"There are a thousand reasons, founded upon common ancestry, upon language, upon institutions, and upon interest, why we should earnestly desire peace with the English people; but will their government permit it? This I doubt. England has great power, and she is not slow to exercise it. She has great pride, and she is not slow to indulge it. We are in the way both of her ambition and of her interest; and ambition and interest need never march far in search of pretexts for war.

"It becomes every American to ask, if he is prepared to yield this right of search. For myself, I think it is better to defend the outworks than the citadel; to fight for the first inch of territory rather than for the last; to maintain our honor when attacked, rather than to wait till we have none to be attacked or maintained; and such, I trust and hope, will be the unwavering determination of the government and of the country.

"What I anticipated, when I commenced this letter, has come to pass.. The documents called for by Colonel Benton have been sent into the Senate, as I perceive by the last papers. Your recent letter will now go out with the others, and reach the American people. I have no means of clearing myself from the difficulties you have spread round me, but by submitting my views, as you have submitted yours, to the decision of the country. I am now a private citizen. Twice, since I became such, you have presented to me, in elaborately prepared documents, your sentiments upon some important topics, arising out of the late late treaty. These documents now make part of the political history of the country. There are, therefore, no considerations of duty, nor of propriety, to restrain me from appealing to the same great tribunal to judge between us,—from endeavoring to redeem myself from some severe charges you have made against me. I have been written at, but the public have been written to. I shall, therefore, not hesitate to authorize the immediate publication of this letter, being little disposed to leave it to be buried in the archives of the Department of State.

"At the moment of signing my letter, the President's message of February 27th, 1843, respecting the treaty of Washington and the right of search, has reached me. I think every American should go with the President in his reprobation of this doctrine. I refer, however, to the message, to say, that had it been in my possession. when the body of this letter was prepared, I should have quoted

it instead of quoting the other messages, because in this the views are more elaborately prepared than in those, showing that the claim of visitation was perfectly comprehended by our government when this treaty was negotiated; that it was denounced as wholly inadmissible, and that the treaty was supposed to have made 'a practical settlement of the question.'

"One or two reflections force themselves upon my mind, which I shall submit to you, even at this late moment.

"In the first place, this claim to search our vessels, under the pretense of visiting them, though connected in its origin, or rather announced as connected, with the African slave trade, is co-extensive with the ocean. The principles upon which it rests, so far as they rest on any, are of universal application; for wherever a British cruiser meets a vessel bearing the American flag, such cruiser may wish to know if a 'grievous wrong' has been committed, and whether she is truly what she appears to be.

"Such are the necessary consequences of this doctrine, and such we now ascertain is the extent to which it is to be pushed. It is distinctly announced by Sir Robert Peel, in his late speech, that this right of visitation is not necessarily connected with the slave trade, and this is confirmed by the Times, which says, 'that this right has obviously no intrinsic or necessary connection with the slave trade,' and 'that it is a part of the marine code of nations.'

"How, then, could a conventional arrangement, obliging us to keep a squadron upon the coast of Africa, guard against its exercise, or supersede,' in the words of the message, any supposed necessity, or any motive, for such examination or visit?' Again: how could it guard against these effects, even if the operation of the doctrine were limited to search or visitation in slave trade latitudes? England said to us - We have made a treaty with France, by which we have a right to search her ships, and to send them in for condemnation, if they are engaged in the slave trade. If we can not search your ships, we can not execute this treaty, because a French vessel, by hoisting an American flag, will place herself beyond the reach of our cruisers; therefore, we shall visit your ships.

"Now, it is manifest, that our squadron upon the coast of Africa will not change in the slightest degree this state of things. A French vessel may still hoist an American flag, and thus protect a cargo of slaves, so far as this protects it, in any part of the great

ocean, from the African coast to the coast of Brazil. Is this squadron of eighty guns, or is any vessel of it, to be everywhere? And where it is not, what will prevent any ship from placing an American flag at its mast-head?

