Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1843-03-10
IMPORTANT SPEECH
of SIR ROBERT PEEL, Respecting The
United States.


the following speech relative to the United
States, which we deem so important that we
give it entire. He commenced by referring Il
the remarks of the preceding speaker, (Mr G
Wood) respecting the boundary treaty, ant
expressing his pleasure at the settlement of that
question, said, that no other advantage could
be compared with an amicable settlement be.
tween two nations of kindred origin, of kindred
language, and of interests as kindred as THEFT
origin and language. The Right Hon. Baro-
net then proceeded as follows
rejoice that the Hon. gentleman has given
me the opportunity of making some observa-
tons on the late message OF the President ol
the United States. The sincere and honest
desire have always entertained for the man-
tainance of "A good understanding between this
country and the United States, and The spirit
in which have always spoken of America,
makes it douby painful duty to me to have
to refer TO that message, which, am sorry TO
say, does not give correct account OF the ne
gotiations relative TO right OF visit. Perhaps
| may do right TO confirm what the Hon. gen
tleman has said, that there is nothing more DIS
tinct than the right of visit is from the right OF
search. Search is belligerent right, and not
to be exercised in time Of peace except when
it has been conceded by treaty. The right oil
search extends not only to the vessel, but to
the cargo also. The right of visit is quite dis
tinct from this though the two are often con-
founded. The right of search, with respect to
American vessels, we entirely and utterly DIS
claim; nay, more, if we knew that an Amerl-
can vessel were furnished with all the maieri-
ais requisite for the slave trave-if we knew
that the decks were prepared to receive hun
dreds of human beings, within space in which
life is almost impossible, still we should be
bound to let that American vessel pass on.-
But the right we claim, is TO know whether
vessel pretending to be American, and hosting
the American flag, be bona fde Americana
(Hedr, hear) We Claim the right to know
whether a grievous wrong has not been offered
10 the American ilag TO know, for instance,
whether a Portuguese or Brazilian schooner,
sailing under the American flag, be really what
she seems 10 he. In The admirable despatch of
my noble friend, dated the 20lh December,
1871, he wrote thus 1.-THE undersigned APP
prehends, however, that the right OF search is
not confined to the ver6cation OF the nation
atty Of the vessel, but also extends to the OBJ
ject of the voyage, and the nature oil the car
90 The sole purpose of the British cruisers
is to ascertain whether the vessels they meet
with are really American or not. The right
asserted has, in truth, no resemblance to the
right of search, either in principle or in prac-
tice. 1t is simply a right TO satisfy the party,
who has legitimate interest in knowing the
truth, that the vessel actually is what her col
ors announce" am surprised the U. States
should contest this, considering the many small
States by which they are surrounded and how
easily their revenue might be injured if IL could
once be established as principle that ioregnI
vessel might become exempt from visitation by
hosting any particular flag. (Hear.) With
such principle recognised, neither the reve-
nue. nur the commerce Of the United States
could be safe for an instant. But know that
the United States do literally exercise this
right in the seas adjacent TO their own coast;
know that if Mexican vessel were TO hoist the
British flag under suspicious circumstances, the
United States would not hesitate to exercise
the right of exposing the fraud; and, knowing
this, am the more surprised at the claim now
set up bV the President of the United States.
Therefore, sir, it will he my duty, in the face
of the public, expressing deep regret that there
should appear to be any difference of opinion
on this topic, explicitly to declare that we have
not waived one of the principles contended for
by my noble friend (the Earl OF Aberdeen) in
his despatch of December, 1871; and it is fur
Their my duty TO declare that that despatch has
remained to the present hour unanswered by
the government of the United States. know,
| think, too well what is the ability and what
the keenness OF a secretary OF state in the nj
ted States, 10 believe that if doctrines so i'm
portant as those advanced in the despatch could
be questioned, it would have been permitted to
remain fourteen months unanswered and I'M
acknowledged, had il been thought wise TO
contest those principles. Qlear, hear) And,
sir, with respect to this right of search, that
not belligerant but conventional right which is |
used by one power for the purposes of human |
ity, To check the traffic in slaves, am bound TO !
say that, even on that point, am surprised al
the determination with which the United
States refuse that mutual right. (Hear. hear |
! am now speaking OF that right OF search
which, by the treaties with the great powers
of Europe, by treaty with France and other
States, is mutually conceded by parties desi-
rous 10 prevent ehectually the traffic in slaves
a right TO search vessels belonging to each
country which is party TO the treaty, detect
ed in the act of carrying on this trade. For, |
i'll the year 1924, a convention was signed in
this country, by Mr. Rush, the minister of the |
United States, almost at the instgation of A.
merica, which pToiessed The utmost desire to
put an end to the slave trade. convention,
! say, was signed by Mr. Rush, with Mr. Hus-
kisson, which did mutually cOncede the right
of search; that is to say, which enabled vessels
OF war, of the United States and Great Britain
respectively, 10 exercise, under certain stipula-
tons, that very right of search against which
such a Glamour is now raised in neighborng
country. (Hear, hear, hear.) That treaty
was rejected by the Senate of the U. States,
not on the ground of an objection 10 the right
of search, but because the right of search ex-
tended to the coast of America, and the United
States objected to the right of search being ex-
ercised in the immediate neig hborhood of the
coast of America, alleging that it was not ne
cessary for the suppression Of The slave trade.
The Senate of the United States omitted the
coast of America, and Mr. Canning refused to
ratiiy the treaty in consequence of that oms-
sion; but if Mr. Canning had allowed the coast
this moment a convention authorizing the right
of search would have been in force with respect
10 the United STATES Sir. | hone that ihnse