The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-05 00:00:00

PRICE 5(1

Government ? By one of her receat' laws upon the
subject, she did assert a similar right ; but it was
afterwards changed, at the instance of Great Britain,
upon the ground that no nation had the right in time
of peace to enforce the provisions of their laws and trea-
ties against States who were not parties to them, and
consequently not bound by them. In the note addressed
by the undersigned to Lord Palmerston, under date of
the 27th of February, IS4I, and referred to in the one
to Lord Aberdeen, allusion was made to the proceed-
ings of her Majesty's Government, under which the
Ilaytian Government were induced to change their laws.
At that time, at least, it is presumed, her Majesty's Go-
vernment had not determined to assert this right of do-
minion over the sea. But again, why might not the right
of search for seamen and deserters, and that of impress-
ment, be defended upon the principles of the present claim?
Let it be supposed, for purposes of illustration, that Great
Britain had entered into treaties with other nations, by
which the right ofsearch for seamen or deserters was given
to the vessels of each other, and that some of the contracting
States, in order to evade their engagements, should re-
sort to the fraudulent use of the flags of other nations.
And suppose, also, that with the view of enforcing
these treaties, it should be deemed expedient to assert
a right of boarding and examining, upon the high seaq,
the vessels of nations who had not surrendered the
right, and were not parties to the treaties ! Does Lord
Aberdeen or her Majesty's Government believe that
such a power would be tolerated by any independent
nation upon the face of the earth ? And yet, what
difference would there be between such a case and the
one under consideration, except that the one would re-
late to slavery nod the other to impressment ?—subjects,
probably, equ Illy important in the view of her Ma-
jesty's Government.
It was against the exercise of any such right that the
distinguished jurist to whom reference has been made,
declared (while sitting as a Court under the law of na-
tions) " that no authority could be found which gave
any right of visitation or interruption over the vessels
and navigation of other States, on the high seas, except
that which the right of war gises to belligerents against
neutral=, and that Great Britain had no right to force
Ir way to the liberation of Africa by trampling upon
the rights and independence of other nations for any
good, however eminent."

Upon what principl,s, then, of public law or of
common right or justice, such a power as that now
asserted is to be defended or justified, her Majesty's
Government does not deem it expedient to state.
As yet, it has been left to stand for its whole effi-
cacy upon the grounds of expediency. The unde•
signed must, therefore repeat the opinion expressed
in his note to Lord Aberdeen, that there is
no essential difference whatever between the right of
search and that now asserted by her Majesty's Govern-
ment. But Lord Aberdeen contends that, in resisting
the exercise of this right in the form in which it has
been made, the undersigned is necessarily compelled to
claim, not only immunity for the flag of the United
Sates and all the piratical adventurers who are endea-
vouring to shelter themselves under it, but to maintain
that Great Britain herself would be bound to permit
her own subjects, with British vessels and British capital,
to carry on their traffic under their own eyes, provided
it was done under the fraudulent use of an American
flag; and his Lordship further declares that unless the
undersigned is prepared to maintain to their full extent
these propositions, the whole fabric of his argument
must fall to the ground.

