The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-04 00:00:00

MR. STEVENSON TO LORD ABERDEEN.

32, Upper Grosvenor-street, Oct. 21, 1841.
The undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary from the United States of America,
has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note
which Lord Aberdeen, her Majesty's Principal Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs did him the honour to
address to him, under date of the 13th instant, in
answer to the one from the undersigned of the 10th of
September, relative to the visitation and interruption to
which the vessels and commerce of the United States
have been subjected by British cruisers in the African
seas, and which has been mada the subject of complaint
to her Majesty's Government ; and, having considered
with the attention which their importance merits the
argumeats presented by Lord Aberdeen's note, the
undersigned has now the honour to submit to his Lord-
ship's consideration the observations which he feels
himself called upon to make.
Before proceeding to do so, however, the undersigned
will take occasion to remark that he shares fuliy in the
opinion expressed by Lord Aberdeen as to the import-
ance of avoiding, in the discussion of grave questions of
a national character, everything calculated to emb.irrass
or throw difficulties in the way of impartial anf dispas-
sionate consideration. The undersigned, therefore, with
great sincerity, assures Lord Aberdeen of the readiness
and zeal with which he is disposed to conduct the ne-
gotiations between the two countries on his part, in a
manner the most conciliatory and best calculated to pre-
serve peace ; end that he should equally deplore with
Lord Aberdeen that any harshness or asperity of ex-
pression should be suffered to mingle in the discussion of
a question involving national sensibility of feedng, and
so liable, as his Lordship justly supposes, to produce ex-
citement and irritation. He begs Lord Aberdeen,there-
fore, to believe that it is under the influence of such
feelings, and with the most perfect respect both for bias-
self and for her M rjesty's Government, that he now
proceeds to reply to those parts of his Lordship's note,
which he deems it his duty to notice.
To enable him to do this, it may be important to
ascertain what is the real question at issue between the
two Governments, and the precise nature of the power
asserted by her Majesty's Government over the vessels
and commerce of the United States. It may be thus
briefly stated :
The. Government of Great Britain, with that of
other nwions, regardisig the African slave trade as a
great evil, united in measures for its abolition. For
that purpose laws were passed and treaties concluded
giving to the vessels of each of the contracting psrti_s
the mutual right of search under certain limitations.
Independent of these treaties, and under the principles
of public law, this right of search could not be exer-
cised. The United States were invited to become a
party to these treaties; but, for reasons which they deemed
satisfactory, and growing out of the peculiar character
of their institutions and systems of Goveroment, they
declined doing so. They deemed it inexpedieirt,
under any modification, or in any form, to yield the
right of having their vessels searched or interfered with
in time of peace upon the high seas. With the history
of the negotiations which took place on this subject
between the two Government!, Lord Aberdeen is
doubtless informed. In the meantime seine of the
Powers who were parties to those treaties, and ettnirs
who refused 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 flags of other nations,
bet more particelsrly that of the United States.
To prevent this, and enforce her treaties, Great
Britain deemed it important that her cruisers in the
African seas should have the right of get tinkle and
examining all vessels navigating those seas, for the
purpose of ascertaining their national character. Against
this practice the Government of the United States pro-
tested, and the numerous cases out of which the present
discussion has arisen, became subjects of complaint and
negotiation betweete the two Governments. Her Majes-
ty's Government, however, having refused to in eke
reparation in any - of the cases, and still asserting the
right of her cruisers to continue the practice ofdetain-
ing and examining all vessels on the coast and in the
African seas, it becomes important that the precise
charade.- and extent of the right thus claimed should
be clearly ascertained. In the last note which the
undersigned hail the honour of addressing to Lord
Aberdeen, he attempted to show, in the first place,
that the right asserted by her Majesty's Government,
in Lord Palmerston's note of the 27th of August, was
substantially a rigid qf search ; aid in the next place,
that, if it was not, still the right of interference in the
manner asserted, with the vessels or flags of other
cations, not parties to these treaties, was not less un-
lawful and unju,titiable.
Now, Lord Aberdeen disclaims the right of search-
ing Aniericin vessels on the high seas, and admits that
to do so would be a gross infraction of the public law,
and a violation of rational sovereignty and independence.
But his Lordship contends that, in requiring vessels
sailing under the flag of the United States to submit to
the operistion of examination, in the manner and for the
objects proposed by his Government, there would be
no:violation of national rights or honour ; and, conse-
quently, nothing to which the Government of the United
States ought rightfully to object. Upon this branch of
the subject the undersigned does not intend to repeat
the arguments containell in his previous correspondence
with her Majesty's late Principal Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs. Referring Lord Aberdeen to that
correspondence, Ire will content himself with submitting
such additional observations as his Lordship's last note
has rendered necessary.
Is the right, then, claimed by her Majesty's Govern-
ment, less an infraction of the principles of public law
and the rights of independent States than that of search,
which is disclaimed

