^V 5.'. "^^ .- 
 
 .0- 
 
 V^ * o « o ' O, 
 
 K^ 
 
 L^ '-<<. 
 
 V 
 
 
 •^c 
 
 
 
 :miS^^ ^%,^ : 
 
 ^ V ■ « ' * " C> 
 
 
 
 1 • • r ^ 
 
 
 V "^ 
 
 
 ■^.K ^<i 
 
 ^v^-^^. 
 
 
 ^^ O « ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 .•^O^ 
 
 
 xOv\ 
 
 
 .^' 
 
 "-.. 
 
 
 
 
 vt 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 
 c> 
 
 4- ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .V 
 
^"•^^. 
 
 ,^ q 
 
 J V, 
 
 xv^'"^ 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 -^o^ ,4^' -'^ -^^ .0^^ - o ,-^<^' -- % .0^ 
 
 ';^:%jf-^':. %/ 
 
 .^i. 
 
 c' 
 
 V-^ -o«o'' ^<;, 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ,^q. 
 
 >P'^^. 
 
 r 
 
 "> 
 
 \ 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 ^'' '^ ■^ 
 
 
 / ^'\ ^# /^ 
 
 ^- ^. 
 
 
 1 "• » . ^> 
 
 
 
 
 .^^"- 
 
 .^> 
 
 .^'-n^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 !■ 5^ ^ ' -pj a'^ •<■ '■r^'f^,*-- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Co 
 
 -^-0^ 
 
 ^c-^ 
 
 «o^ ^%^^*"^^ ^. 
 
 ' 'k^-' 
 
 <5> ' o , o -^ ^ 
 V 
 
 ".> 
 
 
 "^^. 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 «>. 
 
 '?) 
 
 'i^ 
 
 'i' ■\'' "Ca '^ , ♦^ (\ > 
 
 ,*?- 
 
 0' 
 
 
 -fr 
 
 .f' 
 
 0' 
 
 <^ 
 
 ^ ', •■.-7- - .T.i O - ■- 
 
 P" V . • • -- C' .0' 
 
CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 MR. WEBSTER AND LORD ASHBURTON 
 
 1. ON McLEOD'S CASE; 
 
 2. ON THE CREOLE CASE; 
 
 3. ON THE SUBJECT OF IMPRESSMENT. 
 

 Op^im ^ 
 
CASE OF THE « CAROLINE.' 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburion. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, July 27, 1842. 
 
 My Lord : In relation to the case of (he " CaroHne," which v/e have 
 heretofore made the subject of conference, I have thought it right to place in 
 your hands an extract of a letter from this Department to Mr. Fox, of the 
 24th of April, 1841, and an extract from the message of the President of the 
 United States to Congress at the commencement of its present session. These 
 papers you have, no doubt, already seen ; but they are, nevertheless, now 
 communicated, as such communication is considered a ready mode of pre- 
 senting the view which this Government entertains of the destruction of that 
 vessel. 
 
 The act of which the Government of the United States complains is not 
 to be considered as justifiable or unjustitiable, as the question of the lawful- 
 ness or unlawfulness of the employment in which the " Caroline" was en- 
 gaged may be decided the one way or the other. That act is of itself a 
 wrong, and an offence to the sovereignty and the dignity of tfie United States, 
 being a violation of their soil and territory — a wrong for which, to this day, 
 no atonement, or even apology, has been made by her majesty's Govern- 
 ment. Your lordship can not but be aware that self-respect, the conscious- 
 ness of independence and national equality, and a sensitiveness to whatever 
 may touch the honor of the country — a sensitiveness which this Government 
 will ever feel and ever cultivate — make this a matter of high importance, and 
 I must be allowed to ask for it your lordship's grave consideration. 
 
 I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship's most obedient servant, 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 Lord ASHBURTON, (^'C, c5'c., <S)X. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, dated April 24, 1841. 
 
 The undersigned has now to signify to Mr. Fox that the Government of 
 the United States has not changed the opinion which it has heretofore ex- 
 pressed to her majesty's Government of the character of the act of destroying 
 the " Caroline." 
 
 It does not think that that transaction can be justified by any reasonable 
 application or construction of the right of self-defence, under the laws of 
 nations. It is admitted that a just right of self-defence attaches always to 
 nations as well as to individuals, and is equally necessary for the preserva- 
 tion of both. But the extent of this right is a question to be judged of by 
 the oircumstances of each particular case j and when its alleged exercise 
 
has led to the commission of hostile acts within the territory of a power 
 at peace, nothing less than a clear and absolute necessity can afford ground 
 of justification. Not having up to this time been made acquainted wijfa. 
 the views and reasons at length which have led her majesty's Government 
 to think the destruction of the " Caroline" justifiable as an act of self-de- 
 fence, the undersigned, earnestly renewing the remonstrance of this Gov- 
 ernment against the transaction, abstains for the present from any extended 
 discussion of the question. But it is deemed proper, nevertheless, not to 
 omit to take some notice of the general grounds of justification stated by 
 her majesty's Government, in their instruction to Mr. Fox. 
 
 Her majesty's Government have instructed Mr. Fox to say that they are 
 of opinion that the transaction which terminated in the destruction of the 
 *' Caroline" was a justifiable employment of force for the purpose of defend- 
 ing the British territory from the unprovoked attack of a band of British 
 rebels and American pirates, who, having been "permitted" to arm and or- 
 ganize themselves within the territory of the United States, had actually in- 
 vaded a portion of the territory of her majesty. 
 
 The President can not suppose that her majesty's Government, by the use 
 of these terms, meant to be understood as intimating that those acts violating 
 the laws of the United States, and disturbing the peace of the British territo- 
 ries, were clone under any degree of countenance from this Government, or 
 were regarded by it with indifference, or that, under the circumstances of the 
 case, they could have been prevented by the ordinary course of proceeding. 
 Although he regrets that, by using the term " permitted," a possible inference 
 of that kind might be raised, yet such an inference the President is willing 
 to believe would be quite unjust to the intentions of the British Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 That, on a line of frontier such as separates the United States from her 
 Britannic majesty's North American provinces — a line long enough to divide- 
 the whole of lEurope into halves — irregularites, violences, and conflicts, should 
 sometimes occur, equally against the v.^ill of both Governments, is certainly 
 easily to be supposed. This may be more possible, perhaps, in regard to the 
 United States, without any reproach to their Government, since their institu- 
 tions entirely discourage the keeping up of largestanding armies in time of peace, 
 and their situation happily exempts them from the necessity of maintaining 
 such expensive and dangerous establishments. All that can be expected 
 from cither Government, in these cases, is good faith, a sincere desire to pre- 
 serve peace and do justice, the use of all proper means of prevention ; and that, 
 if offences can not, nevertheless, be always prevented, the offenders shall still 
 be jusUy punished. In all these respects, this Government acknowledges 
 no delinquency in the performance of its duties. 
 
 Her majesty's Government are pleased, also, to speak of those American 
 citizens who took part with persons in Canada engaged in an insurrection 
 against the British Government as " American pirates." The undersigned 
 does not admit the propriety or justice of this designation. If citizens of the 
 United States fitted out, or were engaged in fitting out, a military expedition 
 from the United States, intended to act against the British Government in 
 Canada, they were clearly violating the laws of their own country, and ex- 
 posing themselves to the just consequences which might be inflicted on them, 
 if taken within the British dominions. But, notwithstanding this, they were 
 certainly not pirates, nor does tlje undersigned think that it can advance the 
 purpose of fair and friendly discussion, or hasten the accommodation of na- 
 
donal difficulties, so to denominate them. Tlieir offence, whatever it was, had 
 no analogy to cases of piracy. Supposing all that is alleged against them to 
 be true, they were taking a part in what they regarded as a civil war, and 
 they were taking a part on the side of the rebels. Surely England hereelf 
 has not regarded persons thus engaged as deserving the appellation whick 
 her majesty's Government bestows on these citizens of the United Slates. 
 
 It is quite notorious that, for the greater part of the last two centuries, 
 subjects of the British crown have been permitted to engage in foreign 
 wars, both national and civil, and in the latter in every stage of their prog- 
 ress ; and yet it has not been imagined that England has at any time 
 allowed her subjects to turn pirates. Indeed, in our own times, not only 
 have individual subjects of that crown gone abroad to engage in civil wars, 
 but we have seen whole regiments openly recruited, imbodied, armed, and 
 disciplined, in England, with the avowed purpose of aiding a rebellion 
 against a nation with which England was at peace ; although it is true that, 
 subsequently, an a^t of Parliament was passed to prevent transactions so 
 nearly approaching to public war, without license from the crown. 
 
 It may be said that there is a difference between the case of a civil war 
 arising from a disputed succession, or a protracted revolt of a colony 
 against the mother-country, and the case of the fresh outbreak or commence- 
 ment of a rebellion. The undersigned does not deny that such a distinction 
 may, for certain purposes, be deemed well founded. He admits that a Gov- 
 ernment, called upon to consider its own rights, interests, and duties, when 
 civil wars break out in other countries, may decide on all the circumstances 
 of the particular case upon its own existing stipulations, on probable results, 
 on what its own security requires, and on many other considerations. It 
 may be already bound to assist one party, or it may become bound, if it so 
 chooses, to assist the other, and to meet the consequences of such assistance. 
 
 But whether the revolt be recent or long continued, they who join those 
 concerned in it, whatever may be their offence against their own country, 
 or however they may be treated, if taken with arras in their hands in the 
 territory of the Governmont against which the standard of revolt is raised, 
 can not be denominated pirates without departing from all ordinary use of 
 language in the definition of offences. A cause which has so foul an 
 origin'as piracy can not, in its progress or by its success, obtain a claim 
 to ■ any degree of respectability or tolerance among nations ; and civil 
 wars, therefore, are not understood to have such a commencement. 
 
 It is well known to Mr. Fox that authorities of the highest eminence 
 in England, living and dead, have maintained that the general law of 
 nations does not forbid the citizens or subjects of one Government from 
 taking part in the civil commotions of another. There is some reason, 
 indeed, lo think that such may be the opinion of her majesty's Govern- 
 ment at the present moment. 
 
 The undersigned has made these remarks from the conviction thai it is 
 important to regard established distinctions, and to view the acts and offences 
 of individuals in the exactly proper light. But it is not to be inferred that 
 there is, on the part of this Government, any purpose of extenuating in the 
 slightest degree the crimes of those persons, citizens of the United States, who 
 have joined in military expeditions against the British Government in Can- 
 ada. On the contrary the President directs the undersigned to say that it is 
 his^ fixed resolution that all such disturbers of the national peace, and vio- 
 
6 
 
 lators of the laws of their country, shall be brought to exemplary punishment. 
 Nor will the fact that they are instigated and led on to these excesses by Brit- 
 ish subjects, refugees from the provinces, be deemed any excuse or palliation ; 
 although it is well worthy of being remembered that the prime movers of 
 these disturbances ou the borders are subjects of the Queen, who come within 
 the territories of the United States, seeking to enlist the sympathies of their 
 citizens, by all the motives which they are able to address to them, on ac- 
 count of grievances, real or imaginary. There is no reason to believe that 
 the design of any hostile movement from the United States, against Canada, 
 has commenced with citizens of the United States. The true origin of such 
 purposes and such enterprises is on the other side of the line. But the Presi- 
 dent's resolution to prevent these transgressions of the laws is not, on that 
 account, the less strong. It is taken, not only in conformity to his duty^ 
 under the provisions of existing laws, but in full consonance with the estab- 
 lished principles and practice of this Government. 
 