Now, the undersigned begs to observe that Lord
Aberdeen has greatly misapprehended the principles
and arguments contained in the note which he had the
honour of addressing to his Lordship, and which it be-
comes proper to seize the earliest moment of correct-
ing. This the undersigned will the more readily do,
because he is persuade, from the spirit in which
Lord Aberdeen's note is written, that he will take
pleasure in correcting any misapprehension into which
ha may unintentionally have been drawn. Indeed, the un-
dersigned must have expressed himself very imperfectly,
if, in denying the right of interfering with vessels under the
American flag, he did not convey the opinion that he in-
tended to limit his objection to vessels bone fide Ame-
rican, and not to those belonging to nations who might
fraudulently have assumed the flag of the United
States. With the vessels of other nations, whether
sailing under their own or another flag, the Govern-
ment of the United States can have no authority or
desire to interfere. The undersigned, therefore, did
not Inca% t() be understood
treaties, provided, however, it should be done without
violating the principles of public law of 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 net, 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 per-
mitted, to extend such interference to the vessels or
citizens of the United States sailing under the pro-
tecton of the fl ig of their country.
If Great Britain, or any other nation, cannot restrain
the slave traffic of their own people npon the ocean
without violating the rights of other nations and the
freodom 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 praet;ce
of the British navy, and he believes of all the
navies in the world, to ascertain by visit the real charac-
ter of merchant vessels met with on the high seas, if
there be good reason to apprehend their illegal cha-
racter. 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 time of peace. In war
the right of visitation is practised, under the limita-
tions authorised by the laws of nations, but not
in peace. What other nation than Great Bri-
tain has ever asserted or attempted to exercise
it ? None, it is believed. There is another misappre-
hension, also, into which Lord Aberdeen seems to have
fallen, that it may be important to correct. It relates
to an admission which his Lordshin supposes the
undersigned to have made, as to the extent of the abuse
of the American flag for the purpose of slave traffic.
Now, the undersigned would submit, that he did not
intend to express, nor did he, any opinion as to the
extent to which the flag of the United States was abused
by other nations. So far from it, he expressly stated,
as Lord Aberdeen will perceive by reference to his note,
that neither he nor his Government had the means of
forming any opinion upon the subject. He admitted
the abuse of the flag, and deplored it, but to what extent
he gave no opinion.
Nor can the undersigned yield to the force of the
reasoning employed by Lord Aberdeen, arising out of
the limited number of bone fide American vessels en-
gaged in the slava trade, to prove that the danger of
interference with American vessels will be of rare oc-
currence. Ha readily admits, with Lord Aberdeen,
that there are few American vessels, if any, engaged
in the slave trade ; but, in admitting the fact, he
does not perceive very clearly what bearing it can
have upon the present discussion, or how the
smallness of the number of American slavers can at
all guard against the evils which Lord Aberdeen sup-
poses. For, if it be true, as his Lordship contends,
that the abuse by other nations of the flag of the
United States is one of increasing extent, and that it
can in no way be prevented but by the examination of
all vessels sailing under the flag of the United States ;
and as it must also be admitted that there are nume-
rous American vessels engaged in lawful commerce in
the African seas, which, with other vessels, arc to be
subjected to detention and examination ; what possible
effect can the number of American slavers have
in preventing the interference to that more nume-
rous class of merchantmen who arc to be
found engaged in commerce throughout the whole
of the African seas ? If there was not a
single vessel of the United States engaged in the
slave trade, the evils and interruptions which Lord
Aberdeen is so desirous of avoiding must still take place,
whenever the right shall be attempted to be enforced
against those vessels that are not slavers. But the great
caution which is to be observed in the exercise of the
right, and the careful manner in which it will be
guarded, is greatly relied on by Lord Aberdeen in its
defence. Indeed, his Lordship declares that so much
honour and respect are due to the flag of the United
States, that it is only to be exercised in certain latitudes,
land exclusively confined to cases where the strongest
suspicion and well-founded doubts exist,
Now the undersigned would respectfully ask of what
consequence it can be to the United States if their
rights or the honour of their flag are violated, whether
it is done upon one part of the ocean or another? In
re to the well-founded suspicion to which Lord
rt.
Ahern
refers, it. might have been desirable (if the
manner of
„:creising an unlawful power_ can excuse
it) that his Lords.. '.° should nave stated. whatthe par-
ticular character and de;ree' of the suspicion was to be
which was alone to
,iustify the interference of her Ma-
jesty's cruisers. That st:C-- h a right as that claimed, it ex-
fided t those of h Majs-
isted, could not safely be t.:(l' a
'Qtoforeo been in theer habiteof
Ws cruisers who have het, -els himself warranted in
exercising it, the undersigned to t,esatisfactorily shown
supposing. This, he presumes, will a presented to her
by the cases which he has heretoforfs reparation has
Majesty's Government, and for which na , embarrass-
yet been made. These cases will show tit.