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

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1842.

ROYAL POLYTECHNIC INSTITU-
TION, REGENT-STREET.—MORNINGS and
EVENINGS except SA'i URDAY EVENINGS.
A SERIES of entirely NEW DISSOLVING VIEWS, il-
lustrating CONSTANTIN iPLE and the SCENERY of the
BOSPHORUS, by Wrench and Smith. Ihe FIRE of the
TOWER of LONDON, with the Military Signals continued.
BARWISE AND BAIN'S ELECTRO MAGNETIC
CLOCKS, on which principle one, on a large scale, is at
work in front of the Institution. WPIGHT and BAIN'S
NEW PATENT ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RAILWAY
TRAIN CONTROLLER. New and varied LECTURES,
adapted to tke taste of the Juvenile Visitors. will be delivered
during the CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS. The MICRO-
SCOPE, DIVING BELL and DIVER, ORRERY, 2,000
Works of eminent Art, Science, and Ingenuity, &c. &c. A
VIEW of CANTON, by a CHINESE ARTIST. The MO-
DEL of the UNDERCLIFF, of the Isle of Wight, and va-
rious COSMORAMIC PICTURES, °are added to the Even.
ing Exhibition.

THE SLAVE TRADE.

CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE DETEN-
TION OF AMERICAN VESSELS ON THE AFRI-
CAN COAST BY BRITISH ARMED CRUISERS.
(Continued from The Sun of Saturday.)
LORD ABERDEEN TO MR. STEVENSON.

Foreign-office, Oct. 13, 1841.
The undersigned, her Majesty's principal Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, has had the honour to re-
ceive the note of Mr. Ste7enson,EnvoyExtraordinary and
MinisteYPlenipotentiary of the United States of America,
dated on the 10th of September, in continuation of a
correspondence with the predecessor of the undersigned
in this office, and relating to the visitation of vessels
bearing the American flig, and suspected of being
engaged in the African slave trade.
If the undersigned feels it necessary to offer some
remarks upon the note of Mr. Stevenson, he is desirous
of doing so in the manner best calculated to ensure a
candid and impartial consideration ; for he would deeply
regret that any harshness or asperity of expression
should aggravate the difficulties of a subject which is,
at all times, but too liable to produce excitement and
irritation. The undersigned is aware of the suscepti-
bility of national feeling in all that affects rational ho-
nour, and he requests Mr. Stevenson to believe that it
is with the most unfeigned respect for the rights, honour,
and independence of the United States, that he now
proceeds to address them.

The undersigned will forbear from entering into
any particulars of the visitation of the vessels which
has formed the principal matter of Mr. Stevenson's
complaint to her M tjesty's Govern vent, and which has
been fully discussed in his.orretpondence with the
predecessor of the undersigned-
That proceeding may have been justifiable or other-
wise, and the undersigned will be prepared, if necessary,
to enter with Mr. Stevenson into the details of the
question ; but his present object is that of a more
general nature. He is desirous of placing very briefly
before Mr. Stevenson the consequences of those
principles which he has laid down, and to ap-
peal to his candour—the undersigned had almost
said to the dictates of plain sense—in order to reject
such a conclusion as that which must necessarily flow
from the arguments contained in Mr. Stevenson's note.
Mr. Stevenson claims for the American flag an abso-
lute exemption from all interference, and utterly denies
the right of the British Government, under any circum-
stances whatever, to visit, in time of peace, merchant
vessels bearing the flag of the Union.
Mr. Stevenson quotes the opinion delivered by Lord
Stowell upon this subject, who declares that, in order
to extirpate this odious traffic, it would not be lawful to
capture vessels, even if they had slaves on board ; and
also that, for the same purpose, however laudable, no
right of search could be admitted to exist.
Now, the undersigned 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 criminal by the whole civilised world,
or that all nations had united their efforts for its sup-
pression. And, even if such had been the case, it
would have been very far from affording any justifica-
tion 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 &aimed
and exercised by the British Government. Tne under-
signed 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.
We sincerely desire to respect vessels of the United
States, but we may reasonably expect to know what it
really is that we respee'. Doubtless the fl ig is prima
facie evidence of the nationality of the vessel ; and if
this evidence were, in its nature, conclusive and irrefragi-
ble, it ought to preclude all further inquiry. But it is
sufficiently notorious that the flags of all nations are
liable to be assumed by those who have no right or title
to bear them.