 The Government of the United States has not from the first fallen into the 
 doubts, elsewhere entertained, of the true extent of the duties of neutrality. 
 It has held that, however it may have been in less enlightened ages, the just 
 interpretation of the modern law of nations is that neutral States are bound 
 to be strictly neutral; and that it is a manifest and gross impropriety for in- 
 dividuals to engage in the civil conflicts of other States, and thus to be at war 
 while their Government is at peace. War and peace are high national rela- 
 tions, which can properly be established or changed only by nations them- 
 selves. 
 
 The United States have thought, also, that the salutary doctrine of non- 
 intervention by one nation with the affairs of others is liable to be essentially 
 impaired, if, while Government refrains from interference, interference is still 
 allowed to its subjects, individually or in masses. It ma}^ happen, indeed,, 
 that persons choose to leave their country, emigrate to other regions, and set- 
 tle themselves on uncultivated lands in territories belonging to other states. 
 This can not be prevented by Governments which allow the emigration of 
 their subjects and citizens ; and such persons, having voluntarily abandoned 
 their own country, have no longer claim to its protection, nor is it longer re- 
 sponsible for their acts. Such cases, therefore, if they occur, show no aban- 
 donment of the duty of neutrality. 
 
 The Government of the United States has not considered it as sufficient to 
 confine the duties of neutrality and non-interference to the case of Govern- 
 ments whose territories lie adjacent to each other. The application of the 
 principle may be more necessary in such cases, but the principle itself they 
 regard as being tlie same, if those territories be divided by half the globe. 
 The rule is founded in the impropriety and danger of allowing individuals 
 to make war on their own authority, or, by mingling themselves in the bel- 
 ligerant operations of other nations, to run the hazard of counteracting the 
 policy or embroiling the relations of their own Government. And the Uni- 
 ted States have been the first among civilized nations to enforce the observ- 
 vance of this just rule of neutrality and peace, by special and adequate legal 
 enactments. In the infancy of this Government, on the breaking out of the 
 European wars which had their origin in the French revolution. Congress 
 passed lav/s, with severe penalties, for preventing the citizens of the United 
 States from taking part in those hostilities. 
 
 By these laws it prescribed to the citizens of the United States what it un- 
 
derstood to b*e their duty as neutrals, by the law of nations, and the duty, 
 also, which they owed to the interest and honor of their own country. 
 
 At a subsequent period, when the American colonies of a European 
 power took up arms against their sovereign. Congress, not diverted from 
 the established system of the Government by any temporary consideratione, 
 not swerved from its sense of justice and of duty by any sympathies which 
 it might naturally feel for one of the parties, did not hesitate, also, to pass 
 acts applicable to the case of colonial insurrection and civil war. And these 
 provisions of law have been continued, revised, amended, and are in full 
 force at the present moment. Nor have they been a dead letter, as it is well 
 known that exemplary punishments have been inflicted on those who have 
 transgressed them. It is known, indeed, that heavy penalties have fallen 
 on individuals (citizens of the United States) engaged in this very disturb- 
 ance in Canada with which the destruction of the Caroline was connected. 
 And it is in Mr. Fox's knowledge, also, that the act of Congress of March 
 10, 1838, was passed for the precise purpose of more eflectually restraining 
 military enterprises, from the United States into the British provinces, by 
 authorizing the use of the most sure and decisive preventive means. The 
 undersigned may add, that it stands on the admission of very high British, 
 authority, that during the recent Canadian troubles, although bodies of ad- 
 venturers appeared on the border, making it necessary for the people of 
 Canada to keep themselves in a state prepared for self-defence, yet that these 
 adventurers were acting by no means in accordance with the feeling of the 
 great mass of the American people, or of the Government of the United 
 States. 
 
 This Government, therefore, not only holds itself above reproach in every 
 thing respecting (he preservation of neutrality, the observance of the principle 
 of non-intervention, and the strictest conformity in these respects to the rules 
 of international law, but it doubts not that the world will do it the justice to 
 acknowledge that it has set an example not unfit to be followed by others ; 
 and that by its steady legislation on this most important subject, it has done 
 something to promote peace and good neighborhood among nations, and to 
 advance the civilization of mankind. 
 
 The undersigned trusts that when her Britannic Majesty's Government 
 shall present the groufids, at length, on which they justify the local author- 
 ities of Canada in attacking and destroying the " Caroline," they will con- 
 sider that the laws of the United States are such as the undersigned has now 
 represented them, and that the Government of the United States has always 
 manifested a sincere disposition to see those laws effectually and impartially 
 administered. If there have been cases in which individuals, justly obnox- 
 ous to punishment, have escaped, this is no more than happens in regard to 
 other laws. 
 
 Under these circumstances, and under those immediately connected with 
 the transaction itself, it will be for her majesty's Government to show upon 
 what state of facts, and what rules of national law, the destruction of the 
 " Caroline" is to be defended. It will be for that Government to show a 
 necessity of self-defence, instant, over^vhehning, leaving no choice of means, 
 and no moment for deliberation. It will be for it to show, also, that the local 
 authorities of Canada, even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized 
 them to enter the tenitories of the United States at all, did nothing unrea- 
 sonable or excessive, since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, 
 
- g 
 
 must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. It must be 
 shown that admonition or remonstrance to the persons on board the " Caro- 
 line" was impracticable, or would have been unavailing. It must be shown 
 that daylight could not be waited for ; that there could be no attempt at dis- 
 crimination between the innocent and the guilty ; that it would not have 
 have been enough to seize and detain the vessel ; but that there was a neces- 
 sity present and inevitable, for attacking her in the darkness of the night, 
 while moored to the shore, and vvhile unarmed men were asleep on board, 
 killing some and wounding others, and then drawing her into the current, 
 above the cataract, setting her on fire, and, careless to know whether there 
 might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or the living with the dead, 
 committing her to a fate which fills the imagination with horror. A necessity 
 for all this, the Government of the United States can not believe to have 
 existed. 
 
 All will see that, if such things be allowed to occur, they must lead to bloody^ 
 and exasperated war. And when an individual comes into the United States 
 from Canada, and to the very place on which this drama was performed, and 
 there chooses to make public and vainglorious boast of the part he acted in 
 it, it is hardly wonderful that great excitement should be created, and some 
 degree of commotion arise. 
 
 This republic does not wish to disturb the tranquillity of the world ; its object 
 is peace, its policy peace. It seeks no aggrandizement by foreign conquest, 
 because it knows that no foreign acquisitions could augment its power and 
 importance so rapidly as they are already advancing by its own natural! 
 growth, under the propitious circumstances of its situation. But it can not 
 admit that its Government has not both the will and the power to preserve 
 its own neutrality, and to enforce the observances of its own laws upon its 
 own citizens. It is jealous of its rights, and among others, and most especi- 
 ally, of tbe right of the absolute immunity of its territory against aggression 
 from abroad ; and these rights it is the duty and determination of this Gov- 
 ernment fully and at all times to maintain, while it will at the same time 
 as scrupulously refrain from infringing on the rights of others. 
 
 The President instructs the undersigned to say, in conclusion, that he confi- 
 dently trusts that this, and all other questions of difference between the two 
 Governments, will be treated by both in the full exercise of such a spirit of 
 candor, justice, and mutual respect, as shall give assurance of the long-con- 
 tinuance of peace between the two countries. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to assure Mr. Fox of 
 his high consideration. 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 Henry S. Fox, Esq., 
 
 Envoy Extraordinary and 
 
 Minister Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, ^^c. 
 
 Extract from the Message of the President to Congress at the commence- 
 ment of the second session of the 21th Congress. 
 
 I regret that it is not in my power to make known to you an equally 
 satisfactory conclusion in the case of the " Caroline" steamer, with the cir- 
 
9 • 
 
 cuinstances connected with the destruction of which,, in December, 1837, 
 by an armed force fitted out in the province of Upper Canada, you are al- 
 ready made acquainted. No such atonement as was due for the pubUc 
 wrong done to the United States by this invasion of her territory, so 
 whoUy irreconcilable with her rights as an independent Power, has yet 
 been made. In the view taken by this Government, the inquiry whether 
 the vessel was in the employment of those who were prosecuting an un- 
 authorized war against that province, or was engaged by the owner in 
 the business of transporting passengers to and from Navy island, in 
 hopes of private gain, which was most probably the case, in no degree 
 alters the real question at issue between the two Governments. This Gov- 
 ernment can never concede to any foreign Government the power, except 
 in a case of the most urgent and extreme necessity, of invading its territory, 
 either to arrest the persons or destroy the property of those who may have 
 violated the municipal laws of such foreign Government, or have disre- 
 garded their obligations arising under the law of nations. The territory 
 of the United States must be regarded as sacredly secure against all such 
 invasions, until they shall voluntarily acknowledge inability to acquit them- 
 selves of their duties to others ; and, in announcing this sentiment, I do but 
 affirm a principle which no nation on earth would be more ready to vindi- 
 cate, at all hazards, than the people and Government of Great Britain. If, 
 upon a full investigation of all the facts, it shall appear that the owner of the 
 " Caroline" was governed by a hostile intent, or had made common cause 
 with those who were in the occupancy of Navy island, then, so far as he is 
 concerned, there can be no claim to indemnity for the destruction of his 
 boat, which this Government would feel itself bound to prosecute, since he 
 would have acted not only in derogation of the rights of Great Britain, 
 but in clear violation of the laws of the United States. But that is 
 a question which, however settled, in no manner involves the higher con- 
 sideration of the violation of territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction. To 
 recognise it as an admissible practice, that each Government, in its turn, 
 upon any sudden and unauthorized outbreak, which, on a frontier the ex- 
 tent of which renders it impossible for either to have an efficient force on 
 every mile of it, and which outbreak, therefore, neither may be able to sup- 
 press in a day, may take vengeance into its own hands, and without even a 
 remonstrance, and in the absence of any pressing or overruling necessity, 
 may' invade the territory of the other, would inevitabl*' lead to results 
 equally to be deplored by both. When border collisions come to re- 
 ceive the sanction or to be made on the authority of either Government, 
 general war must be the inevitable result. While it is the ardent desire of 
 the United States to cultivate the relations of peace with all nations, and to 
 fulfil all the duties of good neighborhood towards those who possess terri- 
 tories adjoining their own, that very desire would lead them to deny the 
 Tight of any foreign Power to invade their boundary with an armed force. 
 The correspondence between the two Goyernments on this subject will, at 
 a future day of your session, be submitted to your consideration ; and, in 
 the meantime, I can not but indulge the hope that the British Government 
 will see the propriety of renouncing, as a rule of future action, the precedent 
 which has been set in the affair at Schlosser. 
 
• 10 
 
 Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webste)'. 
 
 Washington, July 28, 1842. 
 
 Sir : In the course of our conferences on the several subjects of difference 
 which it was tlie object of my mission to endeavor to seule, the unfortunate 
 case of the Garohne, with its attendant consequences, could not escape our 
 attention ; for although it is not of a description to be susceptible of any set- 
 tlement by a convention or treaty, yet, being connected with the highest 
 considerations of national honor and dignity, it has given rise, at times, to 
 deep excitements, so as more than once to endanger the maintenance of 
 peace. 
 
