have thought proper to act if he had been consulted, and whatever success the war undertaken without his order may have had, it is left to the sovereign whether he will ratify or condemn the act of his ministers. If he ratify it, this approbation renders the war solemn, by reflecting back, as it were, an authority upon it; so that it obliges the whole commonwealth." -Burlimaqui, Part iv., ch. iii., § 18 and 19.

RIGHT OF SEARCH.

Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster.-[EXTRACTS.]

LEGATION OF THE United STATES, London, December 28, 1841. While at Paris, I received a letter from Lord Aberdeen of the 2d December, with sundry accompanying documents, relative to an extraordinary outrage on the person of Captain Endicott, of the American bark Lintin, in Macao Roads. On my return to London, I acknowledged the receipt of this communication, and here with transmit you a copy of Lord Aberdeen's note and my reply, and of all the documents in the case. I should have been pleased to confine my answer to a simple expression of satisfaction at the promptness of the action of her majesty's government; but I deemed it but just to Captain Endicott to make an observation in answer to that part of Lord Aberdeen's note in which the burden of the provocation was assumed to be on Captain Endicott's side.

I received on the 23d instant a note from Lord Aberdeen on the African seizures, in reply to one addressed to him by Mr. Stevenson in the last hours of his residence in London, and which, as it appears, did not reach Lord Aberdeen's hands till Mr. Stevenson had left London. As some time must elapse before I could give a detailed answer to this communication, I thought it best at once to acknowledge its receipt, to express my satisfaction at its dispassionate tone, and to announce the purpose of replying to it at some future period. The Presi dent, I think, will be struck with the marked change in the tone of the present ministry, as manifested in this note and a former one addressed by Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Stevenson, contrasted with the last communication from Lord Palmerston on the same subject. The difference is particularly apparent in Lord Aberdeen's letter to me of the 20th inst. Not only is the claim of Great Britain, relative to the right of detaining suspicious vessels, stated in a far less exceptionable manner than it had been done by Lord Palmerston, but Lord Aberdeen expressly declines being responsible for the language of his predecessor.

You will observe that Lord Aberdeen disclaims, in a more distinct manner than it has ever been done, all right to search,

detain, or in any manner interfere with American vessels, whether engaged in the slave trade or not; that he limits the pretensions of this government to boarding vessels strongly suspected of being those of other nations unwarrantably assuming the American flag; and promises, when this right has been abused to the injury of American vessels, that full and ample reparation shall be made. As the United States have never claimed that their flag should furnish protection to any vessels but their own, and as very strict injunctions have been forwarded to the cruisers on the coast of Africa not to interfere with American vessels, I am inclined to think that cases of interruption will become much less frequent. And if this government should redeem in good faith Lord Aberdeen's promise of reparation where injury has been done, I am disposed to hope that this subject of irritation will in a great measure cease to exist. I shall not engage in the discussion of the general principles as now avowed and explained by this government till I hear from you on the subject, and know what the President's views are; but I shall confine myself chiefly to urging the claim for redress in the cases of the Tigris, Seamew, Jones, and William and Francis, which were the last submitted by my predecessor, and on which no answer has been received from this government.

Among the reasons for supposing that fewer causes of complaint will hereafter arise, is the circumstance that the seizures of last year took place under the agreement of Commodore Tucker, the British commander on the African station, and the officer in command of the American cruiser. I find nothing on the files of the legation showing what order, if any, has been taken by our government on the subject of this arrangement. It is taken for granted by this government that this agreement is disavowed by that of the United States; and since February last positive orders have been given to the British cruisers in the African seas not to interfere with American ships, even though known to be engaged in the slave trade. I shall await with much anxiety the instructions of the President on this important subject.

[INCLOSURE.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 2, 1841.

SIR,-I have the honor to inform you that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have communicated to me a dispatch and its inclosures, which their lordships have recently received from Commodore Sir J. Gordon Bremer, dated Hong Kong, the 9th of August last, relative to the improper conduct of Mr. Bean, master and commanding officer of her majesty's ship "Herald," toward the master of the American barque

"Lintin," while at anchor in the Taypa Roads, near Macao. It appears from these papers (copies of which I have the honor to inclose, for the information of your government), that some altercation having taken place respecting the mooring of their respective vessels, the master of the " Herald," in the afternoon of the 24th of July, manned and armed a boat, and sent the mate of the " Herald" alongside the "Lintin" with orders to require the master of that vessel to go on board the "Herald;" and that, upon his refusing to go, he was forcibly conveyed thither, and there detained for some hours.

Although it would appear, from the details given in the inclosed papers, that the master of the "Lintin" brought this indignity upon himself by his own irritating and contemptuous conduct toward the commander of the "Herald," yet her majesty's government consider such provocation as no justification for the proceeding adopted by Mr. Bean, and the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have accordingly signified to that officer their high displeasure at his indefensible conduct upon this occasion, and have ordered him to be dismissed from her majesty's service and sent home. I have, &c.,

EDWARD EVERETT, Esq.