Mr. Stevenson himself fully adrnitS the extent to
which the American flag has been employed for the pur-
pose of covering this infamous traffic.
The undersigned ioins with Mr. Stevenson in de nli ,
that the United States ought tict to be considered re-
sponsible for this abuse cf their flag. Bat if att inquiry
be resisted, even when carried no farther than to ascer-
tain the nationality of the vessel, and impunity be claimed
for the most lawless and desperate of mankind in the
commission of this fraud, the undersigned greatly fears
that it may be regarded as something like an assump-
of that responsibility which has been deprecated by
Mr. Stevenson.

While Mr. Stevenson deplores the prevalence of this
abuse, and the nefarious character of the trade, can be
be satisfied that no remedy should be applied or at-
tempted P
The undersigned hopes and believes that the number
of bone fide American vessels engaged in the trade is
very small, and thus the danger of interference with such
vessels by British cruisers must be of rare occurrence.
Mr. Stevenson will admit that his objection to this
interference would, under any circumstances, tend in its
consequences to the protection of an abominable traffic,
stigmatised by the whole Christian world ; but the con-
fession of Mr. Stevenson that the trade is extensively
carried on under the fraudulent use of the American
tlag, does in truth justify the whole claim put forward
by the British Government.
It constitutes that reasonable ground of suspicion
which the law of nations requires in such a case. The
admitted fact of this abuse creates the right of inquiry.
The undersigned renounces all pretension on the part
of the British Government to visit and search Ameri-
can vessels in time of peace. Nor is it as American
that such vessls are ever visited. But it has been the
invariab!c practice of the British Navy, and, as the un•
dersigned believes, of all navies in the worl.l, to aseer-
tlin 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 American, but
either as British vessels engaged in an unlawful traffic,
mid 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 ; cr finally, they are
visited as piratical outlaws, possessing no claim to any
flag or nationality whatever.
Now, it can scarcely be maintained by Mr. Stevenson
.that Great Britain should be bound to permit her own
subjects, with British vessels and British capital, to
carry on before the eyes of British officers this detest-
able traffic in human beings, which the law has declared
to be piracy, merely because they had the audacity to
commit an additional offence by fraudulently usurping
the American flag.
Neither could Mr. Stevenson, with more reason,
affirm that the subjects of States which have granted to
Great Britain the right of search should be enabled to
violate the obligation of their treaties, by displaying the
Sag of the Union, contrary Co the will and in defiance
of the American Government itself

Still less would Mr. Stevenson pretend to claim im-
munity for piratical adventurers who should endeavour
to slither their lawless proceedings tinder the ensign of
the United States.
But, unless Mr. Stevenson be prepared to maintain
these propositions, the whole fabric of his argument falls
to the ground ; for the undersigned admits that if the
except
bearing it
i under
British cruiser should possess a knowledge of the Ame-
rican
wouldbe entirely
character of
any
unjustifiable.
He farther admits tha so
much respect and honour
are due to the American
flag that no vessel
the
eghmt tnostbegrvaisvietedsagpin
by a British
inna and w cruiser,
the genuineness of its character.
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, fet-
ters, and other usual implements of torture, or had even
a number of these unfortunate beings on board, no Bri-
tish officer could interfere farther.
He might giv6 information to the cruisers of the
United States, hut it would not bo in his power to ar-
rest or impede the prosecution of the voyage and the
success of the undertaking.
It is obvious, therefore, that the utmost caution is
necessary in the exercise of the right claimed by Great
Britain. Wilde we have recourse to the necessary, and
indeed the only means for detecting imposture, the prac-
tice will be carefully guarded, and limited to cases of
strong suspicion. The undersigned begs to assure Mr.
Steveason that the moit'Prcise and positive instructions
have been issued to her MaFsty's officers on this subject.
The United States have stigmatised this abominable
trade in terms of abhorrence as strong as the people of
this country. ',rimy are also actively engaged in its
' suppression. But, if, instead of joining their efforts to
those of Great Britain, and labouring with her for the
attainment of this great blessing to humanity, the United
States had wished to follow a different course, the rea-
soning employed in Mr. Stevenson's note is precisely such
as would be resorted to for its defence and justification.
The undersigned, with his, convictioc of the perfect
good faith and sincerity of the
_Governtnent of the

