own government effectual to its object; and that he has been cordially disposed to receive and follow up every information which I have laid before him concerning the mal-practices of the subjects of France in this traffic; but he seems, as yet, under great apprehension of the effect in France of any concession of the nature above suggested. The Duke, however, gave me every assurance of its being fully considered, and, as a means of doing so, his excellency desired me to furnish him with a memorandum, stating the substance of those explanations which I had given him of the question. I now have to transmit to your lordship a copy of this paper, and to assure you that I shall lose no opportunity, in conjunction with the Duke of Wellington, of following up, with zeal and perseverance, this important part of my instructions. I have the honor, &c. Earl BATHURST, &c. &c. CASTLEREAGH. FIRST ENCLOSURE IN No. 9. Protocol of the Conference between the Five Powers, held at Aix-la-Chapelle, the 24th October, 1818. Lord Castlereagh makes known to the conference the result hitherto obtained by the measures adopted for the general abolition of the trade in slaves, and the actual state of things in regard to this interesting question, distinguishing between the legal and the illegal trade. His excellency observed, that, since the convention of the 23d of September, 1817, by which Spain fixed the year 1820 for the final termination of this traffic, Portugal was the only power which had not explained itself as to the period of abolition. Lord Castlereagh added, that, whilst there was a state whose laws authorized the trade, if it were but partially, and a flag which could protect it, it would scarcely be possible to prevent the continuation of this commerce by contraband means, the increase of which had been very considerable of late years; and that, even when the slave trade should be prohibited by the laws of all civilized countries, an active and permanent surveillance could alone guaranty the execution of those laws. After this representation, Lord Castlereagh communicated several papers relative to the question, referring to the details already submitted to the ministers assembled in London. He at the same time explained his ideas: 1st. Upon the means of prosecuting the application of the principle of the legal abolition of the trade. 2d. Upon the means of insuring the execution of the laws and conventions relating to it. Relative to the first object, Lord Castlereagh proposed that a measure should be agreed upon to be taken with respect to the court of : : Rio de Janeiro, in order to induce it to explain itself as to the period it intended to fix for the final abolition of the trade. Relative to the second object, his Excellency proposed to adopt, generally, and in an obligatory form, the measures decreed by the last treaties between Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, and the kingdom of the Netherlands. These propositions were taken ad referendum, and it was agreed to resume the deliberation in a subsequent sitting. METTERNICH. CASTLEREAGH. SECOND ENCLOSURE IN No. 9. Note from Viscount Castlereagh to the Duke de Richelieu, dated Lord Castlereagh has the honor to enclose to the duke de Richelieu, the memorandum which he yesterday promised to submit to his excellency's consideration. Lord Castlereagh will be most happy to reply, without loss of time, to any queries which the duke de Richelieu will have the goodness to put to him on this subject; or to procure for his excellency any information which may appear to him material, and which lord Castlereagh may not have the means of immediately himself supplying. Lord Castlereagh requests the duke de Richelieu to accept the assurances of his distinguished consideration. THIRD ENCLOSURE IN No. 9. Memorandum. (A.) First-as to right of Visit. None of the three conventions signed by Great Britain with Spain, Portugal, and Holland, gives this right to King's ships indiscriminately. In all it is confined to king's ships, having the express instructions and authority, as specified in the treaty. The provision is, in all cases, reciprocal; but the treaty with the Netherlands restricts the exercise of this right to a specified number of ships of each power, not exceeding twelve in the whole. Each power, as soon as it grants these instructions to any of its ships of war, is bound to notify to the other the name of the vessel so authorized to visit. Second-Right of Detention. No visit or detention can take place, except by a commissioned officer having the instructions above referred to, as his special authority for the same; nor can he detain and carry into port any vessel so visited, except on the single and simple fact of slaves found on board. There is a saving clause to distinguish domestic slaves, actingas servants or sailors, from those strictly appertaining to the traffic. The powers mutually engage to make the officer personally responsible for any abusive exercise of authority, independent of the pecuniary indemnity to be paid, as hereafter stated, to the owner, for the improper detention of his vessel. Third-Adjudication. The visiting officer finding slaves on board, as he conceives, contrary to law, may carry the vessel into whichever of the two ports is the nearest, where the mixed commission belonging to the capturing and captured vessels shall reside; but by doing so, he not only renders himself personally responsible to his own government for the discretion of the act, but he also makes his government answerable to the government of the state to whom the vessel so detained belongs, for the full compensation, in pecuniary damage, which the mixed commission may award to the owners for the detention, if unjustifiably made. The mixed commission has no jurisdiction of a criminal character, and consequently can neither detain nor punish the persons found on board ships so detained, for any offences they may, by such slave trading, have committed against the laws of their particular state. The mixed commission has no other authority than summarily to deeide, whether the ship has been properly detained, or not, for having slaves illicitly on board. If this is decided in the affirmative, the ship and cargo, (if any on board) are forfeited, the proceeds to be equally divided between the two states; the slaves to be provided for by the state in whose territory the condemnation takes place. If the mixed commission orders