Now Lord Aberdeen will remark the right asserted
by his predecessor for her Majesty's Government, 15
clear and explicit. It is thus stated in Lord Palmers-
ton's note :—" That her Majesty's Government have
decided that the flag of the United States shall exempt
no vessel (whether American or not) from search by
her Majesty's cruisers in the African seas, unless such
vessel shall be found provided with papers entitling her
to the protection of the flag she wears, and proving her
to be United Stites property, and navigating the oc. an
according to law." Of what law, however, whether
pane or municipal, his Lordship does not sta! e,
but leaves to be inferred. This doctrine Lord
Aberdeen is understood to affirm. Now, in the
first place, here is an actual denial of the right
of vessels of the United States to navigate the
ocean in time of ' peace, without being subject to
detention and examination, and without proof of their
being the property'of citizens of the United States, and
documented according to law. It constitutes the com-
mandant of every British cruizer the exclusive judge
to decide whether such vessels, in the language of his
Lordship, be "properly provided with papers entitling
them to the protection y the flag they wear, and proving
them to be United States' property, and navigatiNg the
ocean according to law."
What essential difference, then, is there between. the
right of search, in its harshest form, and that of ar-
resting the vessels of an independent nation on their
voyage, emnpelling their officers to leave their vessel!,
and subjecting them and their papers to the exami-
nation and decision of every subordinate naval com-
mander ? Is it not the right of placing British
cruizers on any part of the ocean that her Majesty's
Governincat may select, and prescribing the terms
upon which other nations are to participate in the
freedom of the seas? Is it not, in effect, a claim of ju-
risdiction over the whole of the African coasts and se is
as exclusive as that which could only be enjo}ed within
the acknowledged limits of local sovereignty? To these
questions but one answer can be given. It must be in
the affirmative. But to what consequences would not
such a power lead, if once submitted to ? Where would
it end ? If Great Britain can exercise such power, why
may not other nations do the same? What is there to
prevent those States, especially, which have entered into
treaties for the abolition of slavery, from subjecting the
vessels and commerce of the United States to similar
interruptions and embarrassments?
Why should not Hayti (which has lately been in-
duced to prohibit the slave trade) authorise her
cruisors to follow the example of her Majesty's

PRICE 5d

Government ? By one of her recent laws upon the
subject, she did assert a similar right ; but it was
afterwards chanced, at the instance of Great Brit tin,
upon the ground that no nation had the right in time
of peace to enforce the provisions of their laws and trea-
ties ag iinst States esho were not parties to them, anJ
consequently not bound by them. In the note addressed
by the undersigned to Lord Palmerston, under date of
27tli of February, 1841, and referred to in the one
to Lord Aberdeen, al.usion was m ide to tic proceed-
inv.& of her Majesty's Government, under which the
llaytian Government wee° induced to change their laws.
Az that time, at least, it is presumed, her Majesty's Go.
vernuient 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, thatGrest
Britain had entered into treaties with other nations, by
which the right ofaearch for seamen or deserters wasgi yen
to the vessels of each other, and that some of the contracting
St iter, in order to evade their engagements, should re.
sort to the frauduhnt use of the flags of other nations.
And suppose, &so, that with the view of enforcing
these treaties, it should be deemed expedient to assert
a right of boarding and examining, upon the high sea=,
the vessels of nations who had not surrendered the
right, and were not partici to the treaties Does Lord
Ab-etdren 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
cne under consideration, except that the one would re-
late to slavery and the other to impressment ?—subjects,
probably, equally 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 gives to belligerents against
neutrals, and that Great Britain had no right to force
her way to the l'beration of Africa by trampling upon
the rights and independence of other nations for any
good, however eminent."
Upon what principles, then, of public law or of
common right or justice, such a power as that now
asserte 1 is to be defended or justified, her Majesty's
Government does not deem it expedient to state.
As yet, it has beer left to stand for its whole effi-
cacy upon the grounds of expediency. The undo
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-
ineut. But Lord Aberdeen contends that, in resisting
tl.e exercise of this right in the form in which it has
been made, the undersigned is necessarily compelled to
claim, cot 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 in sintain
that Great Britain herself would be bound to pet mit
her own subjects, with British vessels and Brit;sh capital,
to carry on their traffic under their own eyes, provided
it was done under the fraudulent use of an American
; 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 persuaded, from the spirit in which
Lord Aberdeen's note is written, that he will take
pleasure in correcting any misapprehension into which
he may unintentionally have been drawer. Indeed, the un-
dersigned must have expressed himself very imperfectly.
if, in denying the right of interfering with vessels under the
American fin, 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 lag, the Govern-
ment of the United States can have no authority or•
desire to interfere. Tne undersigned, therefore, did
net mean to be understood as denying to Great Brit sin,
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 of the rights of other
nations. Nor arc 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 11 ig 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-
tect on of the flag of their country.
If Great Britain, or any other nation, cannot restrain
tie slave trsflic of their own people npon the ocean
nithout 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 belie\ Cs 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
ie 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
calico, that it may be important to correct. It relates
to as admission which his Lordship supposes the
undereigned 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 front 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 slave trade, to prove that the danger of
interference with American vessels will be of rare oc-

'cOrrence. Hcrreadily admits, with Lord Aberdeen,
that there arc tcw American vessels, if aoy, 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 Lurd 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 he pi evented 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-

roux 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 latitude,
and 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 State; if their
rights or the honour of their flag are violated, whether
it is clone upon one part of the ocean or another? In
relation to the well-founded suspicion to which Lord
Aberdeen refers, it might have been eicsirable (if the

manner of exercising an unlawful power can excuse
it) that his Lordship should have stated what the par-
ticular character and degree of the suspicion was to be

which was alone to justify the interference of her Ma-
jesty's cruisers. That such a right as that claimed, if it ex-

isted,
i could not safely be confided to those of her Nlajes-
ty's cruisers who have heretofore been in the habit of

exercising it, the undersigned feels himself warranted in
supposing. This, be presumes, will be satisfactorily shown
by the cases which he has heretofore presented to her
Majesty's Government, and for which no:rcparation has
yet been made. These cases will show the embarrass-