"I am stating, not defending, the British doctrine, and I do not enter here into those obvious considerations which demonstrate its fallacy and injustice. This I have attempted elsewhere, but with what success it does not become me to judge. I attempted to show, that because any of the 'states of Christendom' choose to form treaties for the attainment of objects, military, commercial, or philanthropic, such mutual arrangements give them no right to change the established laws of nations, and to stop and search our vessels upon the great highway of the world. It is the slave trade to-day, but it may be the sugar trade to-morrow, and the cotton trade the day after. But, besides, it is obvious that all the cases put by the British political casuists, in support of this new doctrine, are mere questions of identity, where he who does the deed and boards the vessel acts, not upon his right, but upon his responsibility, and, like the sheriff who arrests a person upon a writ, is justified, or not, according to the result.

"But it is clear that this claim, as asserted, is not at all inconsistent with our new treaty stipulation; that this stipulation does not render unnecessary the exercise of the claim; and, therefore, as it does not expressly, so neither does it by fair implication, 'make a practical settlement' of the question; nor does the eighth article' remove all possible pretext, on the ground of mere necessity, to visit and detain our ships upon the African coast, because of the alledged abuse of our flag by slave traders of other nations.'

"Very respectfully, &c.,

"Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,

"Secretary of State, Washington."

"LEW. CASS.

Mr. Webster never answered this letter. He merely informed General Cass, in a brief note, that he had glanced at portions of it, and, after more attentive perusal, if occasion required, he would reply to it at length. This "occasion" he never found: and, to this day, the reasoning and argument of General Cass stand without even an attempt at refutation.

The English ministry construed the clauses in the treaty of Washington as General Cass supposed they would. The important question of the right of search was left just where it was found when the negotiation was opened. The parties to the treaty differed in their understanding of its meaning, and the govern ment of Great Britain did not conceal its intention to deny the construction put upon it by the government of the United States. In fact, it went farther, and took the ground that the question of search did not enter into the negotiation, and was not even discussed and that, as for concession, it was neither asked nor given. And a denial of these high positions of Britain—reflecting as they do upon the conduct of our government, when Jefferson and Madison were in the ascendant-will be sought for in vain among the archives of the American government, for the four years preceding the advent of Mr. Polk to the Chief Magistracy. The apprehensions, therefore, entertained by General Cass, when he first saw the provisions of the treaty of Washington, were fully realized. It was the dictate of patriotism, and a proper regard for the honor of his country, and for the memory of the distinguished statesmen with whom he had been for so many years intimately and officially associated, that prompted him to retire from the American Legation at Paris. He did right, and so said the overwhelming voice of the people of the United States. With this cheering approbation, he could well bear with composure the attacks of his political opponents, and the abuse of foreign peers and presses.

CHAPTER XXIX.

General Cass retires from the French Court-Public Dinner-Arrival at Boston-Enthusiasm of the People Their Address to General Cass-Arrival at New York-Public Demonstrations-Letter of Mr. Dickerson-General Cass' Reply-The Public Press-Arrival at Washington-Tour to Detroit -Reception at Home.

When it was known in France that General Cass had asked leave to retire from the diplomatic service, his fellow-citizens from the United States, in France, were loud in their regrets. They were unanimous in sentiment relative to the course he had pursued on the quintuple treaty. They were proud of their Minister, and again and again congratulated him on the glorious result of his efforts. If in their power, they would prevail upon him to remain; but they were equally unanimous in sentiment, that a continuance of his residence at that court was incompatible with his own honor, and that his determination to embark for the United States, after they were advised of the treaty of Washington, was his only alternative. They, however, invited him to partake of a public dinner before his departure, as an evidence of their esteem. This was accepted, and the American consul at Havre, Mr. Beasley, presided at the festive board. So great was the desire to be present on this occasion, that many American residents and travelers, then in Paris, were unable to gain admission. The festivity terminated in the presentation of an elegant address to General Cass, to which he made a suitable response; and bidding them a hearty farewell, departed for the United States with his family, leaving Mr. Ledyard, the Secretary of the Legation, as charge d'affairs till a minister arrived.

After a short voyage across the ocean in the steamer Columbia, he landed in the city of Boston on the 6th of December, 1842, and on the succeeding day was greeted with the following letter, signed by numerous prominent citizens of this metropolis of New England, from the hands of a large committee.