and she has adopted measures calculated, if not to renounce the power or to abolish the practice, yet, at least, to supersede its necessity by other means of manning the royal navy more compatible with justice and the rights of individuals, and far more conformable to the spirit and sentiments of the age.

Under these circumstances, the government of the United States has used the occasion of your lordship's pacific mission to review this whole subject, and to bring it to your notice and that of your government. It has reflected on the past, pondered the condition of the present, and endeavored to anticipate, so far as might be in its power, the probable future; and I am now to communicate to your lordship the result of these delib

erations.

The American government, then, is prepared to say that the practice of impressing seamen from American vessels can not hereafter be allowed to take place. That practice is founded on principles which it does not recognize, and is invariably attended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such formidable magnitude, as can not be submitted to.

In the early disputes between the two governments on this so long-contested topic, the distinguished person to whose hands were first intrusted the seals of this department, declared, that "the simplest rule will be, that the vessel being American, shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such."

Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotiations, and a careful reconsideration, now had, of the whole subject, at a moment when the passions are laid, and no present interest or emergency exists to bias the judgment, have fully convinced this government that this is not only the simplest and best, but the only rule, which can be adopted and observed, consistently with the rights and honor of the United States and the security of their citizens. That rule announces, therefore, what will hereafter be the principle maintained by their government. In every regularly-documented American merchant vessel the crew who navigate it will find their protection in the flag which is over them.

This announcement is not made, my lord, to revive useless recollections of the past, nor to stir the embers from fires which have been, in a great degree, smothered by many years of peace. Far otherwise. Its purpose is to extinguish those fires effectually, before new incidents arise to fan them into flame. The communication is in the spirit of peace, and for the sake of peace, and springs from a deep and conscientious conviction that high interests of both nations require this so longcontested and controverted subject now to be finally put to rest. I persuade myself, my lord, that you will do justice to this frank and sincere avowal of motives, and that you will

communicate your sentiments in this respect to your govern

ment.

This letter closes, my lord, on my part, our official correspondence; and I gladly use the occasion to offer you the assurance of my high and sincere regard.

LORD ASHBURTON, &c., &c., &c.

DANIEL WEBSTER.

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster.

WASHINGTON, August 9, 1842. SIR,-The note you did me the honor of addressing me the 8th instant, on the subject of impressment, shall be transmitted without delay to my government, and will, you may be assured, receive from them the deliberate attention which its importance deserves.

The object of my mission was mainly the settlement of existing subjects of difference; and no differences have or could have arisen of late years with respect to impressment, because the practice has, since the peace, wholly ceased, and can not, consistently with existing laws and regulations for manning her majesty's navy, be, under the present circumstances, renewed.

Desirous, however, of looking far forward into futurity to anticipate even possible causes of disagreement, and sensible of the anxiety of the American people on this grave subject of past irritation, I should be sorry in any way to discourage the attempt at some settlement of it; and, although without authority to enter upon it here during the limited continuance of my mission, I entertain a confident hope that this task may be accomplished, when undertaken, with the spirit of candor and conciliation which has marked all our late negotiations.

It not being our intention to endeavor now to come to any agreement on this subject, I may be permitted to abstain from noticing at length your very ingenious arguments relating to it, and from discussing the graver matters of constitutional and international law growing out of them. These sufficiently show that the question is one requiring calm consideration; though I must, at the same time, admit that they prove a strong necessity of some settlement for the preservation of that good understanding which, I trust, we may flatter ourselves that our joint labors have now succeeded in establishing.

I am well aware that the laws of our two countries maintain opposite principles respecting allegiance to the sovereign. America, receiving every year by thousands the emigrants of Europe, maintains the doctrine suitable to her condition of the right of transferring allegiance at will. The laws of Great Britain have maintained from all time the opposite doctrine. The duties of allegiance are held to be indefeasible; and it is

believed that this doctrine, under various modifications, prevails in most, if not in all, the civilized states of Europe.

Emigration, the modern mode by which the population of the world peaceably finds its level, is for the benefit of all, and eminently for the benefit of humanity. The fertile deserts of America are gradually advancing to the highest state of cultivation and production, while the emigrant acquires comfort which his own confined home could not afford him.

If there were any thing in our laws or our practice on either side tending to impede this march of providential humanity, we could not be too eager to provide a remedy; but as this does not appear to be the case, we may safely leave this part of the subject without indulging in abstract speculations having no material practical application to matters in discussion be

tween us.

But it must be admitted that a serious practical question does arise, or, rather, has existed, from practices formerly attending the mode of manning the British navy in times of war. The principle is, that all subjects of the crown are, in case of necessity, bound to serve their country, and the sea-faring man is naturally taken for the naval service. This is not, as is sometimes supposed, any arbitrary principle of monarchical government, but one founded on the natural duty of every man to defend the life of his country; and all the analogy of your laws would lead to the conclusion that the same principle would hold good in the United States if their geographical position did not make its application unnecessary.

