*196 tendom *to decree the abolition of the trade, and that it should cease definitively, on the part of the French government, in the course of five years. The ministers of the eight principal European powers, who met in Congress at Vienna on the 8th February, 1815, solemnly declared, in the face of Europe and the world, that the African slave-trade had been regarded, by just and enlightened men, in all ages, as repugnant to the principles of humanity and of universal morality, and that the public voice in all civilized countries demanded that it should be suppressed; and that the universal abolition of it was conformable to the spirit of the age and the generous principles of the allied powers. In March, 1815, the Emperor Napoleon decreed that the slave-trade should be abolished; but this effort of ephemeral power was afterwards held to be null and void, as being the act of an usurper; and in July following, Louis XVIII. gave directions that this odious and wicked traffic should from that present time cease. The first French decree, however, that was made. public, abolishing the trade, was of the date of the 8th January, 1817, and that was only a partial and modified decree. (a) In

(a) By the convention between Great Britain and France, of the 30th November, 1841, the mutual right of search was allowed on board the vessels of each of the two nations, within certain specified waters, i. e. along the western coast of Africa from Cape Verd, or 15 degrees north latitude, to 10 degrees south of the equator, — all around the island of Madagascar to the extent of 20 leagues from the island, to the same distance from the coasts of Brazil, and from the coasts of the islands of Cuba and Porto Rico; the right of searching merchant vessels to be confined to ships of war, under special authority from each of the two governments, and never to be exercised upon the ships of war of either nation. The United States have refused to become a party to any convention authorizing the mutual right of search, and France afterwards refused to ratify the treaty of 1841, conceding the mutual right of search. Vide supra, 153. The efforts and the failure of the efforts to sanction the mutual right of search, in respect to the slave-trade, form an instructive item in modern diplomatic history. In 1818, the British government proposed to France the mutual right of search of merchant vessels on the high seas, with a view to the more effectual suppression of the slave-trade, and which had been conceded by Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. The proposition was at the same time made to the United States, and rejected by both powers. In November of that year, the British government proposed to the congress of the five great powers, at Aix-la-Chapelle, the following propositions (1.) The mutual right of search of merchant vessels engaged in the slave-trade; (2.) The declaration that the slave-trade was piracy, under the law of nations. Both propositions were rejected on the part of France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. The propositions were renewed at the congress at Verona, in 1822, but without success. Afterwards, in 1841, the mutual right of search was conceded by the northern European powers, parties to the Quintuple Treaty, as see supra, 153. Though the government of the United States has uniformly objected to the admission

December, 1817, the Spanish government prohibited the purchase of slaves on any part of the coast of Africa, after the 31st of May, 1820; and this was in pursuance of the treaty between Great Britain and Spain of the 23d September, 1817, made for the abolition of the slave-trade immediately, north of the equator, and entirely, after 1820. In January, 1818, the Portuguese government made the like prohibition as to the purchase of slaves on any part of the coast of Africa north of the equator. In 1821, there was not a flag of any European state which could legally cover this traffic, to the north of the equator; and yet, in 1825, the importation of slaves covertly continued, if it was not openly countenanced, from the Rio de la Plata to the Amazon, and through the whole American Archipelago. (b)

of the right of visitation and search, in time of peace, even in respect to the African slave-trade, yet they agreed, in furtherance of efficient measures for its suppression, by the treaty of Washington, in 1842, with Great Britain, that each party should "prepare, equip, and maintain in service, on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron, or naval force of vessels, of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry, in all, not less than eighty guns, to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of each of the two countries, for the suppression of the slave-trade, the said squadrons to be independent of each other; but the two governments stipulating, nevertheless, to give such orders to the officers commanding their respective forces as shall enable them most effectually to act in concert and co-operation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may arise."

(b) Report of a Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 16, 1825. See also the Quarterly Review, No. 68 and No. 89, pp. 243-246; Alison's History of Europe, vi. 128, 129, and the English parliamentary discussions and documents. It appears that the African slave-trade was carried on to an enormous extent down to the year 1839. The trade was principally between Africa, and Brazil and Cuba. In 1828, 45,000 African slaves were imported into the city of Rio Janeiro. But by a convention between England and Brazil, in 1826, it was made piratical for the subjects of Brazil to be engaged in the trade after the year 1830; and it is understood that the government of Brazil, in 1831, not only put a stop by law to the importation of slaves, but declared that all slaves thereafter imported should be free, and imposed a heavy assessment on the importers, and provided for the transportation of such negroes back to Africa. In the treaty concluded 10th September, 1822, between Great Britain and the Imaun of Muscat, the latter agreed to abolish the foreign slave-trade forever in his dominions. So, by the treaty of the 23d of October, 1817, between Great Britain and Radama, king of Madagascar, it was agreed that there should be, throughout all the dominions of the king of Madagascar, an entire cessation of the sale or transfer of slaves. And in the treaty of commerce and navigation between Great Britain and the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, February 2, 1825, it was agreed by the latter to prohibit all persons, subject to its jurisdiction, by the most solemn laws, from taking any share in the slave-trade; and yet it was stated by high authority in the British Parliament, May, 1838, as a matter of fact, and agreed to afterwards in an address to the Queen, that notwithstanding

