eligible to do so, and to leave to Mr. Adams, whom we daily expected, to conclude it.

The interview closed, by their undertaking to provide themselves immediately with the necessary powers to proceed in the negotiation; and by an assurance, that they would continue to do all in their power to bring it to a speedy and successful issue.

Extract of a Minute of a Conversation which took place at Lord Castlereagh's, between his Lordship and Messrs. Clay and Gallatin, April 16, 1815.

"Lord Castlereagh then called the attention of the American commissioners to a communication made by them at Ghent relative to their power to treat on the commercial intercourse between the two countries. He said, before he gave an answer to that communication, he should be glad, if it were agreeable to the American commissioners, that there should be an unofficial conversation between them and the British commissioners, who negotiated the treaty of peace, together with Mr. Robinson, whom he would associate with them for that purpose, to ascertain if it were likely, that some general principles could be agreed upon to form a basis of a treaty of commerce. He should prefer, that this conversation, like that which he understood, had taken place in the former negotiation between lords Holland and Aukland, and Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, should be free from official forms, and thought such a course best calculated to ascertain if it were likely that the two governments could come to any practical result on this interesting subject.

"It was observed by one of the American commissioners, that such a conversation would be on terms of inequality, the American commissioners being invested with powers, and the other gentlemen, having none; unless it was understood, not only that it should be considered as entirely unofficial, but that the same gentlemen should afterwards be commissioned to conclude a treaty, if it were thought that one could be formed. Lord Castlereagh remarked in reply, that such was certainly his intention.

"The conversation ended in an understanding that the American commissioners would consult together upon the

་

three topicks mentioned by lord Castlereagh, and communicate on the following day to Mr. Goulburn the result of their deliberations."

The American Plenipotentiaries to the Secretary of State. London, 3d July, 1815.

SIR,-We have the honour to transmit a convention for regulating the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain, which we concluded this day with the British plenipotentiaries.

Messieurs Clay and Gallatin's despatch of the 18th May last, has informed you of the preliminary steps taken by them on that subject. Mr. Adams arrived in London on the 25th of May, and on the 5th of June, we were invited by Messieurs Robinson, Goulburn, and Adams, to meet them on the 7th. At this conference, after a mutual exhibition of our powers, and some general observations, we delivered to them our projet of a commercial convention, a copy of which, marked (1), is here with enclosed. They promised to take it into immediate consideration; and on the 9th, informed us that they would prepare and transmit to us a contre projet.

Believing that there was no prospect of an immediate arrangement on the subject of seamen, and knowing that without it no treaty, defining the rights and duties of belligerent and neutrals was admissible, we excluded all that related to that branch of the subject from our projet and confined it to objects purely commercial.

We took the 3d article of the treaty of 1794, respecting the intercourse with Canada, as the basis of the corresponding article, omitting, according to our instructions, whatever related to the Indian trade. In drawing the other articles, we were principally guided by the unratified treaty of 1806, by the instructions given in relation to it by the Secretary of State, in his despatch of May 20th, 1807, and by the act of Congress, of 3d March last, for abolishing all discriminating duties. From the previous explicit declarations of the British plenipotentiaries, we deemed it useless to offer any article on the subject of the intercourse with the West India islands, and only inserted a clause, to prevent the application to that intercourse of the provisions contemplated by the convention.

VOL. XI.

5

On the 16th the British plenipotentiaries addressed to us a note, enclosing their contre projet, marked (2); and on the 17th we transmitted our answer, marked (3). The whole subject was discussed at large in conferences held on the 19th and 21st. The British plenipotentiaries, in a note of the 20th, marked (4), stated the substance of their answer to ours of the 17th. In the conference of the 21st, we delivered the additional clause to the 2d article of the contre projet, marked (5), and afterwards, on the same day, we transmitted our note marked (6.)

It will be perceived by these notes that we had come to an understanding as to the intercourse between the United States and the British territories in Europe, and that we disagreed on three points: the intercourse with Canada; placing, generally, both countries on the footing of the most favoured nations; and the intercourse with the British East Indies.

