Additional Article to the Treaty of Agreement of His Catholic Majesty to that of indemnifications, which was concluded at Paris, on the 20th of November of the same year, between France, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, which formed the basis of the Treaty concluded between Spain and England in 1817.

The aforesaid declaration of the Congress of Vienna begins by stating," that the commerce known by the name of the Slave Trade has been considered by just and enlightened men of all ages, as repugnant to the principle of humanity and universal morality;" and this idea is confirmed in the above-mentioned Additional Article, in the following terms:

"Les Hautes Puissances Contractantes désirant sincèrement de donner suite aux mesures dont elles se sont occupées au Congrès de Vienne, relativement à l'abolition complète et universelle de la Traite des Nègres d'Afrique," &c.

Having thus demonstrated that the object of the aforesaid stipu lations was only to abolish the traffic which was carried on on the coast of Africa, I proceed to demonstate also that it was the very same spirit which presided over the Treaty of 1817.

In its Article I it is declared, "That it shall not be lawful for any of the subjects of the Crown of Spain to purchase slaves or to carry on the Slave Trade on any part of the coast of Africa."

In Article II the same idea is repeated when it establishes the limits within which the prohibition is to take place, which are fixed to the north of the Equator.

But it is in Article V where this idea was fully confirmed, by the Contracting Parties declaring "that they would consider as illicit any traffic in slaves carried on under the following circumstances,when it is for the account of British subjects; or by Spanish ships; or for the account of Spanish subjects, upon any part of the coast of Africa north of the Equator."

Consequently, the peremptory and explicit object of the Treaty of 1817 was only the abolition of the traffic in slaves which was carried on on the coast of Africa.

Let us now examine whether the subsequent Treaty of 1835 did introduce any alterations to the idea in question.

In order to acquire the conviction that the idea of the former of the 2 aforesaid Treaties was not altered by the latter it will suffice to observe that it is peremptorily explained in its preamble, that the object which the Contracting Parties have in view is to "render more efficient the means of abolishing the inhuman traffic in slaves, &c., according to the Treaty concluded between the 2 Powers on the 23rd of September, 1817;" that is to say, that the object was to employ more efficient means, such as the right of search and the seizure on suspicion, which was stipulated anew, but not to change

nor alter the ends purposed in 1817. And this is so true, that however much the text of the Treaty of 1835 is meditated upon, not a single phrase is to be found in it which induces to suspect that there was any intention of introducing the slightest alteration to the primitive idea of putting an end to the traffic in slaves which was carried on on the coast of Africa.

But it may be argued that the vagueness with which Article I of the aforesaid Treaty was drawn up authorizes the giving to it a more ample interpretation.

To this argument I will reply at once by stating that no interpretation is ever licit which is contrary to the spirit of what has been stipulated, although it may be justifiable by its wording; and above all, that Article I, though at first sight appearing to be vague, is not so when compared with the antecedents to which it refers. Thus, when it is in it "again declared on the part of Spain, that the traffic in slaves is henceforward totally and finally abolished in all parts of the world," no declaration is made thereby which had not been previously made; but by the word "again," it is intended to mean that the declarations made on other occasions, and especially in the Treaty of 1817, to which the Article alludes, are thereby repeated; by the word "henceforward," it is meant that in this Treaty no period of time is fixed, as was the case in the Treaty of 1817, but that the expeditions to the coast of Africa are declared to be illegal from the day in which the Treaty was signed; by the words "totally and finally," the means of putting an end to the Slave Trade are increased by rendering the prohibition extensive to the whole coast of Africa, and without any limits of time; which differs from what was established in 1817; and, finally, the repeated phrase of the Slave Trade being abolished in all parts of the world, can have no other meaning than that none of the Spanish possessions, and not the Antilles alone, will be allowed to import slaves purchased in Africa. By that phrase it has been intended to condemn the traffic in African slaves, whatever may be the place where it be prepared, and whatever the place of its destination; that is to say, that Spaniards will not be allowed to make expeditions to Africa neither from Spain, nor from her dominions, nor from foreign countries, nor to convey slaves bought on the coast of Africa, to their own, nor to any foreign country. This is the genuine interpretation of the words "in the whole world," and it can be no other, because, giving to them the literal one which is now pretended would be, by meaning too much, meaning an absurdity, namely, that Spain would then impose a prohibition on the whole world by establishing legal prescriptions in territories which she does not possess, and over which she exercises no jurisdictional dominion. And furthermore, because the object which the Treaty has in view, as has already been demon

strated, is the abolition of the Slave Trade on the coast of Africa, without the least hint being found in the whole Treaty which may tend to give to the aforesaid Article the amplitude which is now desired.

The natural interpretation which I have just defined is the one which Her Majesty's Government has always given to the stipu lations it has concluded with England; and so it is that no act on its part will ever have been observed in contradiction with that interpretation; whilst, on the contrary, I may quote the Penal Law of the 2nd March, 1845, in which it is peremptorily consigned that the crime which forms the object of its provisions is precisely that of trading in slaves on the coast of Africa.

This is not only obvious and unqestionable to Her Majesty's Government, but it would be impossible for it to understand it in any other way, without altering the essence of Treaties and exposing itself to the most fatal consequences; since it cannot escape your enlightened judgment and impartiality, that if a Spanish colonist were to be prohibited from selling and purchasing slaves where slavery exists, and is considered as a property guaranteed by the laws, and from transporting them from one island to another in which he has his plantations, or from giving them up, or receiving them in payment of debts, or inheriting them, excepting within the same town or district; it is evident that the property in slaves would become of such a nature, that it would no longer be a property; and its condition would be such as would render slavery impossible.