 The note you did me the honor of addressing me the 27th instant, re- 
 minds me that however disposed your Government might be to be satisfied 
 with the explanations which it has been my duty to offer, the natural anxiety 
 of the public mind requires that these explanations should be more durably 
 recorded in our correspondence, and you send me a copy of your note to Mr. 
 Fox, her Britannic majesty's minister here, and an extract from the speech of 
 the President of the United States to Congress at the opening of the present 
 session, as a ready mode of presenting the view entertained on this subject 
 by the Government of the United States. 
 
 It is so far satisfactory to perceive that we are perfectly agreed as to the 
 general principles of international law applicable to this unfortunate case» 
 Kespect for the inviolable character of the territory of independent nations, 
 is the most essential foundation of civilization. It is useless to strengthen a 
 principle so generally acknowledged by any appeal to authorities on inter- 
 national law, and you may be assured, sir, that her majesty's Government 
 set the highest possible value on this principle, and are sensible of their duty 
 to support it by their conduct and example, for the maintenance of peace 
 and order in the world. If a sense of moral responsibility were not a suffi- 
 cient security for their obseiTance of this duty toward all nations, it will be 
 readily believed that the most common dictates of interest and policy would 
 lead to it in the case of a long conterminous boundary of some thousand 
 miles, with a country of such great and growing power as the United States 
 of America, inhabited by a kindred race, gifted with all its activity, and all 
 its susceptibility on points of national honor. 
 
 Every consideration, therefore, leads us to set, as highly as your Govern- 
 ment can possibly do, this paramount obhgation of reciprocal respect for the 
 independent territory of each. But however strong this duty may be, it is 
 admitted by all writers, by all jurists, by the occasional practice of all nations, 
 not excepting your own, that a strong overpowering necessity may arise^ 
 when this great principle may and must be suspended. It must be so for 
 the shortest possible period, during the continuance of an admitted overruling 
 necessity, and strictly confined within the narrowest limits imposed by that 
 necessity. Self-defence is the first law of our nature, and it must be recog- 
 nised by every code which professes to regulate the condition and relations 
 of man. Upon this modification, if I may so call it, of the great general 
 principle, we seem also to be agreed; and on this part of the subject I have 
 done little more that repeat the sentiments, though in less forcible language, 
 admitted and maintained by you in the letter to which you refer me. 
 
 Agreeing, therefore, on the general principle, and on the possible excep- 
 tion to which it is liable, the only question between us is whether this occur- 
 rence came within the limits fairly to be assigned to such exception — wheth- 
 
11 
 
 er, to use your words, there was " that necessity of self-defence, instant, over- 
 whelming, leaving no choice of means," which preceded the destruction of 
 the Caroline, while moored to the shore of the United States. Give me 
 leave to say, sir, with all possible admiration of your very ingenious discus- 
 sion of the general principles which are supposed to govern the right and 
 practice of interference by the people of one country in the wars and quarrels 
 of others, that this part of your argument is little applicable to our immedi- 
 ate case. If Great Britain, America, or any other country suflfer their people 
 j to fit out expeditions to take part in distant quarrels, such conduct may, ac- 
 cording to the circumstances of each case, be justly matter of complaint; 
 '■ and perhaps these transactions have generally been in late times too much 
 overlooked or connived at. But the case we are considering is of a wholly- 
 different description, and may be best determined by answering the following 
 question. Supposing a man standing on ground where you have no legal 
 right to follow him, has a weapon long enough to reach you, and is striking 
 you down and endangering your life, how long are you bound to wait for the 
 assistance of the authority having the legal power to relieve you? or, to bring 
 the facts more immediately home to the case, if cannon are moving and set- 
 ting up in a battery which can reach you and are actually destroying life 
 and property by their fire, if you have remonstrated for some time without 
 effect, and see no prospect of relief, when begins your right to defend your- 
 self, should you have no other means of doing so than by seizing your 
 assailant on the verge of a neutral territory ? 
 
 I am unwilling to recal to your recollection the particulars of this case, but 
 I am obliged very shortly to do so, to show what was at the time the extent 
 Df the existing justification, for upon this entirely depends the question 
 vvhether a gross insult has or has not been offered to the Government and 
 people of the United States. 
 
 After some tumultuous proceedings in Upper Canada, which were of short 
 iuration, and were suppressed by the militia of the country, the persons 
 riminally concerned in them took refuge in the neighboring State of New 
 
 ork, and with a very large addition to their numbers openly collected, in- 
 aded the Canadian territory, taking possession of Navy island. 
 * This invasion took place the 16th of December, 1837; a gradual acces- 
 sion of numbers and of military ammunition continued openly, and though 
 under the sanction of no public authority, at least with no public hindrance^ 
 until the 29ih of the same month, when several hunhed men were collect- 
 ed, and twelve pieces of ordnance, which could only have been procured 
 from some public store or arsenal, were actually mounted on Navy island, 
 and were used to fire within easy range upon the unoffending inhabitants of 
 the opposite shore. Remonstrances, wholly ineffectual, were made; so in- 
 effectual, indeed, that a militia regiment, stationed on the neighboring 
 American island, looked on without any attempt at interference, while shots 
 were fired from the American island itself. This important fact stands on 
 the best American authority, being stated in a letter to Mr. Forsyth, of the 
 6th of February, 1838, of Mr. Ber^on, attorney of the United States, the 
 gentleman sent by your Government to inquire into the facts of the case, 
 Avho adds, very properly, that he makes the statement "with deep regret and 
 mortification." 
 
 This force, formed of all the reckless and mischievous people of the bor- 
 der, formidable from their numbers and from their armament, had in their 
 pay, and as part of their establishment, this steamboat Caroline, the impor- 
 
 d. 
 
12 
 
 tant means and instrument by which numbers and arms were hourly in- 
 creasing. I might safely put it to any candid man acquainted with the ex- 
 isting state of things, to say whether the military commander in Canada had 
 the remotest reason, on the 29th of December, to expect to be relieved from 
 this state of suffering by the protective intervention of any American author- 
 ity. How long could a Government having the paramount duty of protect- 
 ing its own people, be reasonably expected to wait for what they had then no 
 reason to expect? What would have been the conduct of American officers? 
 what has been their conduct under circumstances much less aggravated? I 
 would appeal to you, sir, to say whether the facts which you say would 
 alone justify this act, viz., "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelm- 
 ing, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation," were not 
 applicable to this case in as high a degree as they ever were to any case of a 
 similar description in the history of nations. 
 
 Nearly five years are now past since this occurrence; there has been time 
 for the public to deliberate upon it calml}', and I believe I may lake it to be 
 the opinion of candid and honorable men, that the British officers who exe- 
 cuted this transaction, and their Government who approved it, intended no 
 slight or disrespect to the sovereign authority of the United States. That 
 they intended no such disrespect I can most solemnly affirm, and I trust it 
 will be admitted that no inference to the contrary can fairly be drawn, even 
 by the most susceptible en points of national honor. 
 
 Notwithstanding my wish that the explanation I had to make might not 
 revive in any degree any feelings of irritation, I do not see how I could 
 treat this subject without this short recital of facts, because the proof that 
 no disrespect was intended is mainly to be looked for in the extent of the 
 justification. 
 
 There remains only a point or two which I should wish to notice, to re- 
 move in some degree the impression which your rather highly colored 
 description of this transaction is calculated to make. The mode of telling 
 a story often tends to distort facts, and in this case more than in any other, 
 it is miportant to arrive at plain unvarnished truth. 
 
 It appears from every account, that the expedition was sent to capture the 
 Caroline when she was expected to be found on the British ground of Navy 
 Island, and that it was only owing to the orders of the rebel leader being 
 disobeyed, that she was not so found. When the British officer came round 
 the point of the island in the night, he first discovered that the vessel was 
 moored to the other shore. He was not by this deterred from making the 
 capture, and his conduct was approved. But you will perceive that there 
 was here, most decidedly, the case of justification mentioned in your note, 
 that there should be " no moment left for deliberation." I mention this 
 circumstance to show, also, that the expedition was not planned with a 
 premeditated purpose of attacking the enemy within the jurisdiction of the 
 United States, but that the necessity of so doing arose from altered circum- 
 stances at the moment of execution. 
 
 I have only further to notice the highly colored picture drawn in your 
 note, of the facts attending the execution of this service. Some importance 
 is attached to the attack having been made in the night, and the vessel 
 having been set on fire and floated down the falls of the river ; and it is in- 
 sinuated rather than asserted, that there was carelessness as to the lives of 
 the persons on board. The account given by the distinguished officer who 
 commanded tlie expedition distinctly refutes, or satisfactorily explains these 
 
13 
 
 assertions. The lime of night was purposely selected as most likely to in- 
 sure the execution, with the least loss of life, and it is expressly stated that, 
 the strength of the current not permitting the vessel to be carried off, and 
 it being necessary to destroy her by fire, she was drawn into the stream 
 for the express purpose of preventing injury to persons or property of the 
 inhabitants at Schlosser. 
 
 I would willingly have abstained from a return to the facts of this trans- 
 action, my duty being to offer those explanations and assurances which 
 may lead to satisfy the public mind, and to the cessation of all angry feeling, 
 but it appeared to me that some explanation of parts of the case, apparently 
 misunderstood, migh be of service for this purpose. 
 
 Although it is believed that a candid and impartial consideration of the 
 whole history of this unfortunate event will lead to the conclusion, that 
 there were grounds of justification as strong as were ever presented in such, 
 cases, and above all, that no slight of the authority of the United States 
 was ever intended, yet, it must be admitted, that there was in the hurried 
 execution of this necessary service a violation of territory, and I am in- 
 structed to assure you that her majesty's Government consider this as a 
 most serious fact, and that far from thinking that an event of this kind 
 should be lightly risked, they would unfeignedly deprecate its recurrence. 
 Looking back to what passed at this distance of time, what is, perhaps, 
 most to be regretted, is, that some explanation and apology for this occur- 
 rence was not immediately made ; this, with a frank explanation of the ne- 
 cessity of the case might, and probably would have prevented much of the 
 exasperation, and of the subsequent complaints and recriminations to 
 which it gave rise. 
 
 There are possible cases in the relations of nations, as of individuals, 
 where necessity, which controls all other laws, may be pleaded, but it is 
 neither easy, nor safe to attempt to define the rights or limits properly as- 
 signable to such a plea. This must always be a subject of much delicacy, 
 and should be considered by friendly nations with great candor and for- 
 bearance. The intentions of the parties must mainly be looked to, and 
 can it for a moment be supposed, that Great Britain would intentionally 
 and wantonly provoke a great and powerful neighbor 7 
 
 Her majesty's Government earnestly desire that a reciprocal respect for the 
 independent jurisdiction and authority of neighboring States may be consid- 
 ered among the first duties of all Governments; and I have to repeat the as- 
 surance of regret they feel that the event of which I am treating should have 
 disturbed tlie harmony they so anxiously wish to maintain with the Ameri- 
 can people and Government. 
 
