The attempt to justify such a pretension from the right to visit and detain ships upon reasonable suspicion of piracy would deservedly be exposed to universal condemnation, since it would be an attempt to convert an established rule of maritime law, incorporated as a principle into the international code by the consent of all nations, into a rule and principle adopted by a single nation and enforced only by its assumed authority.  To seize and detain a ship upon suspicion of piracy, with probable cause and in good faith, affords no just ground either for complaint on the part of the nation whose flag she bears or claim of indemnity on the part of the owner.  The universal law sanctions and the common good requires the existence of such a rule.  The right under such circumstances not only to visit and detain but to search a ship is a perfect right and involves neither responsibility nor indemnity.  But, with this single exception, no nation has in time of peace any authority to detain the ships of another upon the high seas on any pretext whatever beyond the limits of her territorial jurisdiction.  And such, I am happy to find, is substantially the doctrine of Great Britain herself in her most recent official declarations, and even in those now communicated to the House.  These declarations may well lead us to doubt whether the apparent difference between the two Governments is not rather one of definition than of principle.  Not only is the right of search, properly so called, disclaimed by Great Britain, but even that of mere visit and inquiry is asserted with qualifications inconsistent with the idea of a perfect right.

In the dispatch of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett of the 20th of December, 1841, as also in that just received by the British minister in this country made to Mr. Fox, his lordship declares that if in spite of all the precaution which shall be used to prevent such occurrences an American ship, by reason of any visit or detention by a British cruiser, “should suffer loss and injury, it would be followed by prompt and ample remuneration;” and in order to make more manifest her intentions in this respect, Lord Aberdeen in the dispatch of the 20th December makes known to Mr. Everett the nature of the instructions given to the British cruisers.  These are such as, if faithfully observed, would enable the British Government to approximate the standard of a fair indemnity.  That Government has in several cases fulfilled her promises in this particular by making adequate reparation for damage done to our commerce.  It seems obvious to remark that a right which is only to be exercised under such restrictions and precautions and risk, in case of any assignable damage to be followed by the consequences of a trespass, can scarcely be considered anything more than a privilege asked for and either conceded or withheld on the usual principles of international comity.