never at any time received a letter from Mr. Crampton, and consequently could not have shown three letters written to himself, and signed by that gentleman, to Mr. Sierawski,

Colonel Smolenski knows that Mr. Sierawski never was, as he states himself to have been, a captain in the military service of Belgium.

Your Lordship will perceive that these declarations by Colonel Smolenski contradict the main statements by which it is sought to implicate me in the recruitment, and you will be able to judge of the degree of credit which may be attached to the other statements by persons who have sworn to such deliberate falsehoods,

No. 90.-Memorandum by Consul Barclay.

J. F. C.

London, June 19, 1856.

Os reading Mr. Marcy's letter of the 27th ultimo to Mr. Dallas, I perceive that he has not therein attempted to produce proof that I performed any one act of a description amounting to an infringement of the Neutrality Law of The United States; but the affidavits which accompanied his letter, and which were published together in No. 107, Executive document (House of Representatives), are cunningly expressed, in terms conveying no direct substantive charges as far as regards me, but calculated to produce false inferences, which if true, would constitute good ground for charges, and are intended to justify the harsh measures adopted by the Government of The United States, in spite of the acknowledged conciliatory and satisfactory despatch of the Earl of Clarendon to Mr. Dallas.

In his letter before mentioned, Mr. Marcy states (at the last paragraph of page 32 of Ex. Doc., No. 107):

"Lord Clarendon asks this Government to regard the bare declarations of these officers as of sufficient weight to counteract the evidence against them. Their denials, as presented in his despatch of the 30th of April-and that is all which has been communicated to this Government on the subject-seem to be special, and do not traverse all the allegations against them. They deny that they have infringed our Neutrality Laws by enlisting persons within The United States for the British service, or hiring or retaining persons to leave The United States for the purpose of being enlisted in that service. The charges against them are much broader, and embrace the offence of violating the laws and sovereign rights of The United States by setting in operation within our territory, and conducting an extensive system of recruiting, which was not and could not be carried into effect without infringing our laws and rights, by employing numerous agents to engage persons, for pecuniary or other considerations, to leave The United States for the

express purpose of entering into the British army, and by keeping these agents in this employment after it was well known that they were constantly infringing our laws.

"The denial of the implicated officers only covers a part of the delinquencies imputed to them; but confining their exculpatory declaration to the simple charge of having violated the provisions of our Neutrality Act, it does not merit the consideration which Lord Clarendon has ascribed to it. By adopting Lord Clarendon's construction of our Neutrality Law, contained in his note of the 16th of November, which renders it almost nugatory, and is contrary to that of this Government and of its judical tribunals, these officers have not, probably, found much embarrassment in meeting the charges with a general denial."

For my own part, when I furnish observations upon such portions of Mr. Marcy's letter of the 28th of December, 1855, to Mr. Dallas, as related to me, I considered that special denials of the few special allegations it contained were necessary; but I certainly added a general denial, to cover the rest of the ground. It was not practicable then to go farther, and to deny allegations held in reserve by Mr. Marcy, as it were, with the express design that they might not be denied until the blow should be struck for which he was preparing his arm. Had the "much broader charges," mentioned in the passage I have quoted, been made in his letter of the 28th of December last, they would have received from me a much broader contradiction; and that course on Mr. Marcy's part would have been far more manly and fair towards persons whom he had put upon trial.

Now that he has undertaken, however, to enumerate the particulars which constitute his "much broader charges," and which were not contradicted before, because not made before, I beg leave to deny the truth of them, one and all, in regard to myself, ipsissimis verbis.

I deny that I committed" the offence of violating the laws and sovereign rights of The United States by setting in operation within the territory thereof, and conducting an extensive system of recruiting (or any recruiting whatsoever) which was not and could not be carried into effect without infringing our (The United States') laws and rights, by employing numerous (or any) agents to engage persons, for pecuniary or other considerations, to leave The United States for the express purpose of entering into the British army and by keeping those agents in this employment after it was well known that they were infringing the laws."

This studied catalogue of Mr. Marcy's points of accusation should, according to the rules of law and of common sense, embrace all, and exclude any other charges; and although it has made its appearance too late to enable me to interpose my vindication in time

to serve as an obstacle to the unjust action of The United States' Government in revoking my exequatur, self-respect will, I trust, justify me, in thus refuting Mr. Marcy's unwarrantable insinuation, that "the denial of the implicated officers only covers a part of the delinquencies imputed to them," and in showing that one of the officers of whom he has remarked that they "have not probably found much embarrassment in meeting the charges with a general denial," has not found much more embarrassment in meeting his specific charges with specific denials.

The last line quoted from Mr. Marcy's letter, "meeting the charges with a general denial," furnishes one, out of many cases, of his inconsistencies and contradictions. In this part of his letter, after he had specified certain charges, he complains that they were met "with a general denial;" while, in the early portion of the first quotation I have made, he endeavours to invalidate the declarations made "by these officers," with the remark that "their denials seem to be special."

I would now advert to the third paragraph of page 37 of the "Ex. Doc., No. 107," wherein Mr. Marcy speaks of my participation in recruiting, and remarks that "the Consulate at New York appears to have been the point at which the largest expenditures were made," and that they were made "in the Consul's presence."