the vessel to be released, it is required at the same moment to award such pecuniary compensation to the owners for the detention, as appears to them reasonable. A table of demurrage is given in the treaties, and the government of the detaining officer is bound to discharge the sum so awarded, without appeal, within twelve months. The mixed commission is composed of a commissary judge, and a commissary arbitrator, of each nation, as was provided in the convention signed between Great Britain and France, in 1815, for adjudicating the private claims. i Fourth. The Sphere of Operation. In the Spanish and Portuguese conventions, there is no other restriction as to the limits within which detention, as above, may take place, than what arose naturally out of the state of the laws, viz: That so long as either powers might lawfully trade in slaves, to the south of the equator, no detention should take place within those limits. In the convention with Holland, a line is drawn from the straits of Gibraltar to a point in the United States, so as to except out of the operation what may be called the European seas. In all these conventions, the whole range of voyage, from the coast of Africa, to the opposite shores of both Americas, including the West Indies, is subjected to the regulated surveillance thus established. Observations. Upon the first head, it does not occur that any further restrictions than those provided in the Netherlands' convention, can be required. But this is always open to negotiation. The same observation appears applicable to the second head. The same observation applies also to the third head, with this distinction; that a state, such as Austria for example, agreeing to the measure, but having little or no trade on that coast, instead of immediately going to the expense of constituting commissions, might reserve the power of doing so whenever she thought fit; or might be enabled, if she prefer it, to authorize the commissioners of any other state to take cognizance in her name, of any cases in which the property of Austrian subjects might be concerned. The fourth head seems most susceptible of comment, as it admits the possibility of search over the whole surface of the Atlantic, and in the West Indian seas, where the trading vessels of commercial states are more numerous than on the coast of Africa. Great Britain was herself so fully satisfied, that under the checks established, abuse is so little to be presumed, that she did not hesitate to expose her own commerce in those seas, however extended, to this, as she conceives, imaginary inconvenience; considering that so urgent a claim upon her humanity would not only justify, but impose upon her as a moral duty even a greater sacrifice. But notwithstanding what Great Britain has already done in her treaties with the three powers, with whom she has contracted, and is ready to do with all other civilized states, namely, to run some risk of inconvenience for so noble a purpose, there is a distinction which may reasonably be taken between giving effect to this system upon the coast of Africa, and for a certain distance, say 200 leagues from that particular coast, and the extending the same over the entire of the Atlantic and West Indian seas. The latter, as the most effectual measure, Great Britain has preferred, with whatever of inconvenience it may be connected in its operation; but she would not be the less disposed to attach value to the more limited application of the principle. It may be stated, that so long as the laws of any one state shall permit a trade in slaves; or that any flag shall exist in the world which is not comprehended in this system of maritime police against the contraband slave trader, the evil will continue to exist. This reasoning, although plausible, should not discourage a common effort against the abuse committed, and upon close examination it will be found fallacious. 1st. The whole of the African coast north of the line, is, at this moment, emancipated from the traffic by the laws of all states having colonies. 2dly. By the 20th May, 1820, no flag of any such state will be enabled legally to carry on the traffic any where to the north of the line on either side of the Atlantic; nor any flag, other than the Portuguese, be authorized to trade south of the line. Supposing, for a moment, that Portugal should not abolish to the south of the line, till the expiration of the eight years complete from the declaration of Vienna, viz. 1823, what an immense sphere, nevertheless, of salutary operation, would not this conservative alliance have in the interval? The other branch of the objection is not more solid; it is true, that the ship and flag of the smallest power might, in legal theory, cover these transactions; but, where the property is not belonging to a subject of that power, but of a state that has abolished, the flag of that power, so used in fraud, would be no cover, and the property thus masked would be condemned, whilst the sovereign, whose flag was thus prostituted, neither could nor would complain. But so long as any of the great powers, such as France, having a considerable extent of commerce on those coasts, shall refuse to adopt the system, not only their example will discourage other states, whose interest is merely nominal, from taking a part, but it will furnish the illicit slave trader with a flag, not only so much to be respected in itself, but so presumable to be found on the coast for purposes of innocent commerce, that no commissioned officer will run the risk of looking into such a vessel, at the hazard of involving himself and his government in a question with a foreign power. The practical as well as the moral effects of the principal maritime states making common cause upon this subject is incalculable. In fact, it must be decisive: without it, their flags must be made the instrument of reciprocally withdrawing the subject from the authority of the sovereign, when committing this offence. This latter point will appear clear, when we consider the working of the system under the two alternatives. If all the great maritime states adopt the principle, their cruizers form but one squadron against the illicit slave traders, and none of their flags can be made to cover the fraudulent transaction; the immediate effect of which would be considerably to multiply the number of the cruizers, consequently the chance of captures, whilst it would reduce the number of |