ABERDEEN.

Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett.-[INCLOSURE.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 20, 1841.

The undersigned, her majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the honor of addressing to Mr. Everett, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, the observations which he feels called upon to make in answer to the note of Mr. Stevenson, dated on the 21st of October.

As that communication only reached the hands of the undersigned on the day after the departure of Mr. Stevenson from London, on his return to America, and as there has since been no minister or chargé d'affaires from the United States resident in this country, the undersigned has looked with some anxiety for the arrival of Mr. Everett, in order that he might be enabled to renew his diplomatic intercourse with an accredited representative of the republic. Had the undersigned entertained no other purpose than to controvert the arguments of Mr. Stevenson, or to fortify his own, in treating of the matter which has formed the subject of their correspondence, he would have experienced little impatience; but as it is his desire to clear up doubt, and to remove misapprehension, he feels that he can not too early avail himself of the presence of Mr. Everett at his post, to bring to his knowledge the true state of the question at issue.

The undersigned agrees with Mr. Stevenson in the importance of arriving at a clear understanding of the matter really in dispute. This ought to be the first object in the differences of states, as well as of individuals; and, happily, it is often the first step to the reconciliation of the parties. In the present case this understanding is doubly essential, because a continuance of mistake and error may be productive of the most serious consequences.

Mr. Stevenson persists in contending that the British government assert a right which is equivalent to the claim of searching American vessels in time of peace. In proof of this, Mr. Stevenson refers to a passage in a former note of Viscount Palmerston, addressed to himself, against which he strongly protests, and the doctrine contained in which he says that the undersigned is understood to affirm.

Now, it is not the intention of the undersigned to inquire into the precise import and force of the expressions of Viscount Palmerston. These might have been easily explained to Mr. Stevenson by their author at the time they were written; but the undersigned must request that his doctrines upon this subject, and those of the government of which he is the organ, may be judged of exclusively from his own declarations.

The undersigned again renounces, as he has already done in the most explicit terms, any right on the part of the British government to search American vessels in time of peace. The right of search, except when specially conceded by treaty, is a purely belligerent right, and can have no existence on the high seas during peace. The undersigned apprehends, however, that the right of search is not confined to the verification of the nationality of the vessel, but also extends to the object of the voyage and the nature of the cargo. The sole purpose of the British cruisers is, to ascertain whether the vessels they meet with are really American or not. The right asserted has, in truth, no resemblance to the right of search, either in principle or in practice. It is simply a right to satisfy the party, who has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, that the vessel actually is what her colors announce. This right we concede as freely as we exercise. The British cruisers are not instructed to detain American vessels, under any circumstances whatever; on the contrary, they are ordered to abstain from all interference with them, be they slavers or otherwise. But where reasonable suspicion exists that the American flag has been abused for the purpose of covering the vessel of another nation, it would appear scarcely credible, had it not been made manifest by the repeated protestations of their representative, that the government of the United States, which has stigmatized and abolished the trade itself, should object to the adoption of

such means as are indispensably necessary for ascertaining the truth.

The undersigned had contended in his former note that the legitimate inference from the arguments of Mr. Stevenson would practically extend even to the sanction of piracy, when the persons engaged in it should think fit to shelter themselves under the flag of the United States. Mr. Stevenson observes, that this is a misapprehension on the part of the undersigned; and he declares that, in denying the right of interfering with vessels under the American flag, he intended to limit his objection to vessels bona fide American, and not to those belonging to nations who might fraudulently have assumed the flag of the United States. But it appears to the undersigned that his former statement is by no means satisfactorily controverted by the declaration of Mr. Stevenson. How is this bona fide to be proved? Must not Mr. Stevenson either be prepared to maintain that the flag alone is sufficient evidence of the nationality of the vessel (which, in the face of his own repeated admissions, he can not do), or must he not confess that the application of his arguments would really afford protection to every lawless and piratical enterprise?

The undersigned had also expressed his belief that the practice was general of ascertaining, by visit, the real character of any vessel on the high seas against which there should exist reasonable ground of suspicion. Mr. Stevenson denies this; and he asks, what other nation than Great Britain had ever asserted, or attempted to exercise, such a right? In answer to this question, the undersigned can at once refer to the avowed and constant practice of the United States, whose cruisers, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, by the admission of their public journals, are notoriously in the habit of examining all suspicious vessels, whether sailing under the English flag or any other. In whose eyes are these vessels suspicious? Doubtless, in those of the commanders of the American cruisers. But, in truth, this right is quite as important to the United States as to Great Britain; nor is it easy to conceive how the maritime intercourse of mankind could safely be carried on without such a check.

It can scarcely be necessary to remind Mr. Everett that the right thus claimed by Great Britain is not exercised for any selfish purpose. It is asserted in the interest of humanity, and in mitigation of the sufferings of our fellow-men. The object has met with the concurrence of the whole civilized world, including the United States of America; and it ought to receive universal assistance and support.

The undersigned can not abstain here from referring to the conduct of an honorable and zealous officer commanding the