tenance of our duties of neutrality to friendly Powers, and that some of these officers and agents in the employment of their Government within The United States, and others, residents in the neighbouring British provinces, had also violated our sovereign territorial rights by being engaged in recruiting for the British army within our territories. The mode by which this recruiting has been carried on, and the connection of these with it, are clearly stated.

A scheme for that purpose had been arranged by British officers agents had been employed by them to open rendezvous in our prin cipal cities; numerous engagements had been made with recruits money had been paid to them, and liberal promises of other com siderations offered as an inducement for entering into the Britis service; and they had been taken out of The United States by means furnished by persons in the employment of the British Government.

It was also stated that the evidence establishing these allegation against the officers and agents of the British Government, was such a character that this Government could not reasonably doub its accuracy.

The President has given to the reply of Lord Clarendon, He Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the case thus presented by this Government, the full considera tion it is entitled to on account of the high source from which emanates, and he regrets to be obliged to adopt the conclusion that it is not satisfactory.

This Government had a right to look for something more in that reply than an expectation on the part of Her Majesty's Government "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 (Lord Clarendon's) note."

This is a very laconic, but certainly a very unsatisfactory answer to the demand of redress by this Government for a violation of its laws, and an affront to the sovereign rights of this country.

This conclusion adopted by Lord Clarendon is preceded by a general objection to all the evidence by which the charges against the British officers and agents are sustained.

Lord Clarendon declares that the "extraordinary" measures adopted to obtain evidence against Her Majesty's servants or their agents, though "sometimes resorted to under despotic institotions, are disdained by all free and enlightened Governments."

serious imputation is accompanied with no specification or vegue allusion to the condemned measures, nor is this Govern

ment favoured by his Lordship with any information to guide conjecture as to his meaning.

The only reply which can be made to an allegation so exceedingly indefinite, is that this Government has authorized or used no other but ordinary and legitimate modes of obtaining evidence against British officers, nor has it any reason to believe or suspect that any persons, with or without its countenance, have adopted any measures whatever for obtaining such evidence which would not find abundant sanction in the established practice of the administration of penal law in Great Britain.

It is a significant fact that on the trials in Philadelphia and New York, in which the accused were convicted for being engaged in carrying out the scheme of recruitments within The United States, no such objection as that by which Lord Clarendon would fain set aside all the evidence as worthless, was interposed or made to appear, though some of Her Majesty's officers were present at these trials, and took a deep interest in the defence of the criminals, and were directly implicated by the proofs as participants in the offence.

Repelling this charge of imitating "despotic institutions" and doing what is "disdained by all free and enlightened Governments," is proper to remark, that if it were sustainable, it would not warrant the conclusion which Lord Clarendon has deduced from it, which is, that the evidence "will fail to establish any well-founded charge against Her Majesty's Government." It is far from being certain that the measures for obtaining the evidence, even if they had been extraordinary and exceptionable, would invalidate it, for it might still be of such a character as to carry conviction to the mind of the truth of the allegations.

Should Her Britannic Majesty's Government see fit to disclose any specific objection to the mode by which the evidence has been obtained, or attempt in any other way to impeach it, this Government will then feel called on to vindicate its course and show its ability to sustain its charge by evidence to which no just exception can be taken. Neither the premises on which Lord Clarendon founds his argument for setting aside the testimony against the implicated British officers, nor the inference he deduces from them, can be admitted by this Government.

Lord Clarendon must, I think, intend to be understood as impeaching our neutrality in the present war, though there appears to be some indistinctness in his language.

In commenting upon so grave a charge, coming from so respectable an authority, it is but fair to quote his own words:

"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 ?"

It is certainly a novel doctrine of international law, that traffic by citizens or subjects of a neutral Power with belligerents, though it should be in arms, ammunition and warlike stores, compromits the neutrality of that Power. That the enterprise of individuals, citizens of The United States, may have led them in some instances, and to a limited extent, to trade with Russia in some of the specified articles, is not denied, nor is it necessary that it should be for the purpose of vindicating this Government from the charge of having disregarded the duties of neutrality in the present war.

Lord Clarendon is most respectfully asked to look on the other side of the case. Have the citizens of The United States had no traffic with Great Britain during the present war, in arms, ammunition, and warlike stores? It must be known to his Lordship-for it is a matter of notoriety-that our citizens, in their character as individuals, have rendered substantial aid to both England and France in the prosecution of hostilities against Russia. Though Lord Clarendon may have momentarily forgotten, he will readily call to mind the fact, that a large number of our merchant ships have been engaged, from the commencement of the war down to this time, in transporting troops and munitions of war for Great Britain, from British ports, either in the United Kingdom or in the Mediterranean, to the Crimea, to say nothing of the numerous American merchant vessels employed in conveying troops and munitions of war from the ports of France.

Private manufacturing establishments in The United States have been resorted to for powder, arms, and warlike stores, for the use of the allies; and immense quantities of provisions have been furnished to supply their armies in the Crimea.

In the face of these facts, open and known to all the world, it certainly was expected that the British Government would have alluded to the very limited traffic which some of our citizens may have had with Russia, as sustaining a solemn charge against this Government for violating neutral obligation towards the allies. Russia may have shared scantily, but the allies have undoubtedly partaken largely, in benefits derived from the capital, the industry, and the inventive genius of American citizens in the progress of the war; but as this Government has had no connection with these proceedings, neither belligerent has any just ground of complaint against it.

Lord Clarendon further asks, "Have not plots been openly avowed, and conspiracies entered into, without disguise or hin