The very anomalous condition of the two countries with relation to each other here creates a serious difficulty. Our people are not distinguishable; and, owing to the peculiar habits of sailors, our vessels are very generally manned from a common stock. It is difficult, under these circumstances, to execute laws which at times have been thought to be essential for the existence of the country, without risk of injury to others. The extent and importance of those injuries, however, are so formidable that it is admitted that some remedy should, if possible, be applied; at all events, it must be fairly and honestly attempted. It is true that during the continuance of peace no practical grievance can arise; but it is also true that it is for that reason the proper season for the calm and deliberate consideration of an important subject. I have much reason to hope that a satisfactory arrangement respecting it may be made, so as to set at rest all apprehension and anxiety; and I will only further repeat the assurance of the sincere disposition of my government favorably to consider all matters having for their object the promoting and maintaining undisturbed kind and friendly feelings with the United States.

I beg, sir, on this occasion of closing the correspondence with you connected with my mission, to express the satisfaction I feel at its successful termination, and to assure you of my high consideration and personal esteem and regard.

Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, &c., &c., &c.

ASHBURTON.

INVIOLABILITY OF NATIONAL TERRITORY. CASE OF THE "CAROLINE."

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 27, 1842. MY LORD, In relation to the case of the "Caroline," which we have heretofore made the subject of conference, I have thought it right to place in your hands an extract of a letter from this department to Mr. Fox, of the 24th of April, 1841, and an extract from the message of the President of the United States to Congress at the commencement of its present session. These papers you have, no doubt, already seen; but they are, nevertheless, now communicated, as such communication is considered a ready mode of presenting the view which this government entertains of the destruction of that vessel.

The act of which the government of the United States complains is not to be considered as justifiable or unjustifiable, as the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the employment in which the "Caroline" was engaged may be decided the one way or the other. That act is of itself a wrong, and an offense to the sovereignty and the dignity of the United States, being a violation of their soil and territory-a wrong for which, to this day, no atonement, or even apology, has been made by her majesty's government. Your lordship can not but be aware that self-respect, the consciousness of independence and national equality, and a sensitiveness to whatever may touch the honor of the country-a sensitiveness which this government will ever feel and ever cultivate-make this a matter of high importance, and I must be allowed to ask for it your lordship's grave consideration.

I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship's most obedient servant, DANIEL WEBSTER.

LORD ASHBURTON, &c., &c., &c.

Extract of a letter from Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, dated April 24, 1841.

The undersigned has now to signify to Mr. Fox that the government of the United States has not changed the opinion

which it has heretofore expressed to her majesty's government of the character of the act of destroying the "Caroline."

It does not think that that transaction can be justified by any reasonable application or construction of the right of self-defense under the law of nations. It is admitted that a just right of self-defense attaches always to nations as well as to individuals, and is equally necessary for the preservation of both. But the extent of this right is a question to be judged of by the circumstances of each particular case; and when its alleged exercise has led to the commission of hostile acts within the territory of a power at peace, nothing less than a clear and absolute necessity can afford ground of justification. Not having up to this time been made acquainted with the views and reasons at length which have led her majesty's government to think the destruction of the "Caroline" justifiable, as an act of self-defense, the undersigned, earnestly renewing the remonstrance of this government against the transaction, abstains for the present from any extended discussion of the question. But it is deemed proper, nevertheless, not to omit to take some notice of the general grounds of justification stated by her majesty's government in their instruction to Mr. Fox.

Her majesty's government have instructed Mr. Fox to say, that they are of opinion that the transaction which terminated in the destruction of the "Caroline" was a justifiable employment of force for the purpose of defending the British territory from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and American pirates, who, having been "permitted" to arm and organize themselves within the territory of the United States, had actually invaded a portion of the territory of her majesty.

The President can not suppose that her majesty's government, by the use of these terms, meant to be understood as intimating that those acts, violating the laws of the United States and disturbing the peace of the British territory, were done under any degree of countenance from this government, or were regarded by it with indifference, or that, under the circumstances of the case, they could have been prevented by any ordinary course of proceeding. Although he regrets that, by using the term "permitted," a possible inference of that kind might be raised; yet such an inference, the President is willing to believe, would be quite unjust to the intentions of the British government.

That on a line of frontier, such as separates the United States from her Britannic majesty's North American provinces-a line long enough to divide the whole of Europe into halvesirregularities, violences, and conflicts should sometimes occur, equally against the will of both governments, is certainly easily to be supposed. This may be more possible, perhaps, in regard