James Buchanan to George Villiers, March 1, 1855

Mr. Buchanan to Earl Clarendon

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States has the honor to recall the attention of the Earl of Clarendon, her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, to the subject of concluding a consular convention between the two governments.

The correspondence of the undersigned with American consuls in different portions of the British empire, convinced him at an early period of his mission of the great value and importance of such a convention to the foreign commerce of both nations. Having brought this subject to the notice of the Earl of Clarendon, in conversation, he was encouraged to believe that their opinions concerning it coincided. In consequence, he obtained from his government instructions and a full power to conclude such a convention; and on the 23d of November last had the honor of submitting to the Earl of Clarendon a printed copy of the existing consular convention of the 23d of February, 1853, between the United States and the Emperor of the French, with some amendments, as the basis of the negotiation.

The undersigned was subsequently informed by the Earl of Clarendon that serious objections existed to several of the details of this convention; whereupon, in order to obvious these difficulties, he proposed to confine the negotiation to three points, which he deemed the most essential. These were: 1. That seamen of the one party deserting from merchant vessels or ships of war, while in the ports of the other party, should be restored. 2. Than individuals who had been guilty of murder, mutiny, or other high crimes on board the merchant vessels of one party on the high seas, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of either, should not be permitted to escape on the arrival of such vessels in the ports of the other party. And 3. That the merchant vessels of the one party, upon touching or arriving at the ports of the other, should not have their voyages interrupted or destroyed by vexatious lawsuits, arising out of trifling disputes between the masters and crews of such vessels, and relating exclusively to them, which could be much better adjusted upon their return to their own country.

The undersigned having since learned that the British government are not yet entirely satisfied to accede to these three propositions, has deemed it proper to present them in the form of three distinct articles, which he has now the honor of enclosing to the Earl of Clarendon. He will make a very few observations on each of them. And—

1. In regard to restoring deserters. The wonder is, that a stipulation for this purpose should have been so long delayed between two nations whose commercial intercourse is so vast. It is obviously the dictate of mutual justice, as well as policy, that seamen of the one arriving in the ports of the other, should not be permitted to desert their vessels, and leave the master without the necessary crew. The United States have treaties with all other commercial nations providing an appropriate remedy for this evil. From the information which the undersigned has received, he believes that in the ports of the United States deserters from British merchant vessels have been generally restored in the same manner as those from the vessels of other nations. The same inconvenience and loss have not therefore been experienced by British as by American vessels. As soon, however, as it shall be extensively known that an unlimited license is reciprocally permitted by the two countries to desertion of the seamen of the one in the ports of the other, the balance of injury will at least be equalized.

Surely it would be no hardship on the seamen of either nation to compel them to perform their contract according to its terms. Besides, a provision to this effect would prevent desertion and render the application of the remedy in most cases unnecessary.

2. If it would be wrong to permit deserters from merchant vessels to escape, it would be much more so to suffer those who have committed murder, mutiny, or other high crimes on shipboard, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of either of the parties, to go at large perfectly free from all danger of trial and punishment, upon their arrival in the ports of the other party. A bare statement of this proposition would seem to be sufficient. The necessity for a treaty stipulation on this subject cannot be more forcibly illustrated than by the case, perfectly within the Earl of Clarendon’s knowledge, of mutiny which occurred on board the American ship Sovereign of the Seas, in the month of March last, on her voyage from Melbourne to London. On that occasion ten persons, proved to have been guilty of mutiny, were discharged from confinement for the reason that no law exists in Great Britain authorizing their detention. And, indeed, Captain Warner, the master of the vessel, deemed himself quite fortunate in having escaped a suit for false imprisonment, with which he had been threatened by the mutineers. Thus, as the law stands at present, mutiny may be committed on the high seas, on board any American vessel bound to a British port, with perfect impunety. The lives of the passengers and the crew may thus be endangered or destroyed, and the property or freight, whether belonging to American citizens or British subjects, be indiscriminately plundered.

At an early period of the history of the United States, instructions were issued to American consuls abroad, prescribing the mode in which they should proceed by deposition to ascertain the guilt of individuals charged with having committed “piracy, mutiny, or any other offence against the laws of the United States” on board of American vessels arriving in their respective consular districts; and after having performed this duty, they were then directed “to apply to the local authorities for means of securing the offenders while they remain in port, and to provide the means of sending them without delay to the United States for trial.” The undersigned has never heard that such an appeal to the local authorities of any other country has been disregarded, though he is satisfied that no law exists in this country which would justify such British authorities in interfering. Hence has arisen, even with a view to self-protection, the absolute necessity of a treaty stipulation to prevent the greatest criminals from being turned loose to prey upon society.

3. The third article, which is similar to that now in force between the United States and several commercial nations, will require a brief explanation. The principle on which it rests is, that the great interests of commerce should not be seriously injured by trifling differences and disputes which may have arisen during the previous voyage between the master and the crew of a British vessel arriving in an American port, and so vice versa, in no manner affecting individuals of the country where the vessel temporarily remains. This article, therefore, relates exclusively to such disputes, and prohibits the parties from commencing lawsuits against each other before a foreign tribunal, concerning wages, contracts, and the internal police of the vessel, which, can be far more satisfactorily decided after their return home, by the tribunals of the country to which the vessel belongs.

But from abundant caution, and in order to prevent the possibility of injustice in cases requiring a speedy redress, the article propose s to refer such disputes for immediate but temporary adjustment to the consul of the proper country, acquainted with its laws and usages, leaving either party at perfect liberty, on the return home of the vessel, to pursue his remedy just as though there had been no such adjustment.

Great inconvenience and loss have resulted from these petty lawsuits in British ports to American vessels. A single litigious or mischievous person on board, by instituting a suit against the master of a British or American vessel in a port of the other party, at which she happens to touch or arrive, may retard or break up the voyage altogether. The master may not be able to find the necessary security at a place where he is entirely unknown, and his imprisonment is the consequence. And even if he can obtain security, it is in most instances but of the question, that he should be able to return and attend the trial. Surely, neither Great Britain nor the United States have any reason to distrust the judiciary of the other in deciding these differences among their own people, according to their own laws; and the masters, officers, and crew cannot suffer injustice by merely postponing their lawsuit until the termination of the voyage and return home of the vessel.

The government of the undersigned is convinced that the embodiment of the three accompanying articles, with such amendments as may be deemed advisable in a convention, would be highly advantageous to the commerce of both countries, and could do no possible injury to either. Other stipulations might be beneficial, but these are the most important.

The undersigned has the honor to renew to the Earl of Clarendon the assurance of his distinguished consideration.