ment of the highest judicial authority of the kingdom, declined also either to try the man taken up there, or to deliver him up, unless upon proof of his guilt being produced against him at the place where he was confined: with which condition, it not having been in our power to comply, the man remained there also in prison, presumably for life. From these incidents it is apparent that there is no uniformity in the modes of trial to which piracy by the law of nations is subjected in different European countries; but that the trial itself is considered as the right and the duty, only of the nation to which the vessel belongs, on board of which the piracy was committed. This was, however, a piracy committed on board of a vessel by its own crew. External piracies, or piracies committed by and from one vessel against another, may be tried by the courts of any country; but are more usually tried by those of the country whose vessels have been the sufferers of the piracy, as many of the Cuba pirates have been tried in the British West India Islands, and some of them in our courts.

This principle we should wish to introduce into the system by which the slave-trade should be recognized as piracy under the law of nations: namely, that although seizable by the officers and authorities of every nation, they should be triable only by the tribunals of the country of the slave-trading vessel. This provision is indispensable to guard the innocent navigator against vexatious detentions, and all the evils of arbitrary search. In committing to foreign officers the power, even in a case of conventional piracy, of arresting, confining and delivering over for trial a citizen of the United States, we feel the necessity of guarding his rights from all abuses, and from the application of any laws of a country other than his own.

The draft of a convention is herewith enclosed, which if

the British government should agree to treat upon this subject on the basis of a legislative prohibition of the slavetrade by both parties, under the penalties of piracy, you are authorized to propose and to conclude. These articles are, however, not offered to the exclusion of others, which may be proposed on the part of the British government, nor is any one of them, excepting the first, to be insisted on as indispensable, if others equally adapted to answer their purposes should be proposed. It is only from the consideration of the crime in the character of piracy that we can admit the visitation of our merchant vessels by foreign officers for any purpose whatever, and in that case only under the most effective responsibility of the officer for the act of visitation itself, and for everything done under it.

If the sentiments of the British government should be averse to the principle of declaring the trade itself by a legislative act piratical, you will not propose or communicate to them the enclosed project of convention. Its objects, you will distinctly understand, are twofold: to carry into effect the resolution of the House of Representatives, and to meet explicitly and fully the call so earnestly urged by the British government, that in declining the proposals pressed by them upon us, of conceding a mutual and qualified right of search, we should offer a substitute for their consideration. The substitute by declaring the crime piracy, carries with it the right of search for the pirates, existing in the very nature of the crime. But to the concession of the right of search, distinct from the denomination of the crime, our objections remain in all their original force.

It has been intimated by Mr. S. Canning, that the suggestion itself to the British government of the propriety of their passing a legislative act, might excite in them some repugnancy to it. We should regret the excitement of this

feeling, which the very nature of the negotiation seems to foreclose. Besides the legislative enactments which have virtually been pressed upon us by all the invitations to concede the right of search and to subject our citizens to trial for violations of our own laws by foreign tribunals, Great Britain in almost all her slave-trade treaties has required and obtained express stipulations for the enactment of prohibitory laws, by France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. It was not expected that she would receive with reluctance herself a mere invitation to that which she had freely and expressly required from others. Still, if the sentiment should exist, we would forbear pressing it to the point of irritation by importunity. You will in the first instance. simply state that if the British government is prepared to proclaim the slave-trade piracy by statute, you are authorized to propose and to conclude a convention, by which the mutual coöperation of the naval force of Great Britain and of the United States may be secured for carrying into effect the law, which on that contingency will be common to both. Should the obstacle to the preliminary prove insuperable, you will refer the objections on the part of the British cabinet to this government for consideration.

By the loose information hitherto communicated in the public journals, it would seem that the proposition for recognizing the slave-trade as piracy by the law of nations. was discussed at the Congress of Verona. We are expecting the communication of the papers relating to this subject, promised by Lord Liverpool to be laid before Parliament. Heretofore, although the United States have been much solicited and urged to concur in the measures of Great Britain and her allies for the suppression of the trade, they have been always communicated to us as purposes consummated, to which the accession of the United States was

desired. From the general policy of avoiding to intermeddle in European affairs, we have acquiesced in this course of proceeding; but to carry fully into effect the late resolution of the House of Representatives, and to pursue the discussion hereafter with Great Britain herself, whether upon her proposals or upon ours, it is obviously proper that communication should be made to us of the progress of European negotiation for accomplishing the common purpose, while it is in deliberation. If we are to coöperate in the result, it is just that we should be consulted at least with regard to the means which we are invited to adopt. I am, etc.1

SIR,

TO STRATFORD CANNING 2

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, 24 June, 1823.

In the letter which I had the honor of addressing you on the 31st of March last, a proposal was made to be submitted to the consideration of your government, that the principle assumed in an act of Congress of the United States of 15 May, 1820, of considering and punishing the African

1 In instructing Middleton to enter into negotiation with Russia on the suppression of the slave-trade, Adams wrote, July 28: "In the meantime you will informally suggest to his ministry, that it will be the desire of the government of the United States to proceed in this matter in perfect good understanding and harmony with them. And you will farther intimate that as this has now become a general concern of the whole civilized world; and as Great Britain is negotiating jointly and severally with each and every of her allies in Europe apart, and again with them all together, while she is also separately treating with us, we wish it to be considered whether it would not be expedient on all sides that communication should be made to us of all the jointly concerted measures, while they are mere proposals; and not that the knowledge of them should be withheld from us until they are matured into positive treaties."

2 For the cabinet discussion of this paper see Adams, Memoirs, June 19, 1823.

slave-trade as piracy, should be adopted as the basis of a stipulation by treaty between the United States and Great Britain; and to be urged separately, upon the adoption of France, and upon the other maritime nations of Europe in the manner most conducive to its ultimate success. It was observed that this offer was presented as a substitute for that of conceding a mutual right of search and a trial by mixed commissions, to which the United States could not be reconciled, and which would be rendered useless by it.

Your letter of the 8th of April, to which I have now the honor to reply, intimating that his Majesty's government will be disposed to receive this offer only as an acknowledgment that measures more efficient than any now generally in force are indispensable for the suppression of the slavetrade; and that although they have never opposed the consideration of any other plan, brought forward as equally effective, yet having from the first regarded a mutual limited concession of the right of search as the only true and practical cure for the evil, their prevailing sentiment will be of regret at the unfavorable view still taken of it by the government of the United States. Your letter therefore urges a reconsideration of the proposal for this mutual concession of the right of search, and by presenting important modifications of the proposal heretofore made, removes some of the objections which had been taken to it as insuperable, while it offers argumentative answers to the others which had been disclosed in my previous communications on this subject to you.

In the treaties of Great Britain for the suppression of the slave-trade with Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, heretofore communicated with the invitation to the United States to enter into similar engagements, three principles were involved, to neither of which the government of the United States felt itself at liberty to accede. The first was