stitucao," the " Laura," the "Asp," the " George Crooks,' the "Lark," and the "Sete de Avril," furnished with American colours and American papers under the name of the Mary Cushing;"*-besides the cases of the "Cassard," the "Clara," the " Eagle," the "Wyoming," the "Hyperion,” and many others.

Now it is only necessary to show that all intention of interfering with American vessels, even when engaged in slave trade, is officially renounced by the British Government, and the question will remain simple and intelligible as to the continued practice of visitation. There can be no further room for mistake or misapprehension.

I am, however, bound, in introducing the following extract, to admit frankly that there seems to have been (as will be apparent on reading the extract) some unaccountable omission either in the original instructions, or in the terms in which those instructions were conveyed from the Foreign Office to the Admiralty.† The following, however, is clear and free from all doubt:

Viscount Canning to Sir John Barrow, 27 Nov. 1841.

“I am to request that you will observe to the Lords "Commissioners of the Admiralty, that from the letter ad"dressed on the 8th of February last by Lord Leveson to the Secretary to the Admiralty, it appears that the instructions "which their Lordships were requested to issue to Her Majesty's cruisers were to the effect that they should abstain from "capturing United States vessels engaged in the slave trade; “and I am, therefore, directed by Lord Aberdeen to request "that you will move the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to send instructions to Her Majesty's cruisers to

* Correspondence, Class D., 1840, pp. 78. 80, and following pages.-Havana Commissioners' Despatch, Class A., p. 270.

+ Correspondence, Class D., p. 167. 5th Enclosure in 244.

B 2

"abstain from detaining or visiting vessels of the United "States engaged in the slave trade."

Again, from-

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Stevenson, 13 Oct. 1841. "The undersigned renounces all pretensions on the part of "the British Government to visit and search American "vessels in time of peace."*

Without repeating instances of this disavowal, it must surely be plain now, to the most sensitive American, that in still maintaining the right to inquire into the nationality of a vessel, which, notwithstanding the flag she hoists, there may be good grounds for suspecting, there is no wish or intention of treating the flag with disrespect; many an honest American will rather hail it as a means of saving that flag from pollution.

If the talent and labour which Mr. Stevenson employed in his correspondence with Lord Palmerston had been directed, not against the principle itself, but the details of its practical operation, he could hardly have failed to amend or remove what even Englishmen will admit to be objectionable. If cases of visitation had become so general as to form the rule instead of the exception, America might justly complain. If the detaining or visiting officer were not always prepared to justify his interference, by showing reasonable grounds for his suspicions, here would be fit occasion for remonstrance, or, it may be, for compensation.

Mr. Stevenson's object is, however, stated frankly and intelligibly enough. He holds that every vessel sailing under the American flag shall be exempt from all interference. If this be not the clear meaning of his argument, then there is in reality no difference between him and Lords Palmerston and Aberdeen. If I have overstated his argument, and that he means to confine the desired protection to bonâ fide American

vessels, then the British statesmen agree with him, and there is an end to the dispute, as there should have long since been to the bulky correspondence. It never was insinuated by Mr. Stevenson, (and indeed those who have the pleasure of his acquaintance know that he is of too frank and straightforward a disposition to cloak such a charge even under an insinuation,) it never, I say, could have been imagined by Mr. Stevenson, that the British Government made this a pretence for harassing American merchant-vessels engaged in lawful trade. But if the broad claim of exemption, as I said before, is to be taken without any qualification, then let Mr. Stevenson, in the name of common sense, consider what would be the consequence of such a doctrine. Why, it is plain," in the words of Lord Palmerston, "that every slave"trading pirate, whether Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian, English or French, would immediately sail under the colours "of the United States, and thus all the treaties concluded "amongst the Christian powers for the suppression of the "slave-trade would be rendered a dead letter; even the laws "of England might be set at defiance by her own subjects, "and the slave traders invested with comparative, if not "complete impunity."*

General Cass (if I am justified in ascribing to him the pamphlet to which I have before referred) says,

“Lord

Aberdeen, forsooth, claims no right of search, except under "the most grave suspicions and well-founded doubts." The General first demands, with a tone of triumph, “the most grave suspicions and well-founded doubts of what-Lord "Aberdeen?"-and then answers himself, "of violating your municipal laws!" "If this proposition," he continues, "is "meant, and can be maintained, then is England much nearer "universal dominion on the ocean than the most jealous "observer of her maritime steps has ventured to insinuate." Stop one moment, good General; allow an Englishman to

*Correspondence, Class D., p. 259.

answer your question. Lord Aberdeen meant nothing of the kind, and I have in vain searched for any single passage throughout his communications or despatches that could justify such a comment as this: what Lord Aberdeen meant, and what he said, was, "well-founded doubts of the genuineness "of the vessel's character," that is, of her being bonâ fide American.*

This argument, in truth, appears so plain and conclusive, that I will not attempt to encumber it with any prolonged discussion. The mere statement cannot fail to carry conviction to the mind of every impartial man.

II. The second part of this branch of the inquiry is by no means of so simple a nature; and in proceeding to consider it, with truth only for my guide, I must declare my deliberate opinion, that if America be wrong with reference to the exceptional visitation which we have just been considering, she is, under present circumstances, right on the general question of the right of search.

As this question stands at present, it seems to me unreasonable to expect the United States to enter into a treaty conceding the mutual right of search. But it would argue a very superficial acquaintance with the relations between that country and Great Britain, to maintain that, because it is not good for America, France should therefore abrogate the existing treaties on the subject. It will only require a very brief summary of events to show how entirely unique is the position of America upon this question.

A strong and natural cause of the unpopularity of the proposed concession in the United States is traceable to the many and flagrant abuses of the old practice by our vessels during the French war.

Whatever may have been the origin or the progress of this practice, there can be no doubt of its having ended in that impolitic and practically tyrannous custom of searching for British sea

*Correspondence, Class D., p. 268.

men on board American vessels. It may suffice to give one instance of its exercise; and although upon that occasion Mr. Secretary Canning, on the part of the British Government, lost. no time in tendering reparation, it can be by no means surprising, that even after the lapse of so many years, there should still be found a general feeling in America against the principle, however modified, that could by any possibility have led to so monstrous an outrage.

On the 7th of March 1807, as the British gun-brig "Halifax" was lying in Hampton Roads, five of her crew deserted, and it was reported to the captain, Lord James Townshend, that they had entered immediately afterwards on board the American frigate "Chesapeake."

These circumstances were forthwith represented to the British commander-in-chief on the North American station; and in the early part of June the fifty-gun ship "Leopard," Captain Salusbury Pryce Humphreys, sailed from Halifax for the Chesapeake, with an order dated on the 1st of the month, and addressed to the different captains and commanders under the vice-admiral's command, directing, that in case of meeting the American frigate "Chesapeake" at sea, and without the limits of the United States, they were to show to her captain that order, and to require to search his ship for deserters from the "Belleisle," "Bellona," "Triumph,' ""Chichester," "Halifax," and "Zenobia" cutter, and were to proceed and search for the same; and that if a similar demand should be made by the American, he was to be permitted to search for any deserters from the United States' service, "according to the custom and usage of "civilized nations, on terms of peace and amity with each "other." On the 21st, at 8 A. M., the "Leopard" arrived off Cape Henry, and, running up Lynnhaven Bay, anchored about noon, in company with the "Bellona" and "Melampus." On the 22d, at 7 h. 15 m. A. M., the United States' frigate "Chesapeake" weighed and put to sea from Hampton Roads, with a moderate breeze at west-south-west, and,