U.-.ited States, would almost fear to offend Mr. Steven-
son even by disclaiming any such suspicion ; but he be-
lieves Mr. Stevenson will agree with him in lamenting
that the effects of the policy of the United States should
have any tendency to create a different impression in the
minds of those who are disposed to think less favourably
and less justly upon this subject.
Great Britain makes no pretension, claims no right,
which she is not ready and desirous to concede to the
United States.

A mutual right of search, regulated in such a man-
ner as to prevent the occurrence of any irritating circum-
stances, has always appeared to the undersigned to be
the most simple, and most effectual method of attaining
the great object which both Governments have in view.
But this proposal has already been rejected by the
United Stites, and the undersigned is not instructed
again to offer it for consideration.
It is for the American Government alone to deter-
mine what may be due to a just regard for their national
dignity and national interests ; but the undersigned
must be permitted to express his conviction, that rights
which have been mutually conceded to each other by
the Governments of Great Britain and France can
scarcely be incompatible with the honour and indepen-
dence of any State upon the face of the earth.
The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to re-
quest of Mr. Stevenson to accept the assurances of his
distinguished consideration. ABERDEEN.
A. Stevenson, Esq., &c.

MR. STEVENSON TO LORD ABERDEEN.

32, Upper Grosveeor-street, 0et.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 made the subject of complaint
to her Majesty's Government ; and, having considered
with the attention which their importance merits the
arguments 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 fully 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 embarrass
or throw difficulties in the way of impartial and 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 enlculated 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 feeling., 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 him-
self and for her Majesty'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 nations, regarding the African slave trade as a
great evil, united in measures for its abolition. For
that purpose laws were passed and treaties concluded
gising to the vessels of each of the contracting parties
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 Government, they
declined doing so. They deemed it inexpedient,
unde7 any mollification, or in any form, to yield the
right of having their vessels searched or interfered wit},
t L aUbtitlatil/14) Vica,;el 0.1 "Ha SU
between the two Governments, Lord Aberdeen is
doubtless informed. In the meantime some of the
Powers who were parties to those treaties, and ethers
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 digs of other nations,
but more particularly that of the United States.
prevent this, and enforce her treaties, Great
Britain deemed it important that her cruisers 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 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 between the two Governments. Her Majes-
ty's Government, however, having refused to make
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
character and extent of the right thus claimed should
be clearly ascertained. In the last note which the
undersigned had 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 27ch of August, was
substantially a right of search ; and 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
nations, not parties to these treaties, was not less un-
lawful and unjustifiable.
Now, Lord Aberdeen disclaims the right of search-
ing American vessels on the high seas, and admits that
to do so would be a gross infraction of the public law,
and a violation of national sovereignty and independence.
But his Lordship contends that, in requiring vessels
sailing under the flag of the United States to submit to
the operation of examination, in the manner and for the
objects proposed by his Government, there would be
no violation of national rights or honour ; and, cobse-
quently, nothinf to which the Government of the United
Stites ought rightfully to object. Upon this branch of
the subject the undersigned does not intend to repeat
the arguments contained in his previous correspondence
with her Majesty's late Principal Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs. Referring Lord Aberdeen to that
correspondence, he 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, is
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 States property, and navigating the ocean
according to law." Of what law, however, whether
public or municipal, his Lordship does not state,
but laves to be inferred. This doctrine Lord
AlPrdeen 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, compelling their officers to leave their vessels,
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
Government 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 claits: of ju-
risdiction over the whole of the African coasts and ses:
as exclusive as that which could only be enjoyed 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 bas lately been in-
duced to prohibit the slave trade) authorise her
cruisers to follow the example of her Majesty's