Whereas, notwithstanding all efforts which may be made on the coast of Africa for suppressing the slave trade, the facilities for carrying on that traffic and avoiding the vigilance of cruisers by the fraudulent use of flags, and other means, are so great, and the temptations for pursuing it, while a market can be found for slaves, so strong, as that the desired result may be long delayed, unless all markets be shut against the purchase of African negroes: the parties to this treaty agree that they will unite in all becoming representations and remonstrances, with any and all powers within whose dominions such markets are allowed to exist; and that they will urge upon all such powers the proprie

ty and duty of closing such markets effectually

at once and for ever.'

We trust that this strong stipulation towards closing slave-markets all over the world-at once and for ever-will have a decisive effect; and we cannot see without satisfaction in so solemn an international instrument, the broad admission of the great extent to which the fraudulent use of flags to defeat the vigilance of cruisers' has been carried on the coast of Africa-for it is not only an earnest that the United States will lend their cordial assistance to suppress that abuse hereafter, but it affords an obvious vindication of the vigilance heretofore exercised by the British cruisers, and which has been made the pretext of so much misrepresentation and rancour, both in France and the United States-of the 'bomb-shell' dispatches of Mr. Stevenson -the electioneering pamphlets of General Cass the at once flippant and profound ignorance of M. Tocqueville, and the ridiculous but malignant falsehoods of M. Emile Girardin, or whoever does the Presse under that person's auspices.

The next and last topic of the treaty is one that provides for the Extradition, as it is technically called, or the mutual delivery up to justice of persons legally charged with the crimes of murder, piracy, arson, robbery, or forgery.

We have before stated that the case of the Creole was complicated with many dif

ficulties of municipal and international law,
as well as of public policy, the resolution of
which no treaty could accomplish, and which
were therefore most properly adjourned to
diplomatic communications in London. We
very much incline, as Lord Ashburton seems
to do, to Mr. Webster's doctrine, that ships
driven by stress of weather into a foreign
port, carry with them what we may call their
native rights, and are liable only to a kind
of municipal jurisdiction in the port in which
they happen to arrive; for instance, in the
case of slaves-a main branch of the case of
the Creole-we are inclined to think that if
a foreign vessel, having slaves lawfully on
board, should be forced by stress of weather
or other irresistible circumstances into a
British port, the British law that emanci
Pates slaves on touching the British soil can-
not fairly apply to such a case; and although,
if such slaves should escape ashore, it seems
certain that our municipal law could afford
no means of apprehending and sending them
back to the foreign vessel, still it seems
equally reasonable, though not equally cer-
tain, that our municipal law ought not to
intervene to alter their condition towards
their ship—that is, their country-and we
can say, with a fuller conviction, that no lo-
cal authorities should interpose. to help any
such escape, or to encourage any part of the
crew of any vessel to any infraction of the
law of the country to which the vessel be-
longs and under which they stood before the
accident had forced the ship into the Brit-
ish harbour. For instance, if while the
Warspite was lying at New York waiting
for Lord Ashburton, some of the crew had
been spirited away by the American author-
ities, under the plea that their engagement
to her Majesty's service was not valid in New
York, could it be pretended that such con-
duct would be justifiable? We think not;
and we confess that we do not see, in an in-
ternational view, such a difference between
service and servitude as to justify the Bahama
authorities in dealing with the crew of an
American ship (above all if forced in by
stress of weather) differently from what the
American authorities would be authorized
in doing to a British ship at New York.
But though we see this obvious principle to
which we might appeal as a general rule,
we are by no means so clear about its indi-
vidual application, for there are an infinite
number of accidents which would vary each
particular case. The most curious part
the Creole affair is that-after Mr. Webster
had written a very able paper on this sub-
ject, but concluding with a severe censure
of the British authorities at Nassau-Lord
Ashburton replies to Mr. Webster-himself

of

lately a senator from Massachusetts-by the | or something on the same principle, must following unanswerable fact :

The present state of the British law in this respect [the emancipation of slaves on arrival in the British dominions] is too well known to require repetition: nor need I remind you that it is exactly the same with the laws in every part of the United States in which a state of slavery is not recognized; and that the slave put ashore at Nassau would be dealt with exactly as would a foreign slave landed under any circumstances whatever at BOSTON.'-Dispatch, 6th August.

This was, to be sure, a pretty convincing reason why Lord Ashburton could make no arrangement on the subject; and it is a still stronger answer to the insinuation which disfigures Mr. Benton's able speech, where he represents this fortuitous and unforeseen transaction at Nassau as the result of a plan formed in England, to create a St. Domingo in the Southern United States.'

soon become the acknowledged and per-
manent law of all civilized peoples. We
believe we may venture to announce that
a similar arrangement is almost agreed upon.
with France; and we have learned with
still greater satisfaction that our Govern-
ment intend to bring a measure for making
the criminal process of any part of Her
Majesty's dominions current and effective
throughout the whole. This will remove
another disgraceful anomaly in the practice
of our laws.