On the first point, the British plenipotentiaries persisted in refusing to admit that the citizens of the United States should have the right to take their produce down the river St. Lawrence to Montreal, and down the river Chambly (or Sorel) to the St. Lawrence: and without that permission the article was useless to us, and unequal in its practical operation. The provision that the importation of our produce into Canada should not be prohibited, unless the prohibition extended generally to all similar articles, afforded us no security; as no similar articles are imported into Canada from any other foreign country; whilst the corresponding provision, respecting the importation into the United States, through Canada, of the produce and manufactures of Great Britain, effectually prevented us from prohibiting such an importation; since this could not be done without extending the prohibition to the importation of all similar articles, either of British or other foreign growth or manufacture, in the Atlantick ports of the United States.

The article for placing, respectively, the two countries on the footing of the most favoured nation limited, as was insisted on by the British plenipotentiaries, to the intercourse between the United States and the European territories of Great Britain, was unnecessary; since all that appeared desirable on that subject was secured by the second article; and a provision of that nature, unless offer

ing some obvious advantage, was deemed embarrassing, on account of the difficulties attached to its execution.

With this view of the two subjects, and finding that to arrange them in a satisfactory manner was impracticable, we proposed in our note of the 21st to omit altogether the articles relating to them.

On the subject of the intercourse with India, the British plenipotentiaries, contrary to the impression made in the unofficial conversations on Messrs. Clay and Gallatin, had insisted on our official conferences, that our admission to that trade was, on the part of Great Britain, a concession altogether gratuitous; and for which, particularly as to the privilege of indirect outward voyages, she ultimately expected an equivalent; whilst we strenuously contended that an equivalent was found in the trade itself, which was highly beneficial to India, or, at all events, considering the nature of the commercial intercourse generally between the two countries, in the other provisions of the convention. On the same ground we urged our claim to be placed in India on the same footing, at least, as the most favoured nations. To which was replied that they made a distinction between nations which had possessions there and those which had none. The refusal not being altogether explicit, we renewed our proposal to that effect in

our note.

The British plenipotentiaries, in a note of the 23d, marked (7), acceded to our proposal to omit the 3d and 5th articles, and refusing that on the subject of India, offered to omit the article altogether, and to sign a convention embracing only the provisions respecting the intercourse between the United States and the British territories in Europe.

This proposal we rejected in our note of the 24th, marked (8). But in order to meet, if practicable, the views of the British government, and to avoid making any distinction between the East India trade and the other branches of commercial intercourse, we proposed to limit the duration of the whole convention to four years, and we offered, as an alternative, an arrangement for the sole purpose of abolishing the discriminating duties, in conformity with the act of Congress of the last session.

In a note of the 26th, marked (9), the British plenipotentiaries informed us that they found it necessary to refer

our last proposals to their government, and by their note of the 29th, marked (10), they accepted our offer of a convention embracing the East India article, and limited to four years, to be calculated from the date of its signature. We replied to this in a note dated 30th June, and marked (11), and on the same day arranged, in a conference, the details of the convention.

We beg leave to add, that the same restriction which confines our vessels to the principal ports of India is, except in special cases, imposed by the act of parliament, on British subjects; and that, besides the discrimination in the export duty from England, the difference on the import duty on the article of cotton, had, by a late act of parliament, been increased to two pence sterling per pound in favour of every species imported in British vessels, and even of Brazil cotton, imported in Portuguese vessels.

We have the honour to be, respectfully, sir,

Your obedient servants,

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,
H. CLAY,

ALBERT GALLATIN.

The Hon. James Monroe, Sec'ry of State, Washington.

No. 1.

Art. 1. There shall be, between the territories of the United States and all the dominions of his Britannick majesty in Europe, a reciprocal and perfect liberty of commerce and navigation. The people and inhabitants of the two countries respectively shall have liberty, freely and securely, and without hindrance and molestation, to come with their ships and cargoes to the lands, countries, cities, ports, places, and rivers within the territories and dominions aforesaid, to enter into the same, to resort there and to remain and reside there, without any limitation of time; also, to hire and possess houses and warehouses, for the purposes of their commerce; and generally, the merchants and traders on each side, shall enjoy the most complete protection and security for their commerce, but subject always, as to what respects this article, to the laws and statutes of the two countries respectively.