would have been a wanton, destructive war. It would have reached the extremities of the globe. It would have paralyzed commerce, and depressed trade. Under the banner of no slave trade, the British navy would have roved the highway of nations, and under the banner of no search, it would have been met by the Americans. But, probably, despite every effort, the government of the United States would have been placed in a false position. England, backed by her powerful allies, would have made it appear that the United States was fighting to sustain a traffic in human flesh, which she and they were endeavoring to destroy. An immense treasure would have been expended, and thousands of lives sacrificed, to gain the mastery of the seas.

It was the winter of 1842, and the subject of the ratification of this monster treaty was to engage the attention of the French Chamber of Deputies. The British Minister was hand and glove with the leading members, and the British agents lent themselves to all the seductive appliances of the most refined diplomacy. It was already rumored in the French capital even, that the Secretary of State at Washington, Daniel Webster, belonged to a different class of statesmen from those who guided the high councils of the American Republic in the days of Jefferson and Madison, and that no fear need be entertained that the ratification would involve the powers in hostilities with this country. And to add poignancy to this reckless statement of the British employees, the hint was thrown out that with the change of the presidency followed a change of the diplomatic corps in all quarters of the world.

General Cass never felt the responsibility of official station more than at this crisis of his mission. Not certain how far he might venture to rely upon being sustained by his government at home, in the course which he felt it his duty to adopt in the emergency of the hour, he nevertheless at once resolved to act affirmatively. He had not time to write to Washington for instructions. Before a special bearer of dispatches could go and return, the legislative action so much desired by England, would have transpired, and appearances indicated that it would be favorable to that power. He deemed it necessary and proper to act on his own responsibility, and prevent, if possible, the consummation of her wishes.

Believing that if public sentiment could be reached, an effective

impression might be made upon the deputies, he, happily for his country, took an appeal direct to the people of France. This, in that land, and from such a source, was novel, and elicited the most vulgar epithets from the press of England. It was unanswerable; if not so, at any rate no attempt at an answer was made. It startled the minds of the intelligent. It tore off the mask, and displayed in full form the real object of the treaty. Citizens and legislators, hitherto favorable, stopped to read the appeal, and rose from its perusal indignant at the designs of the British cabinet. It produced the desired effect on public sentiment. With the publication of this document, he protested to the government, in firm and respectful language, against the ratification by the Chamber. Without this ratification, the treaty was shorn of its vigor and power. Because if France and the United States opposed, its provisions could not be enforced, although the other four powers should countenance it. The appeal and the protest were effectual, and the French government abandoned the project, having ascertained that the treaty would not be ratified by the Chamber of Deputies. This masterly movement of General Cass thwarted the design of the British government, by breaking up the conspiracy she was so carefully forming against the sovereignty of the United States upon the high seas. At the same time he preserved untarnished the honor of his country, and by his own action ensured the continuance of peaceful relations, not only with the government, but also with our old friend and ally.

The proceedings of our Minister on this occasion, and his appeal and argument upon a question of great import to the world, should receive the study and examination of every citizen of the United States. His examination of the right of search is comprehensive and instructive, and is, in fact, the only authoritative exposition of the American view of a subject which British statesmen have so often endeavored to complicate. The reasons given for the position of the United States upon the doctrine of search, or visitation simply, are so clearly and forcibly presented, that one would suppose it must have carried conviction to all minds not closed against the light of reason and the power of truth. And yet it is probable that the result of the deliberations of the Deputies might have been of a different complexion, had the American Minister been without influence at the court of Louis

Phillippe. The truth is, the king himself, in consequence of his previous action, was anxious for the ratification of the treaty. General Cass had penetrated the diplomacy of the British government, and had several private interviews with the king and M. Guizot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Before the publication of his pamphlet, he called upon M. Guizot, and expressed a wish, as the subject was important to his country, and not well understood, to prepare his views of it, and to spread them before the French public. M. Guizot said that he saw no objection to this course, and therefore General Cass can not be accused of taking an improper or an undiplomatic course. Indeed, he exerted himself to the utmost to break up the unholy alliance, and to his own great gratification personally, and to the honor of his country, and the uninterrupted prosperity of his fellow-citizens at home, he was signally triumphant.

Believing that this important labor constitutes one of the great epochs of his life, we transcribe the appeal to the French people entire in the succeeding chapter.

CHAPTER XXVI.

The Appeal of General Cass to the People of France.

PART I.—THE QUESTION STATED THE MOTIVES OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES.

