, 1842-01-08

ground that no nation had he right In time
of peace to enforce the provisions of their
laws and treaties against States who were
not parties 10 them, and consequently not
bound by them. In the note addressed by
the undersigned to Lord Palmerston, under
date of the eth of FEBRUARY, l84I, and re-
ferred 10 in the one 10 10 d Aberdeen. al
fusion was made TO the prttraedings of Her
MaJesty's Governments, rAGcr which tic
Haytaln Government were induced to change
their laws. At that time at least. it Is pre-
sumed, Her Maiesty's Government had not
determined to assert this right of dominion
over the sea. But, again, why might not
the right of search for seamen and deserters.
and that of impressment, be defended upon
the principles of the present claim? Let IT
be supposed, for purpose of Illustration, that
Great Britain had entered into treaties with
other nations. by which the right of search
for seamen or deserters was given 10 the
vessels of each Other, and that some of the
contracting States. IN order to evade their
engagements, should resort to the fraudulent
use OF the flag of other nations. And sup
pose, also, that. with the view of enforcing
these treaties, it should be deemed expedient
10 assert Il right of boarding and examining
upon the high seas. the vessels of nations
who had not surrendered the right. and were
not parties to the ~ireaties? Does Lord
Aberdeen or Her Maiesty's Government be-
lIeve that such 4 power would be tolerated
by any independent milton upon the face of
the earth? And vet. what difference would
there be between such Il case and the one ul-
der consideration, except that the one would
relate to slavery AMI the other to impress
ment? Subjects. probably. equally impor-
tant in the view Of Her Alajesty's Govern.
mant.
1t was against the exercise OF any such
right that the distinguished lurist. to whom
reference has been made. declared (whilSt
sitting as n court under the law of n~ariunS)
shat no author,y could InconvenI-nt de-
mands for specie. They may perhaps be
found which gave any right al rlSitatl0n NJ
interruption over The vessels and navigation
of other States. on the high seas. except that
which the right OF war gives to beiIIgerrntS
against neutrals; and that Great Britain had
no right 10 force her way 10 the liberation Of
Africa, by trampling upon the tights and in
dependence of other nations, for any good.
however eminent"
Upon what principles. then. of public law
or OF common ri ht or justice. such 4 pow
or as that now asserted Is 10 be defended or
justified, Her Maiestv's Government have
not deemed it expedient to state. As yet.
it has been left 10 stand for its whole efficacy
upon the grounds of expedicncy. The I'M
dersigned must therefore repeat the opinion,
expressed in his note to Lord Aberdeen, that
there is no essential difference whatever be-
tween the right of search and that now as
serted for Her Maiestv'S Government. Bat
Lord Aberdeen contends that, in resisting the
exercise of his right in the form in which it
has been made, the undersigned is necessari.
" compelled TO claim. not only immunity for
the flag of the United States and all the
~piratical adventures who are endeavoring to
shelter themselves under ii, but TO maintain
that Great Britain herself would be found 10
permit her own subjects, with British YES
sells and British capital, TO carry on their
traffic under their own eyes. provided 1t VA;
done under the FRAUDULENT use of an American
flag; and his lordship further declares that
unless the undersigned is prepared to MAIN
tain to their full extent these propositions.
the whole fabric of his argumen; must fall to
the ground.
Now the undersigned begs 70 observe that
Lord Aberdeen has greatly Inexperienced
the principles and arguments contained IN
the note which he had the honor of address
ing to his lcrdship, and which it becomes
proper to seize the earliest moment of cor
%recting. 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 misrepresentation into which
he may Internationally have been drawn
Indeed, the undersigned must have expressed
himself very imperfecily, if, in denying the
right of interfering with vessels under the
American flag. he did not convey the opinion
that he intended TO limit his objection to YES
sells bona fde American, and not TO those be-
longing to nations who might fraudently have
assumed the flag Of the United States.-
With the vessels of other nations, whether
sailing under their own or another flag, the
Government of the United States can have
no authority or desire TO Interfere. The
undersigned, therefore, did not mean TO be
understood as denying to Great Britain, or
any other nation, the right of Selling their
vessels or furnishing their subjects for any
violation Of their laws or treaties, provided
however. it should be done without violating