 Connected with these transactions, there have also been circumstances, of 
 which I believe it is generally admitted that Great Britain has also had just 
 ground to complain. Individuals have been made personally liable for acts 
 done under the avowed authority of their Government ; and there are now 
 many brave men exposed to personal consequences for no other cause than 
 having served their country. That this is contrary to every principle of in- 
 ternational law it is useless for me to insist. Indeed, it has been admitted by 
 every authority of your Government; but, owing to a conflict of laws, diffi- 
 culties have intervened, much to the regret of those authorities, in giving 
 practical effect to these principles ; and for these difficulties some remedy has 
 been by all desired. It is no business of mine to enter upon the considera- 
 tion of them, nor have I sufficient information for the purpose ; but I trust 
 
you will excuse my addressing to you the inquiry, whether the Government 
 of the United States is now in a condition to secure, in effect and in practice, 
 the principle which has never been denied in argument, that individuals, act- 
 ing under legitimate authority, are not personally responsible for executing 
 the orders of their Government. That the power, when it exists, will be used 
 on every fit occasion I am well assured ; and I am bound to admit that, look- 
 ing through the voluminous correspondence concerning these transactions, 
 there appears no indisposition with any of the authorities of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment, under its several administrations, to do justice in this respect in as 
 far as their means and powers would allow. 
 
 I trust, sir, I may now be permitted to hope that all feelings of resentment 
 and ill will, resulting from these truly unfortunate events, may be buried in 
 oblivion, and that they may be succeeded by those of harmony and friend- 
 ship, which it is certauily the interest, and, I also believe, the inclination of 
 all to promote. 
 
 I beg, sir, you will be assured of my high and unfeigned consideration. 
 
 ASHBURTON. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, 
 
 4*c., ^c, t5'c. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 
 
 Department of State, 
 Washington^ August 6, 1842, 
 
 Your lordship's note of the 28th of July, in answer to mine of the 27th, 
 respecting the case of the "Caroline," has been received and laid before the 
 President. 
 
 The President sees with pleasure that your lordship fully admits those 
 great principles of public law, applicable to cases of this kind, which this 
 Government has expressed ; and that on your part, as on ours, respect for 
 the inviolable character of the territory of independent States, is the most 
 essential foundation of civilization. And while it is admitted, on both 
 sides, that there are exceptions to this rule, he is gratified to find that your 
 lordship admits that such exceptions must come within the limitations 
 stated and the terms used in a former communication from this Depart- 
 ment to the British Plenipotentiary here. Undoubtedly it is just, that while 
 it is admitted that exceptions growing out of the great law of self-defence 
 do exist, those exceptions should be confined to cases in which the "ne- 
 cessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice 
 of means, and no moment for deliberation." 
 
 Understanding these principles alike, the difference between the tv/o Gov- 
 ernments is only whether the facts in the case of the " Caroline" make out 
 a case of such necessity for the purpose of self-defence. Seeing that the 
 transaction is not recent, having happened in the time of one of his prede- 
 cessors ; seeing that your lordship, in the name of your Government, solemn- 
 ly declares that no slight or disrespect was intended to the sovereign au- 
 thority of the United States; seeing that it is acknowledged that whether 
 justifiable or not, there was yet a violation of the territoiy of the United 
 States, and that you are instructed to say that your Government consider 
 that as a most serious occuiTence ; seeing, finally, that it is now admitted 
 
15 
 
 that an explanation and apology for this violation was due at the time, the 
 President is content to receive these acknowledgments and assurances ia 
 the conciliatory spirit which marks your lordship's letter, and will make 
 this subject, as a complaint of violaliou of territory, the topic of no further 
 discussion between the two Governments. 
 
 As to that part of your lordship's note which relates to other occurrencee 
 springing out of the case of the "Caroline," with which occurrences the 
 name of Alexander McLeod has become connected, I have to say that the 
 Government of the United States entirely adheres to the sentiments and 
 opinions expressed in the communications from this Department to Mr. 
 Fox. This Government has admitted, that for an act committed by the 
 command of his sovereign, jure belli, an individual can not be responsible, 
 in the ordinary courts of another State. It would regard it as a high in- 
 dignity if a citizen of its own, acting under its authority, and by its special 
 command, in such cases, were held to answer in a municipal tribunal, and 
 to undergo punishment, as if the behest of his Government were no de- 
 fence or protection to him. 
 
 But your lordship is aware that in regular constitutional Governments, 
 persons arrested on charges of high crimes can only be discharged by some 
 judicial proceeding. It is so in England ; it is so in the colonies and prov- 
 inces of England. The forms of judicial proceeding differ, in different 
 countries, being more rapid in some and more dilatory in others ; and it 
 may be added, generally more dilatory, or at least more cautious, in cases 
 affecting life, in Governments of a strictly limited than in those of a more 
 unlimited character. It was a subject of regret that the release of McLeod 
 was so long delayed. A State court, and that not of the highest jurisdiction, 
 decided that, on summary application, embarrassed, as it would appear, by tech- 
 nical difficulties, he could not be released by that court. His discharge, shortly 
 afterward, by a jury, to whom he preferred to submit his case, rendered unne- 
 cessary the further prosecution of the legal question. It is for the Congress of 
 the United States, whose attention lias been called to the subject, to say what 
 further provision ought to be made to expedite proceedings in such cases; and, 
 in answer to your lordship's question toward the close of your note, I have to 
 say that the Government of the United States holds itself, not only fully dis- 
 posed, but fully competent, to carry into practice every principle which it 
 avows or acknowledges, and to fulfil every duty and obligation which it owes 
 to foreign Governments, their citizens, or subjects. 
 
 I have the honor to be, my lord, with great consideration, your obedient 
 servant, 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 Lord ASHBURTON, 
 
16 
 
 CASE OF THE " CREOLE." 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashhurton. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washifigto?i, August 1, 1842. 
 
 My Lord : The President has learned with much regiet that you are not 
 empowered by your Government to enter into a formal stipulation for the 
 better security of vessels of the United States, when meeting with disasters 
 in passing between the United States and the Baliama islands, and driven, 
 by such disasters, into British ports. This is a subject which is deemed to 
 be of great importance, and which can not, on the present occasion, be over- 
 looked. 
 
 Your lordship is aware that several cases have occurred within the last 
 few years which have caused much complaint. In some of these cases 
 compensation has been made by the English Government for the interfer- 
 ence of the local authorities with American vessels having slaves on board, 
 by which interference these slaves were set free. In other cases, such com- 
 pensation has been refused. It appears to the President to be for the interest 
 of both countiies that the recurrence of similar cases in future should be pre- 
 vented as far as possible. 
 
 Your lordship has been acquainted with the case of the " Creole," a vessel 
 carried into the port of Nassau last winter by persons who had risen upon the 
 lawful authority of the vessel, and, in the accomplishment of their purpose, 
 had committed murder on a person on board. 
 
 The opinions which that occurrence gave occasion for this Government to 
 express, in regard to the rights and duties of friendly and civilized maritime 
 states, placed by Providence near to each other, were well considered, and 
 are entertained with entire confidence. The facts in the particular case of 
 the " Creole " are controverted : positive and officious interference by the 
 colonial authorities to set the slaves free being alleged on one side and denied 
 on the other. 
 
 It is not my present purpose to discuss this difference of opinion as to the 
 evidence in the case, as it at present exists, because the rights of individuals 
 having rendered necessary a more thorough and a judicial investigation of 
 facts and circumstances attending the transaction, such investigation is under- 
 stood to be now in progress, and its result, when known, will render me more 
 able than at this moment to present to the British Government a full and 
 accurate view of the whole case. But it is my purpose, and my duty, to 
 invite your lordship's attention to the general subject, and your serious consid- 
 eration of some practical means of giving security to the coasting trade of the 
 United States against unlawful annoyance and interruption along this part of 
 their shore. The Bahama islands approach the coast of Florida within a few 
 leagues, and, with the coast, form a long and narrow channel, filled witli 
 innumerable small islands and banks of sand, and the navigation difficult and 
 
17 
 
 dangerous, not only on tliese accounts, but from the violence of the winds and 
 the variable nature of the currents. Accidents arc of course frequent, and 
 necessity often compels vessels of the United States, in attempting to double 
 Cape Florida, to seek shelter in the ports of these islands. Along this passage 
 the Atlantic States hold intercourse with the States on the Gulf and the Mis- 
 sissippi, and through it the products of the valley of that river (a region of 
 vast extent and boundless fertility) find a main oudet to the sea, in their desti- 
 nation to the markets of tlie world. 
 
 No particular ground of complaint exists as to the treatment which Amer- 
 ican vessels usually receive in these ports, unless they happen to have slaves 
 on board ; but, in cases of that kind, complaints have been made, as already 
 stated, of officious interference of the colonial authorities with the vessel, for 
 the purpose of changing the condition in which these persons are, by the 
 laws of their own country, and of setting them free. 
 
 In the southern Slates of this Union slavery exists by the laws of the States 
 and under the guarantee of the Constitution of the United States ; and ii 
 has existed in them from a period long antecedent to the tinre when they 
 ceased to be British colonies. In this state of things, it will happen that 
 slaves will be often on board coasting vessels, as hands, as servants attending 
 the families of their owners, or for the purpose of being carried from port to 
 port. For the security of the rights of their citizens, when vessels, having 
 persons of this description on board, are driven by stress of weather, or car- 
 ried by unhiwful force, into British ports, the United Stales propose the in- 
 troduction of no* new principle mto the law of nations. Tht;y require only 
 a faithful and exact observance of the injunctions of that code, as understood 
 and practised in modern times. 
 
 Your lordship observes that I have spoken only of American vessels driven 
 into British ports by die disasters of the seas, or carried in by unlawful force. 
 I confine my remarks to these cases, because they are the common cases, and 
 oecause they are the cases which the law of nations most emphatically ex- 
 empts from interference. The maritime law is full of instances of the ap- 
 plication of that great and practical rule, vv^hich declares that that which is 
 the clear result of necessity ought to draw after it no penalty and no hazard. 
 If a ship be driven, by stress of weather, into a prohibited port, or into an 
 open port, with prohibited articles on board, in neither case is any forfeiture 
 incurred. And what may be considered a still stronger case, it has been de- 
 cided by eminent English authority, and that decision has received general 
 approbation, that if a vessel be driven, by necessity, into a port strictly block- 
 aded, this necessity is good defence, and exempts her from penalty. 
 
 A vessel on the high seas, beyond the distance of a marine league from 
 the shore, is regarded as part of the territory of the nation to which she be- 
 longs, and subjected, exclusively, to the jurisdiction of that nation. If 
 against the will of her master, or owner, she be driven or carried nearer to 
 the land,pr even into port, those who have, or who ought to have, control over 
 her, struggling all the while to keep her upon the high seas, and so within 
 the exclusive jurisdiction of her own Government, what reason or justice is 
 there in creating a distincdon between her rights and immunities, in a posi- 
 tion, thus the result of absolute necessity, and the same rights and imnmni- 
 lies before superior power had forced her out of her voluntary course? 
 
 But, my lord, the rule of law, and the comity and practice of nations, go 
 much further than these cases of necessity, and allow even to a merchant 
 vessel, coming into any open port of another country voluntarily, for the 
 2 
 
18 
 
 purposes of lawful trade, to bring with her, and keep over her, to a very con- 
 siderable extent, the jurisdiction and authority of the laws of her own coun- 
 try, excluding- to this extent, by conse(}uence, the jurisdiction of the local 
 law\ A ship, say the publicists, though at anchor in a foreign harbor, pre- 
 serves its jurisdiction and its laws. It is natural to consider the vessels of a 
 nation as parts of its temtory, though at sea, as the state retains its jurisdic- 
 tion over them ; and, according to the commonly-received custom, this juris- 
 diction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a for- 
 eign dominion. 
 