The right of maritime search, now in discussion between the British and American governments, is a grave question, practically interesting to all nations to whom the freedom of the seas is dear, if not in its application to the subject which has been the cause or the pretext of its assertion, at any rate, from the consequences to which its use or abuse may lead. Its connection with the African slave trade is but incidental, and the nature of this traffic, which nowhere finds advocates, can not affect the nature of the question, nor the right of a state, nor of a combination of states, to make an interpolation into the law of nations, which shall become a part of that great public code. Great Britain professes to push this point, in order to destroy the yet existing relics of that trade. We do not question her motivesthat is no part of our purpose. But, in all general discussions, we must take human nature as it is, with the good and the bad blended together; and we may, without offense, fairly follow out the application of a principle, and seek its consequences to the parties. And we are at liberty, without violating any of the courtesies of a liberal controversy, to assume that neither can be indifferent to its bearing upon their interest, whatever motive of general benevolence may have led to the differGreat Britain is eminently a maritime and commercial nation, and the history of her naval progress, during the last century and a half, is pregnant with lessons for all people interested in the freedom of the seas. She has marched steadily on to her object. Naval superiority she has acquired, and naval supremacy she seeks. We say this in a spirit of truth, not of offense. Human ambition is everywhere, in some form or other, in ceaseless action; and, upon sea and land, the history of the past is but the warning of the future, and nations will strive, as they have striven, for power. It is impossible that the intelligent government and people of Great Britain should shut their eyes to the effect of this claim of a right of search upon their interests, whatever motives of philanthropy may have led to its first suggestion. To their flag it will give the virtual supremacy of the seas. We say virtual supremacy, because it would be found, in practice, that, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it would be her cruisers which would search the vessels of other nations.

ence.

During twenty-five years, the British government has urged the government of the United States to consent to this measure. The application has been steadily repelled and pertinaciously repeated. In the meantime, treaties have been formed, at various intervals, between Great Britain and some other nations, establishing a mutual right of search, and regulating the principles upon which it shall be exercised. Within a short time, five of the European powers, two of which have few

vessels upon the ocean, and, probably, not one on the coast of Africa, had reciprocally made themselves parties to a similar convention. "Great Britain," says the London journal, the Times, "has managed, by great exertion, to accomplish this object." We do not judge, if the expression is rightly chosen. It is certainly very significant. And now this principle of the right of search, in a time of profound peace, heretofore never claimed as a question of right, and so solemnly decided by the English Admiralty Judge, Lord Stowell, but sought, as a conventional arrangement, for the first time since the last general war in Europe, and established by treaties with several powers, as a matter to be regulated by themselves, is claimed by Great Britain to be a part of the law of nations, which she has both the right and the will to carry into effect, as a sort of custos morum for all the maritime powers of the world. "All our government contends for," says the Times, "is the mere right to act as constables in boarding suspicious ships, bearing the American flag." And who made England the great prefect of police of the ocean, searching and seizing at pleasure? And the United States, who have so long been asked to yield this point by convention, are now told that it is established without them and in spite of them; and the great ministerial English journal, the Times, in a leading article of its number of January 5th, 1842, after defending this interpolation into the law of nations, says that the European powers, parties to the last treaty, will not brook to be thwarted by any ordinary restiveness. It thus significantly concludes: "A single war with Great Britain she (the United States) has already tried; a war, on her part, with all Europe, will be a novelty."

There is certainly no want of frankness here. While the special Ambassador, Lord Ashburton, goes out with the professed objects of peace and conciliation, we are told in effect by this leading journal, that the United States have but one course to adopt, in order to avoid a war with the European world; and that is, submission to the demand of England. There are powers, parties to the late treaty upon this subject, which we shall not believe will make themselves parties to a war with the United States, until we actually hear the sound of their guns. Does the Times speak by permission, or by command, or by neither? Is this declaration a prophecy, as well as threat?

As to the suppression of the slave trade, it is a question which meets no opposition in the United States. The American government, if not the first, was among the first to give the example to the world of a legal prohibition of this traffic. As early as March 22d, 1794, they commenced their legislative measures for its repression, and in subsequent laws, passed 10th May, 1800, 28th February, 1803, 2d March, 1807, 20th April, 1818, and 3d March, 1819, they extended and enforced the provisions and penalties upon this subject, and rendered liable to heavy fines, and among other punishments, to an imprisonment of seven years, those who should be engaged in this nefarious pursuit. Their armed crusiers have permanent instructions to examine all the American merchant vessels they meet, and which they have reason to suspect; and their tribunals enforce these repressive laws with as much promptitude and impartiality as those of France or England enforce similar laws. That violations may occasionally occur, and that the American flag may be sometimes abused, we feel no disposition to deny,—not by the introduction of slaves into the United States, for that traffic is unknown, and would be impossible. We may venture to assert, that not a slave has been imported into the United States for thirty years. We would not be guilty of deception upon this subject, and if there is a single exception to this statement, we have never learned it. If American