Her Majesty's Government has prohibited Her Majesty's subjects from going to Africa to convert free negroes into slaves, and has awarded severe penalties to those who should infringe this prescription; but it has at the same time maintained slavery in the Spanish colonies, and so long as slavery shall exist, it cannot do otherwise than consider it as a property, without any other modifications to those established by the laws.

I confidently expect that my foregoing observations will produce on your enlightened mind the same conviction with which I am penetrated, and that this question will not be insisted upon, since I do not see it possible to settle it conformably to the wishes you have been pleased to express in the note to which I have the honour of replying. I avail, &c.

Lord Howden.

MY LORD,

EL MARQUES DE MIRAFLORES.

No. 543.-Viscount Palmerston to Lord Howden.

Foreign Office, July 10, 1851. I HEREWITH transmit to your Lordship the accompanying copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Consul-General at the Havana,

inclosing copies of correspondence between the Captain-General of Cuba and himself, and between Her Majesty's Consul at St. Jago de Cuba and himself, and between Her Majesty's Consul at St. Jago de Cuba and the Governor of that town, upon the subject of infractions of the Slave Trade Suppression Treaties between Great Britain and Spain.

I have to instruct your Lordship to communicate copies of these papers to the Spanish Government, and to point out to them the fallacies and inaccuracies contained in Captain-General Concha's letter to Mr. Crawford of the 23rd of March last. You will observe how unreasonable it is in the Governor-General to expect that British Consuls and Slave Trade Commissioners should be able to furnish him with those detailed statements and precise proofs which he requires in that note. All that British officers can possibly be expected to supply him with, are general statements of the particular instances in which it has come to their knowledge that vessels are fitting out or have been fitted out for Slave Trade, or in which landings of slaves have been effected; and it is quite absurd to suppose that the Governor-General, who is armed with all the powers of Government, and who has at his command all the means of information and of action which an immense number of Government officers of various kinds afford him, should need anything more than such general indications to enable him to pursue his investigations. Indeed it is strange that he should not be better and earlier informed upon these matters than the 2 British officers can be, and that he should not of his own accord, and without any suggestions or information from them, take those measures which a proper sense of his own duties and a due regard for the honour of his own Government should point out to him as proper for the entire and absolute prevention of these criminal proceedings.

But far different is the conduct of General Concha; and while, on the one hand, he shuts his eyes to criminal and disgraceful practices which it is his bounden duty to prevent, he returns angry and discourteous answers to communications which it is the duty of Her Majesty's officers in Cuba to make to him. The Spanish Government will do well to consider that if such a course of proceeding shall continue, the people of this country, instead of looking with displeasure at attempts which may be made to sever Cuba from the Spanish Monarchy, may be led to view with satisfaction the accomplishment of an event, which in consequence of the conduct of the Spanish colonial authorities will have become the only means of putting an end to the commission of crimes which the Spanish Crown solemnly bound itself many years ago utterly and for ever to prevent any Spanish subject from committing.

Lord Howden.

I am, &c.

PALMERSTON.

No. 547.-Lord Howden to Viscount Palmerston.-(Rec. July 15.) MY LORD, Madrid, July 8, 1851.

WITH reference to your Lordship's despatches of the 6th May and the 12th June last, I have the honour herewith to inclose to your Lordship translation of a note which I have received from his Excellency the Marquis de Miraflores, on the subject of extension of power being granted to the Mixed Commission in the Island of Cuba. I have, &c.

Viscount Palmerston, G.C.B.

HOWDEN.

(Inclosure.)-The Marquis of Miraflores to Lord Howden.

MY LORD,

(Translation.)

Madrid, June 28, 1851. IN Viscount Palmerston's despatch which you are pleased to inclose in your note of the 23rd instant, it is supposed that the Spanish Government did not well understand the idea which prompted the Government of Her Britannic Majesty to ask for an extension of the attributes granted to the Mixed Court of Justice at the Havana, and that Señor Bertran de Lis's observations on the subject did not, therefore, destroy the reasons on which England founded her pretension.

Your Excellency will allow me to make a short sketch of the recent history of this affair, because it is from this history that Her Majesty's Government is to draw out the correctness of the arguments which it is to allege in reply.

In your note of the 28th March last, you proposed, according to instructions from your Government, "that power should be given to the Mixed Commission Court at the Havana to call before it parties suspected of being engaged in the Slave Trade, and to subject them to the same course of examination which ought to be carried on by the administrative officers of the Colonial Government." And this very same idea was peremptorily repeated in Lord Palmerston's despatch of the 6th of May following, maintaining in it that no new principle of legislation was thereby established, since the principle is admitted "that British and Spanish property may, in cases connected with Slave Trade, be adjudicated by a Mixed British and Spanish Tribunal."

Allow

Señor Betran de Lis replied on the 22nd day of May, pointing out the inconveniences which would ensue from granting the Mixed Court of Justice any such attributes, which could only be exercised by the territorial tribunals; and therefore his reply was strictly adjusted to the proposal made by the British Government. me to express to you my opinion that the British Government did not explain this affair at the beginning with the clearness with which it is now set forth in the aforesaid communication from Viscount Palmerston.