 This is the doctrine of the law of nations, clearly laid down by writers of 
 received authority, and entirely conformable, as it is supposed, with the prac- 
 tices of modern nations. 
 
 If a murder be committed on board of an American vessel, by one of the 
 crew upon another or upon a passenger, or by a passenger on one of the crew 
 or another passenger, while such vessel is lying in a port within the jurisdic- 
 tion of a foreign state or sovereignty, the offence is cognizable and punishable 
 by the proper court of the United States, in the same manner as if such of- 
 fence had been committed on board the vessel on the high seas. The law of 
 England is supposed to be the, same. 
 
 It is true that the jurisdiction of a nation over a vessel belonging to it, 
 while lying in the port of another, is not necessarily wholly exclusive. We do 
 not so consider or so assert it. For any unlawful acts done by her while thus 
 lying in port, and for all contracts enfered into while there, by her master or 
 owners, she and they must doubtless be answerable to the law^s of the place. 
 Nor, if her master or crew, while on board in such port, break the peace of 
 the community by the commission of crimes, can exemption be claimed for 
 them. But, nevertheless, the law of nations, as I have staled it, and the 
 statutes of Governments founded on that law, as I have referred to them, 
 show that enlightened nations, in modem times, do clearly hold that the 
 JKrisdiction and laws of a nation accompany her ships, not only over the high 
 seas, but into ports and harbors, or wheresoever else they may be water-borne, 
 for the general purpose of governing and regulating the rights, duties, and 
 obligations of those onboard thereof, and that, to the extent of the exercise 
 of this jurisdiction, they are considered as parts of the territory of the nation 
 herself. 
 
 If a vessel 1)6 driven by weather into the ports of another nation, it would 
 hardly be alleged by any one that, by the mere force of such arrival within 
 the waters of the state, the law of that state would so attach to the vessel as 
 to affect existing rights of property between persons on board, whether arising 
 from contractor otherwise. The local law would not operate to make the 
 goods of one man to become the goods of another man. Nor ought it to affect 
 their personal obligations, or existing relations between themselves; nor was 
 it ever supposed to have such effect, until the delicate and exciting question 
 which has caused these interferences in the British islands arose. The local 
 law in these cases dissolves no o])ligations or relations lawfull}'' entered into or 
 lawfully existing according to the laws of the ship's country. If it did, inter- 
 course of civilized men between nation and nation must cease. Marriages 
 are frequently celebrated in one country in a manner not lawful or valid in 
 another ; but did anybody ever doubt that marriages are valid all over the 
 civilized world, if valid in the country in which tliey took place? Did any 
 one ever imagine that local law acted upon such marriages to annihilate 
 
19 
 
 their obligation, if the party should visit a country in which marriages must 
 be celebrated in another form ? 
 
 It may be said that, in such instances, personal relations are founded in con- 
 tract, and therefore to be respected ; l>ut that die relation of master and slave 
 is not founded in contract, and therefore is to be respected only by the law of 
 the place which recognises it. Whoever so reasons encounters the authority 
 of the whole body of public law from Grotius down; because there are nu- 
 merous instances in which the law itself presumes or implies contracts; and 
 prominent among these instances is the very relation which we are now consid- 
 ering and which relation is holden by law to draw after it mutuality of obliga- 
 tion. 
 
 Is not die relation between a father and his minor children acknowledged, 
 when they go abroad? And on what contract is this founded, but a contract 
 raised by general principles of law, from the relation of the parties? 
 
 Your lordship will please to bear in mind that the proposition which I am 
 endeavoring to support is, that by the comity of the law of nations, and the 
 practice of modern times, merchant vessels entering open ports of other na- 
 tions, for the piupose of trade, are presumed to be allowed to bring with, 
 ihem, and to retain, for their protection and government, the jurisdiction and 
 laws of their own country. All this, I repeat, is presumed to be allowed ; 
 because the ports are open, because trade is invited, and because, under 
 these circumstances, such pennission or allowance is according to genera! 
 usage. It is not denied that all this may be refused ; and this suggests a 
 distinction, the disaegard of which may perhaps account for most of the dif- 
 ficulties arising in cases of this sort ; that is to say, the distinction between 
 what a state may do, if it pleases, and what it is presumed to do, or not to 
 do, in the absence of any positive declaration of its will. A state might de- 
 clare that all foreign marriages should be regarded as null and void within 
 its ten-itory ; that a foreign father, aniving with an infant son, should no 
 longer have authority or control over him ; that, on the ai rival of a foreign 
 vessel in its ports, all shipping articles and all indentures of apprenticeship 
 between her crew and her owners or masters should cease to be binding. 
 These, and many other things equally irrational and absurd, a sovereign state 
 has doubtless the power to do ; but they are not to be presimied. It is not 
 to be taken for granted, ab ante^ that it' is the will of the sovereign state thus 
 to withdraw itself from the circle of civilized nations. It will be time enough 
 to believe this to be its intention, when it formally announces that intention 
 by appropriate enactments, edicts, or other declarations. 
 
 In regard to slavery within the British territories, there is a well-known, 
 and clear promulgation of the will of the sovereign authority ; that is to say , 
 there is a well-known rule of her law. As to England herself, that law has 
 long existed ; and recent acts of Parliament establish the same law for the 
 colonies. The usual mode of stating the rule of English law is, that no 
 sooner does a slave reach the shore of England than he is free. This is 
 true ; but it means no more than that when a slave comes within the exclu- 
 sive jurisdiction of England he ceases to be a slave, because the law of 
 England positively and notoriously prohibits and forbids the existence of 
 such a relation between man and man. But it does not mean that English 
 authorities, with this rule of English law in their hands, may enter where 
 the jurisdiction of another nation is acknowledged to exist, and there destroy 
 rights, obligations, and interests, lawfully existing under the authority of such 
 other nation. No such construction, and no "such effect, can be rightfully 
 given to the British law. It is true that it is competent to the Britfsh P^'- 
 
20 
 
 liament, by express statute provision, to declare that no foreign jurisdiction 
 of any kind should exist in or over a vessel after its airival voluntarily in her 
 ports. And so she might close all her ports to the ships of all nations. A 
 state may also declare, in the absence of treaty stipulations, that foreigners 
 shall not sue in her courts, nor travel in her territories, nor carry away funds 
 or goods received for debts. We need not inquire what would be the con- 
 dition of a country that should establish such laws, nor in what relation they 
 would leave her toward tJie states of the civilized world. Her power to 
 make such laws is unquestionable ; but, in the absence of direct and positive 
 enactments to that effect, (he presumption is that the opposites of these 
 things exist. While her ports are open to foreign trade, it is to be presumed 
 that she expects foreign ships to enter tliem, bringing with them the jurisdic- 
 tion of their own Govermnent, and the protection of its laws, to the same 
 extent that her ships and the ships of other commercial states carry with 
 them the jurisdiction of their respective Governments into the open porta of 
 the world ; just as it is presumed, while the contrary is not avowed, that 
 strangers may travel in a civilized country in a time of peace, sue in its 
 courts, and bring away their property. 
 
 A merchant vessel enters the port of a friendly state, and enjoys while 
 (here the protection of lier own laws, and is under the jurisdiction of her own 
 Government, not in derogation of the sovereignty of the place, but by the 
 presumed allowance or permission of that sovereignty. This permission or 
 allowance is founded on the comity of nations, like the other cases which 
 have been mentioned ; and this comity is part, and a most important and 
 valuable part, of the law of nations, to which all nations are presumed to 
 assent until they make their dissent known. In the silence of any positive 
 rule, affirming or denying or restraining the operation of foreign laws, their 
 tacit adoption is presumed, to the usual extent. It is upon this ground that 
 the courts of law expound contracts according to the law of the place in 
 which they are made; and instances almost innumerable exist, in which, by 
 the general practice of civilized countries, the laws of one will be recognised 
 and often executed in another. I^his is the comity of nations ; and it is upon 
 this, as its solid basis, that the intercourse of civilized states is maintaijied. 
 
 But while that which has now been said is understood to be the voluntary 
 and adopted law of nations, in cases of the voluntary entry of merchant ves- 
 sels into the ports of other countries, it is nevertheless true, that vessels ia 
 such ports, only through an overruling necessity, may place their claim for 
 exemption from interference on still higher principles; that is to say, princi- 
 ples held in more sacred regard by the comity, the courtesy, or indeed the 
 common sense of justice of all civilized states. 
 
 Even in regard to cases of necessity, however, there are things of an un- 
 friendly and offensive character, which yet it may not be easy to say that a 
 nation might not do. For example, a nation might declare her will to be, 
 and make it the law of her dominions, that foreign vessels, cast away on her 
 shores, should be lost to their owners, and subject to the ancient law of 
 wreck. Or a neutral state, while shutting her ports to the armed vessels of bel- 
 ligerants, as she has a right to do, might resolve on seizing and confiscating 
 vessels of that description, which should be driven to take shelter in her har- 
 bors by the violence of the storms of the ocean. But laws of this character, 
 however within the absolute competence of Governments, could only be pass- 
 ed, if passed at all, under willingness to meet the last responsibility to which 
 nations are subjected. 
 
21 
 
 The presumption is stronger, (lierefore, in regard lo vessels driven into 
 foreign ports by necessity, and seeking only temporary refuge, than in regard 
 to those vvliich enter them voluntarily, and for purposes of trade, that they 
 will not be interfered with; and that, unless they comnrit, while in port, 
 some act against the laws of the place, they will be permitted to receive sup- 
 plies to repair damages, and to depart unmolested. 
 
 If, therefore, vessels of the United States, pursuing lawful voyages, from 
 porJ to port, along their own shore, are driven by stress of weather, or carried 
 by unlawful force, into English ports, the Government of the United States 
 can not consent that the local authorities in those ports shall take advantage 
 ofsuch misfortunes, and enter them, for the purpose of interfering with the con- 
 dition of persons or things on board, as established by their own laws. If 
 slaves, the property of citizens of the United States, escape into the British 
 territories, it is not expected that they will be restored. In that case, the ter- 
 ritorial jinisdiction of England will have become exclusive over them, and 
 must decide dieir condition. But slaves on board of American vessels, lying 
 in British waters, are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of England; or 
 under the exclusive operation of "English law; and this founds lire broad dis- 
 tinction between the cases. If persons, guilty of crimes in tl^e United States, 
 seek an asylum in the British dominions, they will not be demanded, until 
 provision for such cases be made by treaty : because the giving-up of crimi- 
 nals, fugitive from justice, is agreed and understood to be a matter in which 
 every nation regulates its conduct according to its own discretion. It is no 
 breach of comity to refuse such surrender. 
 
 On the other hand, vessels of the United States, driven by necessity into 
 British ports, and staying there no longer than such necessity exists, violating 
 no law, nor having intent to violate any law, will claim, and there wnll be 
 claimed for them, protection and security, freedom from molestation, and from 
 all interference with the character or condition of persons or things on board. 
 In the opinion of the Governmentof the United States, such vessels, so driven 
 and so detained by necessity in a friendly port, ought to be regarded as still 
 pursuing their original voyage, and turned out of their direct course only by 
 disaster, or by wrongful violence; that they ought to receive all assistance 
 necessary to enable them to resume that direct course ; and that interference 
 and molestation by the local authorities, wheie the v/hole voyage is lawful, 
 both in act and intent, is ground for just and grave complaint 
 
 Your lordship's discernment and large experience in affairs cannot fail to 
 suggest to you how important it is to merchants and navigators engaged in 
 the coasting trade of a country so large in extent as the United States, that 
 they should feel sfecure against all but the ordinary causes of maritime loss. 
 The possessions of the two Governments closely approach each other. This 
 proximity which ought to make us friends and good neighbors, may, with- 
 out proper care and regulation, itself prove a ceaseless cause of vexation, 
 irritation, and disquiet. 
 