*197

*The case of the Amedie (a) was the earliest decision in the English courts on the great question touching the legality of the slave-trade, on general principles of international law. That was the case of an American vessel, employed in carrying slaves from the coast of Africa to a Spanish colony. She was captured by an English cruiser, and the vessel and cargo were condemned to the captors, in a vice-admiralty court in the West Indies, and on appeal to the court of appeals in England the judgment was affirmed. Sir William Grant, who pronounced the opinion of the court, observed that the slave-trade being abolished by both England and the United States, the court was authorized to assert, that the trade, abstractly speaking, could not have a legitimate existence, and was, prima facie, illegal upon principles of universal law, The claimant, to entitle him to restitution, must show affirmatively a right of property under the municipal laws of his own country; for, if it be unprotected by his own municipal law, he can have no right of property in human beings carried as his slaves, for such a claim is contrary to the principles of justice and humanity. The Fortuna (b) was con

demned on the authority of the Amedie, and the same *198 opinion was again affirmed. But in the subsequent * case

of the Diana, (a) the doctrine was not carried so far by Lord Stowell, as to hold the trade itself to be piracy, or a crime against the law of nations. A Swedish vessel was taken by a

all the efforts of Great Britain to put down the slave-trade, it still continued, little diminished in extent, and much aggravated in horror. Portugal was the principal offender. What was once a legal had become now a contraband traffic. She had systematically and grossly violated her treaty engagements on that subject. Since 1829, there had been 153 Portuguese vessels seized as slavers, containing upwards of 163,000 slaves, and Portugal had, since that period, transported a million of slaves. This enormous abuse induced England, in 1839, to authorize by law the forcible examination and search of vessels suspected to be concerned in that trade. The British Minister, Sir Robert Peel, stated in the House of Commons, in July, 1844, that Spain and Brazil were the two powers chargeable with the whole responsibility of the continuance of the slave-trade, and that the island of Cuba was in a precarious, if not a perilous position, from the settled determination of her black population to emancipate themselves; and it is stated, on strong authority, that the English effort to put down the slave-trade by an armed force of British cruisers on the coast of Africa has increased the horrors of the slave-trade, withont materially diminishing its amount. See Hill's Narrative of Fifty Days on Board a Slave-Ship, Sir F. Buxton on African Slave-Trade, and the other documents referred to and discussed in Westminster Review for June, 1844, p. 446, &c.

(a) 1 Acton, 240.

(b) 1 Dods. 81.

(a) 1 Dods. 95.

L

ما

British cruiser on the coast of Africa, engaged in carrying slaves from Africa to a Swedish island in the West Indies, and she was restored to the owner, on the ground that Sweden had not then prohibited the trade, and had tolerated it in practice. England had abolished the trade as unjust and criminal, but she claimed no right of enforcing that prohibition against the subjects of those states which had not adopted the same opinion; and England did not mean to set herself up as the legislator, and custos morum, for the whole world, or presume to interfere with the commercial regulations of other states. The principle of the case of the Amedie was, that where the municipal law of the country to which the parties belonged had prohibited the trade, English tribunals would hold it to be illegal, upon general principles of justice and humanity, but they would respect the property of persons engaged in it under the sanction of the laws of their own country.

The doctrine of these cases is, that the slave-trade, abstractly speaking, is immoral and unjust, and it is illegal, when declared so by treaty or municipal law; but that it is not piratical or illegal by the common law of nations, because if it were so, every claim founded on the trade would at once be rejected everywhere and in every court, on that ground alone.

She was

The whole subject underwent further, and a most full, elaborate, and profound discussion, in the case of Le Louis. (b) 1 A French vessel, owned and documented as a French vessel, was captured by a British armed force on the coast of Africa, after resistance made to a demand to visit and search. carried into Sierra Leone, and condemned by a court of vice-admiralty, for being concerned in the slave-trade, *199 contrary to the French law. On appeal to the British High Court of Admiralty, the question respecting the legality of the capture and condemnation was argued, and it was judicially decided, that the right of visitation and search, on the high seas, did not exist in time of peace. If it belonged to one nation, it equally belonged to all, and would lead to gigantic mischief and universal war. Other nations had refused to accede to the

(b) 2 Dods. 210.

1 Buron v. Denman, 2 Exch. 167. See Santos v. Illidge, 6 C. B. N. s. 841; s. c. reversed, 8 C. B. N. s. 861.

English proposal of a reciprocal right of search in the African seas, and it would require an express convention to give the right of search in time of peace. The slave-trade, though unjust, and condemned by the statute law of England, was not piracy, nor was it a crime by the universal law of nations. To make it piracy, or such a crime, it must have been so considered and treated in practice by all civilized states, or made so by virtue of a general convention. On the contrary, it had been carried on by all nations, even by Great Britain herself, until within a few years, and was then carried on by Spain and Portugal, and not absolutely prohibited by France. It was, therefore, not a criminal traffic by the law of nations; and every nation, independent of treaty, retained a legal right to carry it on. No one nation had a right to force the way to the liberation of Africa, by trampling on the independence of other states; or to procure an eminent good by means that were unlawful; or to press forward to a great principle, by breaking through other great principles that stood in the way. The condemnation of the French vessel at Sierra Leone was, therefore, reversed; and the penalties imposed by the French law (if any there were) were left to be enforced, not in an English, but in a French court.

The same subject was brought into discussion in the King's Bench in 1820, in Madrazo v. Willes. (a) The court held, that the British statutes against the slave-trade were only applicable *200* to British subjects, and only rendered the slave-trade

unlawful when carried on by them. The British Parliament could not prevent the subjects of other states from carrying on the trade out of the limits of the British dominions. If a ship be acting contrary to the general law of nations, she is thereby subject to condemnation; but it is impossible to say that the slave-trade was contrary to the law of nations. It was, until lately, carried on by all the nations of Europe; and a practice so sanctioned can only be rendered illegal, on the principles of international law, by the consent of all the powers. Many states had so consented, but others had not, and the cases had gone no further than to establish the rule, that ships belonging to countries that had prohibited the trade were liable to capture and condemnation, if found engaged in it.

The final decision of the question in this country has been the (a) 3 B. & Ald. 353.