In answer to the first part of this charge, I must repeat to a certain extent. I deny that I was ever authorized or requested, either by Her Majesty's Government or by Mr. Crampton, to direct or to aid recruiting in The United States, and I again deny that I did direct or aid therein, and I deny that payments for that purpose were made in my presence, or with my knowledge or privity; but I declare that from the first moment the project was mentioned, I most punctiliously abstained from any act, even conversation, which might lead to a suspicion of my conniving at a breach of the Neutrality Laws, which I interpreted in the broadest and most stringent sense; and, if they were divine, I could not by my acts and intentions have paid them greater respect.

As to the " new evidence" referred to at the close of the first paragraph of page 42 of "Ex. Doc., No. 107," I have to remark that an officer belonging to the office of The United States' Marshal in New York stated to me, that the District Attorney, or I, or any one else, could obtain as many persons as might be desired, Jews, Poles, Hungarians, and Germans of all sorts, to swear to whatever matters we pleased, for 3, 4, or 5 dollars a-piece. It will be seen by reference to the "Ex. Doc., No. 107," that of those descriptions are the persons whose depositions constitute the new evidence" of which Mr. Marcy boasts, and on view of which, he says that the President thinks that "Her Majesty's Government will no [1857-58. XLVIII.]

U

longer dissent from this conclusion," namely, "the complicity of Mr. Crampton and the British Consuls at New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati, in the illegal enterprise of recruiting soldiers for the British army in The United States."

I have shown that when Mr. Marcy receives special denials, he objects, and wants general; and when the latter sort are presented to him, he repudiates them because they are not special. As it is too late for me now to study to please him, I will avoid the great prolixity which an examination of his "new evidence," for the purpose of giving my contradiction to the depositions severally as regards the portions of them which relates to me, would occasion, and will content myself with declaring that one and all of the material allegations which they contain affecting me are utterly

untrue.

ANTH. BARCLAY.

No. 91-Consul Mathew to the Earl of Clarendon.—(Rec. June 23.)
MY LORD,
Philadelphia, June 9, 1856.

1 HAVE the honour to inform your Lordship that I have received a communication from Mr Marcy, United States' Secretary of State, intimating to me, by order of the President, the withdrawal of my exequatur as Consul for the State of Pennsylvania.

I beg to inclose a copy of Mr. Marcy's letter, and of my reply to it.

This act, on the part of The United States' Government, I will not hesitate to say, took me wholly by surprise: the universal sentiment of admiring concurrence attendant throughout The United States on your Lordship's note of the 30th of April to Mr. Dallas, led me to believe in the conciliatory settlement of the point at issue, or, at least, that any ulterior steps would arise from other causes, and would not, by their extension to Her Majesty's Consuls, so clearly stultify the tone of goodwill assumed in the rest of Mr. Marcy's rejoinder.

The independent press and public opinion, generally, have not failed to point out the supposed objects of this offensive and uncalledfor course of The United States' Administration.

I will not intrude upon your Lordship any repetition of my remarks in my reply to Mr. Marcy on the points which might be intended to apply to me in his despatch of the 27th of May to Mr. But I may be permitted to express the gratification given me by the numerous testimonies of regard evinced towards me in this community.

Your Lordship will perceive, by the inclosed extract from a popular journal of this city, the just and indignant feeling Mr.

Marey's want of due appreciation of the evidence of some of the most upright of its citizens has called forth.

In the desire of lessening, as far as possible, the commercial inconvenience created by the act of The United States' Government, I have placed in charge of this Consulate, subject to your Lordship's approval, Mr. John G. Dale, an English merchant, of the highest character, resident here, a director of the Philadelphia and Liverpool Steam Company.

I propose embarking within a few days for England.

The Earl of Clarendon.

I have, &c.

GEORGE B. MATHEW.

SIR.

(Inclosure 1.)-Mr. Marcy to Consul Mathew

Washington, May 28, 1856. FOR reasons which have been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, the President has revoked the exequatur heretofore granted to you, by which you were permitted to exercise the functions and enjoy the privileges of British Consul at Philadelphia.

I herewith send to you a copy of the Act of Revocation.
I have, &c.

G. B. Mathew, Esq.

SIR,

W. L. MARCY.

(Inclosure 2.)-Consul Mathew to Mr. Marcy.

Philadelphia, June 9, 1856,

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 28th ultimo, intimating to me the revocation of my exequatur as Consul of Her Britannic Majesty in the State of Pennsylvania, by order of the President of The United States.

The publication on the day following of your despatch to Mr. Dallas gave me cognizance of the reasons assigned for this step, upon which I beg to be permitted, with great respect, briefly to remark.

I should have done myself the honour of replying at once to your communication, but I was desirous of ascertaining, first, if the further documentary evidence, stated to have been laid before Congress, in any way referred to me. I regret greatly I have failed in my endeavours to this end, for it would have been more easy to refute any ungrounded imputations while I was in The United States; and I cannot but recollect that one of the chief deponents to the disparagement of Mr. Crampton and Mr. Howe at Hertz's trial a German of the name of Burghthal who could not speak English) had never spoken to either of the gentlemen with whom he testified he had held confidential conversations.

It would be unbecoming in me to make any observations on the general hearing of an act which appears to be scarcely compatible