 If your lordship has no authority to enter into a stipulation by treaty for 
 the prevention of such occurrences hereafter as have already happened, oc- 
 currences so likely to disturb that peace between the two countries which it 
 is the object of your lordship's mission to establish and confirm, you may 
 still be so far acquainted with the sentiments of your Government as to be 
 able to engage that instructions shall be given to the local authorities in the 
 islands, which shall lead them to regulate their conduct in conformity with 
 the rights of citizens of the United States, and the just expectations of their 
 
22 
 
 Government, and in such manner as shall, in future, take away all reasonable 
 ground of complaint. It would be with tiie most profound regret that the 
 President should see that, while it is now hoped so many other subjects of 
 difference may be harmoniously adjusted, nothing should be done in regard 
 to this dangerous source of future collisions. 
 
 I avail myself of this occasion to renew to your lordship the assurances of 
 my distinguished consideration. 
 
 DAINIeL WEBSTER. 
 
 Jjord AsHBURTOisr, 
 
 4*c., t^'c, Sfc. 
 
 Lord Ashburtoii to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington', August 6, 1842. 
 
 Sir: You may be well assured that I am, duly sensible of the great im- 
 portance of the subject to which you call my attention in the note which 
 you did me the honor of addressing me the 1st instant, in which you inform me 
 that the President had been pleased to express his regret that I was not em- 
 powered by my Government to enter into a formal stipulation for the better 
 security of vessels of the United States, when meeting with disasters in pas- 
 sing between the United States and the Bahama islands, and driven by such 
 disasters into British ports. 
 
 It is, I believe, unnecessary that I should tell you that the case of the 
 Creole was known in London a few days only before my departure. No 
 complaint had at that time been made by Mr. Everett. The subject was 
 not, therefore, among those which it was the immediate object of my mission 
 to discuss. But at the same time I must admit that, from the moment I 
 was acquainted with the facts of this case, I was sensible of all its importance, 
 and I should not think myself without power to consider of some adjustment 
 of, and remed}' for, a great, acknowledged difficulty, if I could see my way 
 clearly to any satisfactory course, and if I had not arrived at the conclusion, 
 after very anxious consideration, that, for the reasojis which I will siute, this 
 ([uestion had better be treated in London, where it will have a much increas- 
 ed chance of settlement, on terms likely to satisfy the interests of the United 
 States. 
 
 The immediate case of the Creole would be easily disposed of; but in- 
 volves a class and description of cases which, for the purpose of affording 
 that security you seek for the trade of America through the Bahama channel, 
 brings into consideration questions of law, both national and international, of 
 the highest importance ; and, to increase (he delicacy and difficulty of the 
 subject, public feeling is sensitively alive to everything connected with it. 
 These circumstances bring me to the conviction that, although I really be- 
 lieve that much may be done to meet the wishes of your Government, the 
 means of doing so would be best considered in London, where immediate 
 reference may be had to the highest authorities, on every point of delicacy 
 and difficulty that may arise. Whatever I might attempt would be more or 
 less under the disadvantage of being fettered by apprehensions of responsibil- 
 ity, and I might thereby be kept within limits which my Government at 
 lionie might disregard. In other words, I believe you would have a better 
 
23 
 
 ehance iu this settlement with tlietn than with me. I state this after soma 
 imperfect endeavors, by correspondence, to come at satisfactory explanations. 
 If I were in tliis instance treatin<T of ordinary material interests, I should pro- 
 ceed with more confidence; but anxious as 1 mifeignedly am that all ques- 
 tions likely to disturb the future good understanding between ns should be 
 averted, 1 strongly reconunend this cjuestion of the security of the }3ahama 
 channel being referred for discussion in London. 
 
 This opinion is more decidedly confirmed by your very elaborate and im- 
 portant argimient on the application of the general principles of the law of 
 nations to these subjects — an argument to which your authority necessarily 
 gives great weight, but in which I would not presume to follow you with my 
 own itnperfect means. Great Britain and the United States, covering all the 
 seas of the world with their commerce, have the greatest possible interest in 
 maintaining sound and pure principles of international law, as well as the 
 practice of reciprocal aid and good offices in ail their harbors and possessions. 
 With respect to the latter, it is satisfactory to know that the disposition of the 
 respective Governments and people leaves little to be desired, with the single 
 ^exception of those very delicate and perplexing questions which have recently 
 arisen from the state of slavery, and even these seem confined, and likely lo 
 continue to be confined, to the narrow passage of the Bahama channel. At 
 no other part of the British possessions are American vessels with slaves ever 
 likely to touch, nor are they likely to touch there otherwise than from the 
 pressure of very urgent necessity. The difficulty, therefore, as well as the 
 desired remed3', is apparently confined within narrow limits. 
 
 Upon the great general principles affecting this case we do not differ. You 
 adn)it that if slaves, the property of American citizens, escape into British 
 territories, it is not expected that they will be restored ; and you maybe well 
 assured that there is no wish on our part that they should reach our shores, 
 or (hat British possessions should be used as decoys for the violators of the 
 laws of a friendly neighbor. 
 
 When these slaves do reach us, by whatever means, there is no alternative. 
 The present state of British law is in this respect too well known lo require 
 repetition, nor need I remmd you that it is exactly the same with the laws of 
 every part of the United Statjs where a state of slavery is not recognised ; 
 and that the slave put on shore at Nassau would be dealt with exactly as 
 would a foreign slave landed, under any circumstances whatever, at Boston. 
 
 But what constitutes the being within British dominion, from wliich these 
 consequences are to follow? Is a vessel passing through the Bahama chan- 
 nel, and forced involuntarily, either from storm or mutiny, into British waters, 
 to be so considered ? What power have the authorities of those islands to 
 take cognizance of persons or property in such vessels? These are questions 
 which you, sir, have discussed at great length, and with evident ability. Al- 
 though you have advanced some propositions which rather surprise and startle 
 me, I do not pretend to judge them ; but what is very clear is, that great 
 principles are involved in a discussion which it would ill l)ecome me lightly 
 to enter upon ; and I am confirmed by this consideration in wishing that the 
 subject be referred to where it will be perfectly v^eighed and examined. 
 
 It behooves the authorities of om' two Governments well to guard them- 
 selves against establishing by their diplomatic intercourse false precedents and 
 principles, and that they do not, for the purpose of meeting a passing diffi- 
 <:ulty, set examples which may hereafter mislead the world. 
 
 It is not intended on this occasion to consider in delail the particular in- 
 
24 
 
 stances which have given rise to these discussions. They have already beea^ 
 stated and explained. Our object is rattier to look to the means of future 
 prevention of such occurrences. That this may be obtained, I liave Htile 
 doubt, ahhough we may not be able in)mediatt'ly to agree on the precise 
 stipulations of a treaty. On the part of Great Britain, there are certain great 
 principles too deeply rooted in the consciences and sympathies of the people 
 for any minister to be able to overlook; and any engagenient I might make 
 in opposition to them would be instantly disavowed; but, at the same time 
 that we maintain our own laws within our own territories, we are bound to 
 respect those of our neighbors, and to listen to every possible suggestion of 
 means of averting from them every annoyance and injury. I have great 
 confidence that this may be effectually done in the present instance ; but the 
 case to be met and remedied is new, and must not be too hastily dealt with. 
 You may, however, be assured that measures so important for the preserva- 
 tion of friendly intercourse between the two countries shall not be neglected. 
 
 In the meantime, I can engage that instructions shall be given to the 
 Governors of her majesty's colonies on the southern borders of the United 
 States to execute their own laws with careful attention to the wish of their 
 Government to maintain good neighborhood, and that there shall be no 
 officious interference with American vessels driven by accident or by 
 Adolence into those ports. The laws and duties of hospitality shall be 
 executed, and these seem neither to re([uire nor to justify any further inqui- 
 sition into tlie state of persons or things on board of vessels so situated, 
 than may be indispensable to enforce the observance of the municipal law 
 of the colony, and the proper regulation of its harbors and wafers. 
 
 A strict and careful attention to these rules, applied in good faith to 
 all transactions as they arise, will, I hope and believe, without any aban- 
 donment of great and general principles, lead to the avoidance of any 
 excitement or agitation on this very sensitive subject of slavery, and, conse- 
 quently, of those irritatmg feelings which may have a tendency to bring 
 into peril all the great interests connected with the maintenance of peace. 
 
 I further trust that friendly sentiments, and a conviction of the importance 
 of cherishing them, will, on all occasions, lead the tw^o countries to consider 
 favorably any further arrangements which may be judged necessary for the 
 laciprocal protection of their interests. 
 
 1 hope, sir, that this explanation on this very important subject will be 
 satisfactory to the President, and that he will see in it no diminution of 
 that earnest desire, which you have been pleased to recognise in me, to 
 perform my work of reconciliation and friendship; but that he will rather 
 perceive in my suggestion, in this particular instance, that it is made with 
 a well-founded hope of thereby better obtaining the object we have in view^ 
 
 I beg to renew to you, sir, the assurances of my high consideration. 
 
 ASHBURTON. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, 4'c., 4*c., ^'c. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord AsJiburton. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, August 8, 1842. 
 My Lord : I have tiie honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lord- 
 ship's note of the 6th instant, in answer to mine of the 1st, upon the subjecj, 
 
25 
 
 of a stipulation for the better secnrit)'^ of American vessels driven by accidenS 
 or carried by force into the British West India ports. 
 
 The President would have been gratified if you had felt yourself at liberty 
 to proceed at once to consider of some projier arrangement, by formal treaty, 
 for this object ; but there may be weight in the reasons which you urge for 
 referring such mode of stipulation for consideration in London. 
 
 The President places his reliance on those principles of public law which 
 were stated in my note to your lordship, and which are regarded as equally 
 well founded and important; and on your lordship's engagement that in- 
 structions shall be given to the Governors of her majesty's colonies to execute 
 their own laws wiih careful attention to the wish of their Government to 
 maintain good neighborhood, and that there shall be no officious interference 
 with American vessels driven by accident or by violence into those ports ; 
 that the laws and duties of hospitality shall be executed, and that these seem 
 neither to require nor to justify any further inquisition into the slate of per- 
 sons or things on board of vessels so situated than may be indispensable to 
 enforce the observance of the municipal law of the colony, and the proper 
 regulation of its harbors and waters. He indulges the hope, nevertheless, 
 that, actuated by a just sense of wdrat is due to the mutual interests of the 
 two countries, and the maintenance of a permanent peace between them, 
 her majesty's Government w^ill not fail to see the importance of removing, by 
 such further stipulations, by treaty or otherwise, as may be found to be ne- 
 cessary, all cause of complaint coimected with this subject. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lordship's obedient 
 servant, 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 Lord Ashburton, 4*c.j <Scc., <^c. 
 
26 
 
 IMPRESSMENT. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Was/ii7iffto7i, August 8, 1842. 
 
 My Lord : We have had several conversations on the subject of impress- 
 jnent, but I do not understand that your lordship has instructions from your 
 Government to negotiate upon it, nor does the Government of the United 
 States see any utility in opening such negotiation, unless the British Govern- 
 ment is prepared to renounce the practice in all future wars. 
 