The Caroline affair, still less than that of the Creole, could have entered into the treaty-it was a mere accident, without likelihood of recurrence, and stood upon its own accidental grounds-never, we hope, likely to occur again. Lord Ashburton, without giving up a jot of our justifiability in the whole of that affair, has by a fair and honest statement of the circumstances and a dignified expression of regret But though this question was not settled, at our having been forced by the Ameriand in fact could not be settled by the treaty, cans themselves to retaliate a violation it probably produced the article of Extra- of territory, satisfied the cabinet of Washdition that we have just mentioned. Be- ington, and has-only with a little more sides the question of the emancipation of courtesy than on the first occasion-towed the slaves in the Creole, there was also the Caroline out of the jurisdiction of a question of murder-our authorities should the United States, and sent her down willingly have given up the accused for the abyss of Niagara, never more to be trial before their natural and national tri- heard of. But there are some circumstanbunal, but that the United States had ces in this case, and that of Mr. M'Leod formerly repudiated a convention of Ex- which was connected with it, that deserve tradition. There had been, we think, un- particular notice. In these cases, as in that der Mr. Jay's treaty such an arrange- of the aggressions in Maine, the people bement; but it had been renounced by haved very ill; and the local Governments America, and she had rejected all overtures not much better-in Maine, from ill dispofor renewing it. This case, however, sition-in New York, we believe, chiefly brought her back to a reconsideration of from impotence; but in both case it is but the matter and its various bearings; and justice to say that the General Government the result has been this article, which, we behaved well-as well, we believe, as the really believe, is of more real practical im- laws of their anomalous constitution, that portance to the two countries than all the regulate or rather confuse federal and other special provisions of the treaty put local authority, would permit. The federal together. It is really a disgrace to coun- attorney-general was sent to afford Mr. tries calling themselves civilized, that a M'Leod legal assistance and personal councriminal guilty of offences against society tenance; and-as it was rumoured that, in general, so heinous as to be punishable if the regular court of justice should acquit by the laws of all countries, should be able the accused, there was a court of Lynch-law to escape punishment by just slipping over ready to do its atrocities on him-a militaa boundary-line-that a robber or a mur- ry officer of rank and reputation was sent derer, whose crimes are equally odious and to the spot to direct the national forces for punishable in New York and Canada, in Mr. M'Leod's personal protection :-this France and England, should nevertheless was, we believe, General Scott, who had secure impunity by passing across from already been employed in similar amicable Buffalo to Chippewa, or from Dover to Ca- missions during the preceding border comlais. The Ashburton treaty removes this motions both of Maine and New York. A great error and disgrace from the Western new law was also introduced which it reContinent; and though the article is, per-quired all the authority of the President and haps not unwisely, made terminable at the will of either party, we are satisfied that it,

Mr. Webster, and all the conciliatory influ ence of Lord Ashburton's mission, to pass

through Congress, for transferring such in-, readers in the opinion we expressed at the ternational cases as M'Leod's from the outset, that-considering the state in which local to the federal courts-a considerable Lord Palmerston left the boundary question security for the future peace of the frontier. -the many subjects of irritation between When the General Government had thus the parties which had supervened--and the done its duty by us, and not only relieved new position which France had taken with itself from all suspicion of having counte- regard both to us and the United Statesnanced these aggressions, but shown every the treaty of Washington is a wise treaty disposition to arrest and to prevent them, it and a good treaty, and not the worse bewas certainly entitled to the explanation cause each side may see something in it to that Lord Ashburton gave of our regret at regret or complain of. The best-because having been forced, in legitimate self-de- the fairest-treaty for the arrangement of fence, to trespass, as we assuredly did, on differences and counter-claims must always the territorial rights of the General Feder- be one in which the advantages are mutual, and the sacrifices not unequal. Such eminently is the character of the treaty of Washington, and we infinitely prefer itboth as to its present effect on public opinion, and as to its future stability-to any arrangement which should have been more unexceptionably satisfactory to either party.

ation.

The last question suggested was that of Impressment, on which Mr. Webster wished to have made a formal arrangement-but this subject Lord Ashburton was not au thorized to enter upon-nor could he have done so to any good purpose. At the bottom of this question is the great principle of allegiance-which all the nations of the Old World hold to be indefeasible--a right belonging to the native country, and not a mere transitory obligation which individuals may cast off at their pleasure; while, on the other hand, the United States, being, as it were, created by immigrations, and granting their rights of citizenship on very easy terms, repudiate, naturally enough, the ancient doctrine of national allegiance. Whether these contradictory opinions can ever be reconciled-whether the Old World may relax some of its strictness- -or whether the United States may not hereafter find it necessary to assert for their own security some principles of national allegiance--we cannot venture to guess; but at least it is certain that Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster were quite right in finally agreeing that it would be inexpedient to embarrass their urgent practical arrangements with the discussion of this additional and speculative difficulty. We say speculative for although, as Lord Ashburton admits, the question might, in the event of a war, take a formidable practical form-still we must observe that it is not every warnor even the most probable war-that would bring this principle into action. Our own opinion is, that the case itself has become, from various causes, highly improbable, and we apprehend that little good would eventually result from attempting to provide for the unforeseen contingencies and emergencies of future wars.

We have thus gone through all the provisions of the treaty, as well as the collateral topics which came into discussion, and we think we may now venture upon fuller evidence to expect the concurrence of our

One great merit of this treaty-besides the main, the prominent value of settling the points in discussion-was its collateral effect on the public mind in the United States, where their political institutions, and the uncontrolled action of such a press as has been described in a former article of this Number, give to what is called public opinion a degree of violence, intensity, and power, of which we, in our more temperate political atmosphere, have little idea. We, of course, never can steer our policy by their irregular impulses. On the contrary, we should, on a fitting occasion, say with Brutus :

Must I give way and room to your rank choler?
Shall I be frighted when a madman stares?'

But still in a country where the people act so directly on the government, we owe it to ourselves as well as to them not to be indifferent to popular feeling, and to be ready to avail ourselves of any opportunity of either averting or allaying such excesses of temper-for which-and that is the main international defect of their constitutionthere can be no tangible responsibility. We therefore saw with great satisfaction the frank and favourable reaction so suddenly produced in the public mind of the United States, not merely by the terms of the treaty, but by the special mission itself, and more particularly by the conciliatory yet dignified language, manners, and deportment of the British minister. He found the States in a ferment of what we may call hostility to us, and to everything connected with us; he left them in a temper of more apparent cordiality than had, we think, existed since the original separation.