to become so, continued to prosecute their slave traffic; and to enable them to do so with more effect they resorted to the use of the flags of other nations, but more particularly that of the United States. To prevent this, and enforce her treaties, Great Britain deemed it important that her cruizers in the African seas should have the right of detaining and examining all vessels navigating those seas, for the purpose of ascertaining their national character. Against this practice the govern ment of the United States protested, and the numerous cases out of which the present discussion has arisen, became subjects of complaint and negotiation between the two governments."

A correspondence on the subject commenced between Mr. Stevenson and Lord Palmerston, which was continued with Lord Aberdeen, when the latter succeeded to the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Lord Palmerston had written in one of his official notes as follows:

"The undersigned begs leave to state to Mr. Stevenson, in reply to the remarks contained in his last note, that Her Majesty's Government do not pretend that Her Majesty's naval officers have any right to search American merchantmen met with in time of peace at sea; but there is an essential and fundamental difference between searching a vessel and detaining her papers to see if she is legally provided with documents entitling her to the protection of any country, and especially of the country whose flag she may have hoisted at the time. For though, by common parlance, the word 'flag' is used to express the test of nationality, and though, accord

ing to that acceptation of the word, Her Majesty's Government admit that British cruisers are not entitled in time of peace to search merchant vessels sailing under the American flag, yet Her Majesty's Government do not mean thereby to say that a merchantman can exempt herself from search by merely hoisting a piece of bunting with the United States emblems and colours upon it: that which Her Majesty's Government mean is, that the rights of the United States flag exempt a vessel from search when that vessel is provided with papers entitling her to wear that flag, and proving her to be United States property, and navigated according to law."

And again :

"The cruisers employed by Her Majesty's Government for the suppression of the slave-trade must ascertain, by inspection of the papers, the nationality of vessels met with by them under circumstances which justify a suspicion that such vessels are engaged in the slave-trade, in order that, if such vessels are found to belong to a country which has conceded to Great Britain the mutual right of search, they may be searched accordingly; and that if they be found to belong to a country which, like the United States, has not conceded that mutual right, they may be allowed to pass on free and unexamined, and so consummate their intended iniquity."

Against these principles Mr. Stevenson, in a letter to Lord Aberdeen, dated September 10, 1841, strongly protests, and quotes the authority of Sir William Scott (Lord Stowell), to show that the slave-trade is not piracy, nor cognizable under the law of nations

"The question is not whether

the power asserted might be necessary or expedient, but whether any such power exists. It is in cumbent, then, upon Her Majesty's Government to show upon what principles of justice and right it claims the power of deciding upon the right of an independent nation to navigate the ocean in time of peace; and this, too, for the purpose of executing treaties to which such nation is not a party, and consequently not bound. The signal error of Lord Palmerston is in assuming the necessity and expediency of the power as proof of its existence. Was such a power ever before asserted in the manner or to the extent which is now done? On the contrary, has not the right of visitation and search been always regarded as exclusively one of a belligerent character?

"In relation to the conduct of other nations, who seek to cover their infamous traffic by the fraudulent use of the American flag, the government of the United States cannot be responsible. It has taken the steps which it deemed best to protect its flag as its cha racter from abuse, and will follow it up by such other measures as may appear to be called for."

Lord Aberdeen in his reply states, that he "is the last person who would presume to question the authority of the distinguished jurist to whom Mr. Stevenson has referred. But Mr. Stevenson will recollect that the judgment of Lord Stowell was delivered in the case of a French vessel which had actually been captured, and was condemned by a British tribunal. The sentence was reversed by Lord Stowell in the year 1817. At that period Great Britain had no reason to presume that the slave-trade was regarded as cri

minal by the whole civilized world, or that all nations had united their efforts for its suppression. And, even if such had been the case, it would have been very far from affording any justification of the sentence reversed. But the undersigned must observe that the present happy concurrence of the states of Christendom in this great object not merely justifies, but renders indispensable, the right now claimed and exercised by the British Government. The undersigned readily admits that to visit and search American vessels in time of peace, when that right of search is not granted by treaty, would be an infraction of public law, and a violation of national dignity and independence. But no such right is asserted.