 No cause has produced, to so great an extent, and for so long a period, dis- 
 turbing and irritating influences on the political relations of the United 
 States and England as the impressment of seamen by British cruisers from 
 American merchant vessels. 
 
 From the commencement of the French revolution to the breaking out 
 of the war between the two countries in 1812, hardly a year elapsed without 
 loud complaint and earnest remonstrance. A deep feeling of opposition to the 
 right claimed, and to the practice exercised under it, and not unfrequently 
 exercised without the least regard to what justice and humanity would have 
 dictated, even if the right itself had been admitted, took possession of the 
 public mind of America, and this feeling, it is well known, co-operated most 
 powerfully with other causes to produce the state of hostilities which ensued. 
 
 At dilferent periods, both before and since the war, negotiations have taken 
 place between the two Governments, with the hope of finding some means 
 of quieting these complaints. At some times, the effectual abolition of the 
 practice has been requested and treated of; at other times, its temporary sus- 
 pension ; and, at other times again, the limitation of its exercise and sora© 
 security against its enormous abuses. 
 
 A common destiny has attended these efforts; they have all failed. The 
 question stands at this moment where it stood fifty years ago. The nearest 
 approach to a settlement was a convention proposed in 1803, and which had 
 come to the point of signature, when it was broken of! in consequence of the 
 British Government insisting that the narrow seas should be expressly ex- 
 cepted, out of the sphere over which the contemplated stipulations against, 
 impressment should extend. The American minister, Mr. King, regarded 
 this exception as quite inadmissible, and chose rather to abandon the nego- 
 tiation than to acquiesce in the doctrine which it proposed to establish. 
 
 England asserts the right of impressing British subjects, in time of war, 
 out of neutral merchant vessels, and of deciding by her visiting officers, who, 
 among the crews of such merchant vessels, are British subjects. She asserts 
 this as a legal exercise of the prerogative of the crown; which prerogative is 
 alleged to be founded on the English law of the perpetual and indissoluble 
 allegiance of the subject, and his obligation, under all circumstances, and (o 
 his whole life, to render military service to the crown whenever required. 
 
 This statement, made in the words of eminent British jurists, shows, at 
 once, that the English claim is far broader than the basis or platform on 
 which it is raised. The law relied on is English law ; the obligations insisted 
 
27 
 
 on are obligations existing between the crown of England and its subjects. 
 This law and these obUgations, it is admitted, may be such as England may 
 choose they shall be. But then they must be confined to the parties. Im- 
 pressment of seanien, out of and beyond English territory, and from on board 
 ihe ships of other nations, is an interference with the rights of other nations; 
 is further, therefore, than English prerogative can legally extend; and is 
 nothing but an attempt to enforce the peculiar law of England beyond the do- 
 minions and jurisdiction of the crown. The claim asserts an extra-territorial 
 authorit)'^ for the law of British prerogative, and assumes to exercise this ex- 
 tra-territorial authority, to the manifest injur}' and annoyance of the citizens 
 and subjects of other States, on board their own vessels on the high seas. 
 
 Every merchant vessel on the seas is rightfully considered as part of the 
 territory of the country to which it belongs. The entry, therefore, into such 
 vessel, being neutral, by a belligerant, is an act of force, and [■a^ pr i ma facie y 
 a wrong, a trespass, which can be justified only when done for some purpose, 
 allowed to form a sufficient justification by the law of nations. But a British 
 cruiser enters an American nierchant vessel in order to take therefrom supposed 
 British subjects; offering no justification therefor, under the law of nations, 
 but claiming the right under the law of England respecting ihe King's pre- 
 rogative. This can not be defended. English soil, English territory, English 
 jurisdiction, is the appropriate sphere for the operation of English law. The 
 ocean is the sphere of the law of nations; and any merchant vessel on the 
 seas is, by that law, under the protection of the lav/s of her own nation, and 
 may claim immunity, unless in cases in which that law allows her to be en- 
 tered o^ visited. 
 
 If this^notion of perpetual allegiance, and the consequent power of the pre- 
 rogative, was the law of the world ; if it formed part of the conventional code 
 of nations, and was usually practised like (he right of visiting neutral ships, 
 for the purpose of discovering and seizing enemy property, then impressment 
 might be defended as a common right, and tiiere would be no remedy for the 
 evil till the national code should be altered. But this is by no means the 
 case. , There is no such principle incorporated into the code of nations. The 
 doctrine stands only as English law — not as national law; and English law 
 can not be of force beyond English dominion. Whatever duties or relations 
 that law creates between the sovereign and his subjects, can be enforced and 
 maintained only withm the realm, or proper possessions or territory of the 
 sovereign. There may be quite as just a prerogative right to the jiroperty of 
 subjects as to their personal services, in an exigency of the State; but no 
 Government thinks of controlling by its own laws property of its subjects sit- 
 uated abroad; much less does any Government think of entering the territory 
 of another power for the purpose of seizing such property and applying it to 
 its own uses. As laws, the prerogatives of the crown of England have no 
 obligation on persons or property don)iciled or situated abroad, 
 
 " When, therefore," says an authority not unknown or unregarded on either 
 side of the Atlantic, " we speak of the right of a state to bind its ov/n native 
 subjects every where, we speak only of its own claim and exercise of sover- 
 eignty over them, when they return within its own territorial jurisdiction, and 
 not of its right to compel or require obedience to such laws, on the part of 
 otber nations, within their own territorial sovereignty. On the contrary, every 
 nation has an exclusive right to regulate persons and things within its owa 
 territory, according to its sovereign will and public polity." 
 
 The good sense of these principles, their remarkable pertinency to the sub- 
 
28 
 
 ect now under consideration, and the extraordinary consequences resulting' 
 from the British doctrine, are signally manifested by that which we see taking 
 place every day. England acknowledges herself over-burdened with popu- 
 lation of the poorer classes. Every instance of the emigration of persons of 
 those classes is regarded by her as a benefit. England, iherefore, encourages 
 emigration; means are notoriously supplied to emigrants to assist tlieir con- 
 veyance, from public funds; and the new world, and most especially these 
 United States, receive the many thousands of her subjects thus ejected from 
 the bosom of their native land by the necessities of tlieir condition. They 
 come away from poverty and distress, in over-crowded cities, to seek employ- 
 ment, comfort, and new homes, in a country of free institutions, possessed by 
 a kindred race, speaking their own language, and having laws and usages in 
 many respects like those to which they have been accustomed; and a country 
 which, upon the whole, is found to possess more attractions for persons of 
 their character and condition than any other on the face of the globe. It is 
 stated that in the quarter of the year ending with June last, more than twenty- 
 six thousand emigrants left the single port of Liverpool for the United States,, 
 being four or five limes as many as left the same port within the same period 
 for the British colonies and ail other parts of the world. Of these crowds of 
 emigrants, many arrive in our cities in circumstances of great destitution, and' 
 the charities of the country, both public and private, are severely taxed to re- 
 lieve their immediate wants. In time they mingle with the new community 
 in which they find themselves, and seek means of living; some find employ- 
 ment in tlie cities, others go to the frontiers, to cultivated lands reclaimed 
 from the forest; and a greater or less number of the residue, becoming in time 
 naturalized citizens, enter into the merchant service, under the flag of their 
 adopted country. 
 
 Now, my lord, if war should break out between England and a European 
 power, can anything be more unjust, anything more irreconcilable to the 
 general sentiments of mankind, than that England should seek out these 
 persons, thus encouraged by her, and compelled by their own condition to 
 leave their native homes, tear them away from their new employments, 
 their new political relations, and their domestic connexions, and force 
 them to undergo the dangers and hardships of military service, for a 
 country which has thus ceased to be their own country? Certainly, cer- 
 tainly, my lord, there can be but one answer to this question. Is it not far 
 more reasonable that England should either prevent such emigration of her 
 subjects, or that, if she encourage and promote it, she should leave them, 
 not to the embroilment of a double and a contradictory allegiance, but to 
 their own voluntary choice, to form such relations, political or social, as 
 they see fit, in the country where they are to find their bread, and to the 
 laws and institutions of which they are to look for defence and pro- 
 tection? 
 
 A question of such serious importance ought now to be put at rest. If 
 the United States give shelter and protection to those whom the policy 
 of England annually casts upon their shores — if, by the benign influences 
 of their Government and institutions, and by the happy condition of the 
 country, those emigrants become raised from poverty to comfort, finding it 
 easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake in the en- 
 joyment of all civil rights — if all this may be done (and all this is done, 
 under the countenance and encouragement of England herself), is it not 
 high time, my lord, that, yielding that which had its origin in feudal ideas 
 
29 
 
 as inconsistent with the present state of society, and 
 intercourse and relations subsisting between the old w . , 
 
 England should, at length, formally disclaim all right to ,oes of 
 
 such persons, and renounce all control over their conduct? 
 
 But impressment is subject to objections of a much wider range. If it 
 could be justilied in its application to those who are declared to be its only 
 objects, it Iftill remains true that, in its exercise, it touches the political 
 rights of other governments, and endangers the security of their own native 
 subjects and citizens. The sovereignty of the state is concerned in main- 
 taining its exclusive jurisdiction and possession over its merchant ships on 
 the seas, except so far as the law of nations justifies intrusion upon that 
 possession for special purposes; and all experience has shown thai no 
 member of a crew, v/herever born, is safe against impressment when a 
 ship is visited. 
 
 The evils and injuries resulting from the actual practice can hardly be 
 overstated, and have ever proved themselves to be such as should lead to 
 its relinquishment, even if it were founded in any defensible principle. 
 The difficulty of discriminating between English subjects and American 
 citizens has always been found to be great, even when an honest purpose 
 of discrimination has existed. But the lieutenant of a man-of-war, having 
 necessity for men, is apt to be a sunnnary judge, and his decisions will be 
 quite as significant of his own wants and his own power as of the truth 
 and justice of the case. An extract from a letter of Mr. King, of the 13th 
 of April, 1797, to the American Secretary of State, shows something of 
 the enormous extent of these wrongful seizures : 
 
 "Instead of a few, and these in many instances equivocal cases, I have," 
 says he, " since the month of July past, made application for the discharge, 
 from British men-of-war, of two hundred and seventy-one seamen, who, 
 stating themselves to be Americans, have claimed my interference. Of this 
 number eighty-six have been ordered by the Admiralty to be discharged, 
 thirty-seven more have been detained as British subjects or as American 
 volunteers, or for want of proof that they are Americans, and to my appli- 
 cations for the discharge of the remaining one hundred and forty-eight, I 
 have received no answer — the ships on board of which these seamen were 
 detained having, in many instances, sailed before an examination was 
 made in consequence of my application. 
 
 " It is certain that some of those who have applied to me are not Ameri- 
 can citizens, but the exceptions are, in my opinion, few, and the evidence, 
 exclusive of certificates, has been such as, in most cases, to satisfy me tliat 
 the applicants were real Americans, who have been forced into the British 
 service, and \^ho, with singular constancy, have generally persevered in re- 
 fusing pay or bounty, though in some instances they have been in service 
 more than two years." 
 
