James Buchanan to William L. Marcy, March 9, 1855

Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Marcy

Sir:

* * * * * * * *

I also transmit the copy of a note addressed by me to Lord Clarendon, on the 1st instant, proposing a consular convention between the two governments, together with a copy of the three articles referred to therein.

It would be tedious and useless to trouble you with a statement in detail of what passed as the different conferences between his lordship and myself in relation to this convention.

Suffice it to say that an obstruction has been cast in the way of this measure, so necessary for the benefit of our commerce, by the solicitor general, Sir Richard Bethell. His objections, which have been read to me, prove conclusively that he does not understand the subject. They did not appear to be satisfactory to Lord Clarendon, but yet he observed that, as it would be the official duty of the solicitor general to carry the bill necessary to give effect to such a convention through the House of Commons, it would be vain to conclude it against his opposition, or without the assurance of his support. I told him that, although it was not for me to judge, I should yet feel no apprehension whatever of the result in the House, notwithstanding the objections of the solicitor general. As I should not have undertaken this business unless I had been previously satisfied that Lord Clarendon entirely coincided with myself, I deemed it proper, especially as he has never individually manifested any change of opinion, to bring the subject in a formal manner to his notice.

One incident I ought not to forget. In a conference some time since, he said there was no necessity for a convention, so far as deserters from our merchant ships were concerned. That all the United States had to do, in order to secure their apprehension and return, was to accede to the terms of the foreign deserters act of 1852; and then her Majesty would issue an order in council, which in this respect would accomplish all we desired. I asked to see a copy of this act, and found upon its perusal that it applied to “seamen, not being slaves, who desert from merchant ships,” &c., of foreign powers. I then informed his lordship, in emphatic terms, that the Congress of the United States never would pass, and in my opinion never ought to pass, an act to give effect to this act of Parliament. It was entirely out of the question to imagine it possible that my government would consent to make the discrimination which this act proposes between slaves and freemen deserting from our vessels. And that although I believed but few, if any, slaves were employed as seamen, we could never sanction the principle which would restore the freeman, and grant permission to the slave to escape. I have since heard nothing more of this foreign deserters act. It was passed on the 17th of June, 1852, (15 Victoria, cap. 26,) and is entitled “An act to enable her Majesty to carry into effect arrangements made with foreign powers for the apprehension of seamen who desert from their ships.”

* * * * * * * *

Yours, very respectfully,