"The undersigned renounces all pretension, on the part of the British Government, to visit and search American vessels in time of peace. Nor is it as American that such vessels are ever visited. But it has been the invariable practice of the British navy, and, as the undersigned believes, of all navies in the world, to ascertain by visit the real nationality of merchant vessels met with on the high seas, if there be good reason to appre hend their illegal character.

"In certain latitudes, and for a particular object, the vessels referred to are visited, not as Ame rican, but either as British vessels engaged in an unlawful traffic, and carrying the flag of the United States for a criminal purpose, or as belonging to states which have by treaty conceded to Great Britain the right of search, and which right it is attempted to defeat by fraudulently bearing the protecting flag of the Union; or, finally, they are visited as piratical outlaws,

possessing no claim to any flag or nationality whatever.

"The undersigned, although with pain, must add, that if such visit should lead to the proof of the American origin of the vessel, and that she was avowedly engaged in the slave-trade, exhibiting to view the manacles, fetters, and other implements of torture, or had even a number of these unfortuate beings on board, no British officer could interfere further.

"He might give information to the cruisers of the United States, but it would not be in his power to arrest or impede the prosecution of the voyage and the success of the undertaking."

Mr. Stevenson rejoins at considerable length, and amongst other things says:"With the vessels of other nations, whether sailing under their own or another flag, the government of the United States can have no authority or desire to interfere. The undersigned, therefore, did not mean to be understood as denying to Great Britain, or any other nation, the right of seizing their vessels or punishing their subjects for any violation of their laws or treaties, provided, however, it should be done without violating the principles of public law, or the rights of other nations. Nor are such the consequences which can fairly be deduced from the argument which he had the honour of addressing to Lord Aberdeen, and which his Lordship seems so greatly to have misapprehended. Great Britain has the undoubted right, and so have all other nations, to detain and examine the vessels of their own subjects, whether slavers or not, and whether with or without a flag purporting to be that of the United States; but, in doing this,

it must be borne in mind that they have no colour of right, nor will they be permitted to extend such interference to the vessels or citizens of the United States sailing under the protection of the flag of their country.

"If Great Britain or any other nation cannot restrain the slave traffic of their own people upon the ocean without violating the rights of other nations and the freedom of the seas, then indeed the impunity of which Lord Aberdeen speaks, will take place. This may be deplored, but it cannot be avoided. But Lord Aberdeen asserts that it has been the invariable practice of the British navy, and he believed of all the navies in the world, to ascertain by visit the real character of merchant vessels met with on the high seas, if there be good reason to apprehend their illegal character. Now, the undersigned must be excused for doubting whether any such practice as that which Lord Aberdeen supposes, certainly not to the extent now claimed, has ever prevailed in times of peace. In war the right of visitation is practised, under the limitations authorised by the laws of nations, but not in peace.

"The undersigned must, after the most careful consideration of the arguments advanced in Lord Aberdeen's note, repeat the opinion which he has heretofore expressed, that if a power, such as that which is now asserted by Her Majesty's Government, shall be enforced, not only without consent, but in the face of a direct refusal to concede it, it can be regarded in no other light by the Government of the United States than a violation of national rights and sovereignty, and the incontestable principles of international law.

That its exercise may lead to consequences of a painful character painful character there is too much reason to apprehend. In cases of conflicting rights between nations the precise line which neither can pass, but to which each may advance, is not easily found or marked; and yet it exists, whatever may be the difficulty of discerning it. In ordiIn ordinary cases of disagreement there is little danger: each nation may and often does yield something to the other. Such, however, it is to be feared is not the present case. The peculiar nature of the power asserted, and the consequences which may be apprehended from its exercise, make it one of an important and momentous character. Involving, as it does, questions of high and dangerous sovereignty, it may justly be regarded as deeply endangering the good understanding of the two countries."