 But the injuries of impressment are by no means confined to its imme- 
 diate subjects or the individuals on whom it is practised. Vessels sutler from 
 the weakening of their crews, and voyages are often delayed, and not unfre- 
 quently broken up, by subtraction from the number of necessary hands by im- 
 pressment. And what is still of greater and more general moment, the fear 
 of impressment has been found to create great difficulty in obtaining sailors 
 for the American merchant service in times of European war. Seafaring 
 men, otherwise inclined to enter into that service, are, as experience has 
 shown, deterred by the fear of finding themselves ere long in compulsory 
 
30 
 
 .1 British ships of war. Many instances have occurred, fully 
 V oof, in which raw seamen, natives of the United Slates, fresh 
 
 frori\ ..:> of agricuhure, entering for the first time on shipboard, have 
 
 been . essed before they made the land, placed on the declcs of British 
 men-of-war, and compelled to serve for years before they could obtain their 
 release, or revisit their country and their homes. Such instances become 
 known, and their effect in discouraging young men from engaging in the 
 merchant service of their country can neither be doubted nor wondered at. 
 More than all, my lord, the practice of impressment, whenever it has existed, 
 has produced not conciliation and good feeling, but resentment, exasperation, 
 and animosity, between the two great commercial countries of the world. 
 
 In the calm and quiet which have succeeded the late war — a condition 
 BO favorable for dispassionate consideration — England herself has evidently 
 seen the harshness of impressment, even when exercised on seamen in her 
 own merchant service, and she has adopted measures calculated, if not to re- 
 nounce the power or to abolish the practice, yet, at least, to supersede its ne- 
 cessity by other means of manning the royal navy, more compatible with 
 justice and the rights of individuals, and far more conformable to the spirit 
 and sentiments of the age. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the Government of the United States has used 
 the occasion of your lordship's pacific mission to review this whole subject, 
 and to bring it to your notice and that of your Government. It has reflected 
 on the past, pondered the condition of the present, and endeavored to anti- 
 cipate, so far as might be in its power, the probable future ; and I am now to 
 communicate to your lordship the result of these deliberations. 
 
 The American Government, then, is prepared to say that the practice of 
 impressing seamen from American vessels can not hereafter be allowed to 
 take place. That practice is founded on principles which it does not recog- 
 nise, and is invariably attended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and 
 of such formidable magnitude, as can not be submitted to. 
 
 In the early disputes between the two Governments on this so long-con- 
 tested topic, the distinguished person to whose hands were first intrusted the 
 seals of this Department declared, that " the simplest rule will be, that the 
 vessel being American shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such." 
 
 Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotiations, and a 
 careful reconsideration now had, of the whole subject at a moment when the 
 passions are laid, and no present interest or emergency exists to bias the 
 judgment, have fully convinced this Government that this is not only the 
 simplest and best, but the only rule, which can be adopted and observed, 
 consistently with the rights and honor of the United States and the security 
 of their citizens. That rule announces therefore, what will hereafter be the 
 principle maintained by their Government. In every regulaily documented 
 American merchant vessel the crew who navigate it will find their protection 
 in the flag which is over them. 
 
 This announcement is not made, my lord, to revive useless recollections 
 of the past, nor to stir the embers ixom fires which have been, in a great de- 
 gree, smothered by many years of peace. Far otherwise. Its purpose is to 
 extinguish those fires effectually, before new incidents arise to fan them into 
 flame. The communication is in the spirit of peace, and for the sake of 
 peace, and springs from a deep and conscientious conviction that high inter- 
 ests of both nations require that this so-long-contested and controverted sub- 
 eci should now be finally put to rest. I persuade myself, my lord, that you 
 
31 
 
 ■will do justice to this frank and sincere avowal of motive 
 communicate your sentiments, in this respect, to your Gov 
 
 This letter closes, ray lord, on my part, our ofticial cori / and 
 
 I gladly use the occasion to offer you the assurance of my higw sincere 
 
 regard. 
 
 Lord ASHEURTON', <:5*C-5 ^'C-, <^'c. 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 t 
 Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, August 9, 1842. 
 
 Sir ; The note you did me the honor of addressing me the 8th instant, on 
 the subject of impressment, shall be transmitted without delay to my Gov- 
 ernment, and will, you may be assured, receive from them the deliberate at- 
 tention which its importance deserves. 
 
 The object of my mission was mainly tlie settlement of existing subjects of 
 difference, and no diflerences have or could have arisen of late years with re- 
 flpect to impressment, because the practice has since the peace wholly ceased 
 and can not, consistently with existing laws and regulations for manning her 
 majesty's navy, be, under the present circumstances, renewed. 
 
 Desirous, however, of looking far forward into futurity to anticipate even 
 possible causes of disagreement, and sensible of tlie anxiety of the American 
 people on this grave subject of past irritation, I should be sorry in any way 
 to discourage the attempt at some settlement of it; and, although without 
 authority to enter upon it here during the limited continuance of my mission, 
 J entertain a confident hope that this task may be accomplished, when un- 
 dertaken, with the spirit of candor and conciliation which has marked all our 
 late negotiations. 
 
 It not being our intention to endeavor now to come to any agreement 
 on this subject, I may be permitted to abstain from noticing, at length, your 
 very ingenious arguments relating to it, and from discussing the graver mat- 
 ters of constitutional and international law growing out of them. These 
 enfficiently show that the question is one requiring calm consideration ; 
 though I must, at the same lime, admit that they prove a strong necessity of 
 some settlement for the preservation of that good understanding which, I 
 trust, we may flatter ourselves that our joint labors have now succeeded in 
 establishing. 
 
 I am well aware that the laws of our two countries maintain opposite prin- 
 ciples respecting allegiance to the sovereign. America, receiving every year, 
 by thousands, the emigrants of Europe, maintains the doctrine suitable to her 
 condition of the right of transferring allegiance at will. The laws of Great 
 Britain have maintained, from all time, the opposite doctrine. The duties of 
 allegiance are held to be indefeasible, and it is believed that this doctrine, 
 under various modifications, prevails in most, if not in all, the civilized states 
 of Europe. 
 
 Emigration, the modern mode by which the population of the world peace- 
 ably finds its level, is for the benefit of all, and eminently for the benefit of 
 humanity. The fertile deserts of America are gradually advancing to the 
 highest state of cultivation and production, while the emigrant acquires com- 
 fort which his own confined home could not afford him. 
 
(lything in our la\v3 or our practice on either side tending to 
 fch of providential humanitj^^ we could not be too eager to 
 pro\ ..^ ay ; but as this does not appear to be the case, we may safely 
 
 leave • part of (he subject without indulging in abstract speculations, hav- 
 ing no material practical application to matters in discussion between us. 
 
 But it must be admitted that a serious practical question does arise, or 
 rather has existed, from practices formerly attending the mode of manning the 
 British navy in times of war. The principle is, that all subjects of the crown 
 are in case of necessity bound to serve their country, and the sea-faring man 
 is naturally taken for the navail service. This is not, as is sometimes sup- 
 posed, any arbitrary principle of monarchical government, but one founded 
 on the natural duty of every man to defend the life of his country; and all 
 the analogy of your laws would lead to the conclusion that the same princi- 
 ple would hold good in the United States if their geographical position did 
 not make its application unnecessary. 
 
 The very anomalous condition of the two countries with relation to each 
 other here creates a serious dithculty. Our people are not distinguishable; 
 and owing to the peculiar habits of sailors, our vessels are very generally 
 manned from a common stock. It is difficult, under these circumstances, to 
 execute laws which at times have been thought to be essential for the exist- 
 ence of the country, without risk of injury to others. The extent and im- 
 portance of those injuries, however, are so formidable that it is admitted that 
 some remedy should, if possible, be applied ; at all events, it must be fairly 
 and honestly attempted. It is true that during tfie continuance of peace no 
 practical grievance can arise ; but it is also true that it is for that reason the 
 proper season for the calm and deliberate consideration of an important sub- 
 ject. I have much reason to hope that a satisfactory arrangement respecting 
 it may be made, so as to set at rest all apprehension and anxiety ; and I will 
 only further repeat the assurance of the sincere disposition of my Govern- 
 ment favorably to consider all matters having for their object the promoting 
 and maintaining undisturbed kind and friendly feelings with the United 
 States. 
 
 I beg, sir, on this occasion of closing the correspondence with you con- 
 nected with my mission, to express the satisfaction I feel at its successful ter- 
 mination, and to assure you of my high consideration and personal esteem 
 and regard. 
 
 ASHBURTON. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, 
 
 1 
 

 ^o 
 
 
 fe' 
 
 ^° 
 
 
 
 
 4^ '■.■'" 
 
 ' _ \ 
 
 
 ^<J>- o / 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 -> -> 
 
 
 
 *> 
 
 ,^* 
 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 
 
 . . . - ,0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .*f 
 
 
 ^%;jc 
 
 
 ^ ->?i/^%v^- ^^ -^ 
 
 
 « o ^ ^ 
 
 .^^ 
 
 A. 
 
 <. 
 
 o " o ^ ^ 
 
 '•^ 
 
 
 0^ 
 
 x^-n^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 ■tUC^ -^ , ' 
 
 ^^--^ 
 
 
 .^' 
 
 ■Nvirir^^ 
 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 .f 
 
 0- 
 
 ^ \^^.^^2>^^^ ^b^* '*^c 
 
 
 /(N^r.^:':. ^ ,^ 
 
 V 
 
 ' % c"^ 
 
 
 "r"^" 
 
 ■J-' ^^ 
 
 -0^ t-A^,*, 9. 
 
 -^ 
 
 . .vr"K?; 
 
 
 
 4 O 
 
 
 

 ,\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 <% 
 
 
 
 ■^ I 
 
 
 ^p^^-. 
 
 
 iV ... ^ 
 
 >°'-*-. -: 
 
 o'^ >. '■ 
 
 
 
 '^^ % 
 
 ! 7 .r 
 
 
 5^''"^ ^?^>^^^1' -^ %> 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 ■ 'i.^ " " " * *^>j 
 
 "O V" 
 
 
 ,4q 
 
 
 
 -^^ ^- .:^%^,:,^_ t<. ^ 
 
 V 
 
 J. ^•^^M-'^c ^ 
 
 ^^ o.^ %'^^^^ii^. ^0 ^ 
 
 
 
 *o. 
 
 
 ,(\\ .■ 
 
 4> 
 
 <<5v^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 '■*~M)'-'»'c 
 
 .V 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 -^^^^ '.,,- ^^^ 
 
 ■a? '<^ 
 
 "-OV'' 
 
 ^^'-^^. 
 
 •*• 
 
 
 /. 
 
 ^ 
 '^^ 
 
 
 V 
 
 4 O^ 
 ■a? -rfJ' 
 
 o 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 p^ ,c'.v.:.', -o^ 
 
 -s 
 
 
 ^0 
 
 .0 
 
 
 -^^0^ 
 
 o V 
 
 
 ^^-V. 
 
 
 
 v^ »*:o:.'^ G-^ 
 
 
 
 
 '£'!^' ^ <^ "-!^<^^* ^ \ "'•^^'^^' ^ - ^^ •^!'5i^ 
 
 1-^ . 
 
 
 .0^ .'-.'^ '^O. 
 
 ■iy^ .c ° " * 
 
 
 ^'if^iC^' 
 
 \. "' ^V .. % "o"" 4 
 
 ^^•^^. 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 U ,<^^ 
 
 s:-^ 
 
 l; 
 
 5;^^ jv]:}% 80 
 
 N. MANCHESTER, 
 INDIANA 46962 
 
 
 
 C" .' 
 
 .h' 
 
 
 
 0^ ^^