The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-02-25

AND THE UNITED STATES.
II is quite evident thai serious rstanding
exists between the American and British Govern
mcuts in relation the 9Th article Of the Treaty Of
w Washington. This Is To be regretted, for there
parties well in Europe in this country, who
would rejoice al revival Of the difficulties between
the two nations, and who indeed seem never satisfied
save when they are agitatiDg. In England, Lord
Palmerston has written series Of able articles ad-
verse TO the Washington Treaty, and ON recent oc-
casion he expressed his intention Of bringing the
measure before Parliament, by a specific motion
Thus Il is quite probable that excitement upon
the subject will be created upon The other side Of the
water, that the present British ministers will be
charged with having truckied, that every description
Of perserson and misrepresentation will be resorted
TO, not perhaps with any serious design of forcing
the two countries into conflict, but on political
grounds and with the object Of sappng the POPULAR
" OF the Peel Ministry. The "red-line map" will
form an admirable pcext for the revival Of the sub
Ject, and we already perceive that several of the
London Journals have opened their columns TO the
discussion. On this side tho water, the American
Secretary, who was instrumental in negotiating the
Treaty, has been denounced with equal warmth and
violence by some OF the members Of Congress- SEN
ator Benton, for example, has assailed him with ev-
cry description Of insulting epithet has charged him
indirectly with treason, aud with being British in
feeling Thus, the singular spectacle is presented OF
decided and unequivoca opposition to the Treaty by
certain members of the American Congress, because
they alege, too much has been conceded to Great
Britain and Of equal hostility the part of certain
members Of the British Parliament, because, as they
affirm, too much has been conceded to the United
States.
This difference Of view on the part of mere politi-
Clans, is comparatively unmportant But the speech
recently delivered in the House Of Commons by Sir
Robert Feel which has already appeared at length in
our columns imparts new interest TO the subject
The British Premier, in that speech, made a direct
issue with the President of the United States as TO
| the eighth article OF the Treaty. Sir Robert Peel
denied, emphatically, that the British Government
had renowned the right of visitation on the African
coast and re-affirmed the doctrines of Lord Aber-
deems despatch of December IS4l Nav he said
that not conentiDg themselves with their own view
Ministers had since the appearance of President ~
iers Message, taken an opportunity Of intmatng to
the United States the construction which Great Bril-
tam placed on this particular point of the treaty.
lie also announced material difference Of opinion
between the Governments. President Tyler in his
Message, quite as distinctly minated that the Br
tlsh, according to his understand n.y. in the Washing
ton Treaty, abandoned the right of visitation He
alluded to Lord Aberdeens despatch; the same that
Is alluded TO and e-afrmed by Sir Robert Peel and
said that his (Aberdeens) version was regarded as
the right OF search presented in a new form The
President therefore, felt his duty declare in his
Message 10 Congress, that no such concession could
be made. Our Minister at Paris took the Message as
| his letter Of instructions and assumed the same
ground In demonstrating with the King of the French
with regard to the Quintuple Treaty. In close
iormity with these views, says the President that is
to say, the views of his Message affirming that
no such concession could be made by the United
States, was alluded to by Lord Aberdeen the 9Th
article of the treaty was formed. We annex this ar
Gle in detail, which, according our view fully sus-
tans the view of the President, and puts Sir Robert
Peel in the wrong
ARTICLE VIII.
The parties mutually stipulate that each shall
prepare, equip and maintain in service, on the coast
of Africa, sufficient and adequate squadron, or ma
val force of vessels of suitable numbers and descrp
ton, to carry in all not less than eighty guns to en-
force separately and respectively the laws rights
and obligations Of each of the two countries for the
suppression of the slave trades the said squadrons to
be independent Of each other, but the two Govern
ments STIMULATING, nevertheless, TO give such orders
TO the officers commanding their respective forces
as shall enable them most efectually to act in con-
cert and cooperation, upon mutual consultation as
exigences may arise for the attainment of the true
object Of this articles copies of all such orders to be
communicated by each Government to the other re-
spectivey."
This question is certainly one of great decacy-
The difference between the right Of visitation and
The right OF search is nice, that can scarcely be
defined The subject possesses no little interest and
the fact that the Prime Minister of Great Britain
has ventured publicly and formally to say that the
President OF the United States ''has given cor
rect account Of the negotiation relative to the right
Of visit" is calculated to lead to much further dis
cussion, and possibly to much serious trouble.