In the month of December, 1841, the grand jury for the county of Philadelphia, made a presentment that the Attorney-General should be directed to send up for the cognizance of the grand jury bills of indictment against Nicholas Biddle, Samuel Sandon, John Andrews, and others (to the jury unknown), for entering into a conspiracy to defraud the stockholders of the Bank of the United States of 400,000 dollars in the year 1836; and the endeavouring to conceal the same by a fraudulent and illegal entry in 1841.

A circumstance occurred at the close of last year, in some measure connected with the question of the Right of Search, which threatened to produce unpleasant consequences, and make its settlement still more difficult.

It appears that the brig Creole, of Richmond, Virginia, bound to

New Orleans, sailed from Hampton Roads on the 27th of October, 1841, with a cargo of merchandise, principally tobacco, and slaves (about 135 in number); that on the evening of the 7th of November some of the slaves rose upon the crew of the vessel, murdered a passenger, named Hewell, who owned some of the negroes, wounded the captain dangerously, and the first mate and two of the crew severely; that the slaves soon obtained completely possession of the brig, which, under their direction, was taken into the port of Nassau, in the island of New Providence, where she arrived on the morning of the 9th of the same month; and, at the request of the American Consul in that place, the governor ordered a guard on board, to prevent the escape of the mutineers, and with a view to an investigation of the circumstances of the case. The matter was investigated accordingly by two of the magistrates of Nassau, and nineteen slaves were identified as having participated in the mutiny and murder. These were placed in confinement until further orders arrived; but the governor refused to accede to the demand of the American Consul, that they should be sent to America. The rest of the slaves, in number 114, were set at liberty, on the ground that they became free in landing on British territory, and we could not recognise any right of dominion over them claimed by American owners. A loud outcry was raised on this occasion in the Southern States, as though the British Government were abetting piracy and murder; but there was also a large party in America happily not so blinded by rancour and self-interest, which admitted that the governor

of New Providence had acted rightly in refusing to surrender up those who sought British protection in order that they might be again reduced to a state of slavery. A case not wholly dissimilar had previously occurred, in which the United States did refuse to give up those who took refuge in the American territory. Some negroes had been forcibly carried off from the coast of Africa by a Spanish slaver called the Amistad. They rose in revolt during the middle passage, seized the ship, and murdered some of the crew. They afterwards landed in the United States, where they were tried for the murders and acquitted. In that case the American government refused to recognise the right of slave-trading, and decided that any kind of resistance was lawful on the part of those who were forcibly torn from their native country. But as it would not listen to the claims of the Spanish owners, who demanded that the slaves should be given up to be tried in a territory subject to the crown of Spain; it furnished a precedent against our surrendering the slaves who mutinied on board the Creole. The result was, that the nineteen incarcerated in the gaol at Nassau were not given up, but were tried there. The rest were allowed to depart wherever they pleased.

But as several questions had occurred between the British and American Cabinets of an irritating nature, especially the long and apparently interminable dispute respecting the North-west Boundary, the fruitful source of animosity between the two countries-and the question of the Right of Search-it was determined by Sir Robert Peel's Go.

vernment to send out to the United States a special ambassador, who should be clothed with full powers to effect an amicable adjustment of our causes of dispute with that country. The person selected for this high and important office was Lord Ashburton-and a more fitting representative of the British nation, for such a mission, could not have been selected. Himself for a long time at the head of English merchants, and possessing the most intimate acquaintance with all matters relating to commerce and finance, he seemed singularly adapted to conciliate respect and confidence on the part of the Americans, and the most sanguine hopes were entertained of the success of his mission-hopes which happily were not disappointed. His Lordship sailed from England on his important embassy in the month of February, and after experiencing much bad weather and contrary winds, arrived at New York on the 1st of April.

One pretext

One of the most remarkable features in American history this year was the deliberate repudiation by several of the States of the public engagements they had contracted by bonds, on the faith of which private individuals had advanced money to them. alleged for this most disgraceful and dishonest conduct was, that the bonds were not assignable, and that as they had been negociated by the original holders, payment could not be legally enforced by the assignees of these instruments. But the truth is, that the Exchequer of several of the States, especially that of Pennsylvania, was bankrupt; and on the principle that

præstat rationis egentem Reddere mendosè causas-1 -this flimsy reason was assigned as a justifica