The navigation act of Great Britain, by which all her previous acts upon that subject are repealed, and her system permanently established, passed simultaneously with the act of the 5th July, 1825, regulating the trade of the British possessions abroad; and by that act the importation, both into her European and colonial ports is restricted to the vessels of the country of which the articles imported shall be the produce. Nor has this restriction been considered inconsistent with our commercial convention with Great Britain, which we have anxiously sought to extend to the colonial intercourse. The beforementioned act of the 5th of July, 1825, regulating the trade with the British possessions abroad, reters, in express terms, to the act concerning navigation, and limits the right of importation into the British colonial ports to American produce, and to vessels coming directly from the ports of the United States. By acceding to the terms of our proposition, therefore, Great Britain extends to our vessels all the advantages of the act of the 5th July, 1825. She moreover places the United States, in the intercourse with the colonies, on the same footing with all other nations; and by assenting to regulations, though by legislative enactment, in the colonial trade, similar to those provided by our commercial convention for the intercourse between the United States and the British possessions in Europe, she now concedes to us, in this respect, substantially that which we have been ineffectually seeking since the year 1815.

I am not aware that the restriction of the right of importation into the colonies to articles of American produce, was at any period seriously objected to by our Government. Nor can the difference, in this respect, between American and British vessels, if we allow it to continue, be an object of much importance in any point of view. It will generally be our interest, as it is that of every other nation, to allow the exportation of its surplus foreign produce in the vessels of any other country. It must be observed, also, that this is a privilege resulting from the general spirit of our laws, and therefore resting in our discretion. There is nothing in the arrangement now proposed to prevent the United States from hereafter denying to British vessels this advantage, if it prove injurious to their commerce, and in placing by that means the vessels of both countries, in this respect, upon an equal footing. I ought to observe, however, that sound policy would not warrant such a measure at any time.

Independently of these considerations, it is certain that both the restrictions now reserved by the construction adopted by this Government were absolutely conceded by ours before the present negotiation commenced, and could not have been renewed at present with any hope of success. More than has been secured by the present labors, the concessions of the last administration precluded us from demanding. But if this had not been so, more could not have been obtained.

In the letter of Mr Gallatin to Mr Clay of the 27th October, 1826, the meaning of the British act of Parliament of 5th July, 1825, which does not appear to have been previously understood by our Government, is fully and intelligibly explained. To ascertain the precise state of the regulations at that period, and the extent of the conditions and restrictions prescribed by the famous act of July, 1825, Mr Gallatin reviewed all the British statutes upon this subject and superadded the following observations:

"From what precedes, it follows, first, that the restrictions which limits the impor tations in foreign vessels of goods into the British West Indies and American colonies, to ves

sels of the country of which the goods are the produce, and coming direct from such country, having been revived by the navigation act of the 5th July, 1825, is still in force; secondly, that the restriction which limited the exportations in foreign vessels, of goods exported from the British West Indies and American colonies, to a direct exportation to the country to which such vessel did belong, is so far repealed as that such exportations in such vessels may be made to any country whatever, Great Britain and its dependencies excepted."

"Although there is no prospect that any arrangement will shortly take place on that subject, yet it is desirable to be prepared for any contingency. And I wish that the President would take into consideration whether, supposing an arrangement, either by convention or by mutual modification on both sides of existing laws or regulations, to be practicable, it would be proper, so far as relates to navigation, to agree to the terms contained in the acts of Parliament."

"The most important of the restrictions on the direct or circuitous trade, that which lim ited the exportation from the British West Indies in American vessels to the United States, has been repealed; and there remain but two-such exportations cannot be made in American vessels to Great Britain or her dependencies, a point on which we cannot insist, and which is already given up by the instructions; and the importations into those colonies of American prɔduce, must, if made in American vessels, be direct from the United States, Is it necessary, on that account, to insist on the right of preventing British vessels, other than those coming direct from the colonies, from clearing from the United States for those colonies? Or, in other words, (for it is clear that with such restriction no arrangement is practicable,) is it worth while, on that account, to continue to cut off altogether, the intercourse between the United States and the British colonies? On that question I beg leave to submit two observations. First, the right of importing produce of the United States into British West Indies from other places than the United States; is in itself of no great value. It might occasionally be convenient, when the market of Cuba, or of other ports in the Gulf of Mexico, was glutted with American produce, to have a right to take it in American vessels to the British West India ports; but it is but rarely that these will not, from the same causes, be also glutted at the same time, and that the expense of a double voyage and freight could be incurred. Secondly, whilst contending for nominal reciprocity, we must acknowledge that the other party must consider how far this reciprocity will be real. It is now ascertained that four-fifths of the tonnage employed in our intercourse with Great Britain herself are American, and only one-fifth British. Considering the species of population, the climate, and commercial expital of the West Indies, and the distance of Great Britain, it is utterly impossible that the direct intercourse between the United States and the British West Indies should not, with equal duties and charges, be carried on in a still greater proportion in vessels of the United States. The only compensation, in that respect, to Great Britain, is to be found in the circuitous voyages which British vessels may make from that country through the United States and her West Indin colonies; and I feel quite confident-I think any man acquainted with the subject will be of the same opinion-that even granting them that privilege, will leave more than three fourths of the intercourse to our vessels. "

“It will not escape you that the intercourse by sea between the United States and the British West Indies and North American colonies, has already been considered as necessarily connected together by the British Government, and that this connexion has been kept up in the acts of Parliament, in the articles proposed by Mr. Rush, and indeed in all former proposals on their part."

In consequence, as it may be supposed, of this explanation and advice from Mr Gallatin, our Government thenceforward abondoned whatever pretensions they may have previously set up beyond the acts of Parliament In a letter from Mr. Clay, dated April 11th, 1827, containing further instructions to Mr Gallatin, he was informed

"That the President is willing to recommend to Congress, at its next session, first, lo suspend the alien duties on British vessels and cargoes, and allow their entry into our ports with the same kind of British or British colonial produce as may be imported in American vessels, the vessels of both countries paying the same charges; and, secondly, to abolish the restriction in the act of 1823 to the direct intercourse between the United States and the Brit. ish colonies, leaving Great Britain in the exclusive possession of the circuitous trade between Great Britain proper, through her colonies, and the United States. Mr. Gallatin will inquire whether the passage of an act of Congress to that effect would lead to the revocation of the British order in council of July, 1827, to the abolition of the discriminating duties on American vessels in the British colonial ports, and to the enjoyment by our vessels of the advantages of fered by the act of the 5th July, 1825.”

These propositions were communicated by Mr. Gallatin to the British Government, in a note to Lord Dudley, of the 17th of August, 1827; in which he remarks that "this mode would repeal all former acts of the American Government which had been objected to by Great Britain, fulfil the condition in the act of Parliament as now understood, and remove every obstacle in the way to an arrangement; but that it would be useless for the President to make such recommendation, without first ascertaining the intentions of the British Government;" and he therefore inquired "whether, upon the passage of such an act as the President proposes to recommend, the British Government would allow to American vessels the privileges of trade and intercourse, according to the act of the 5th July, 1825?" With these communications, it will be seen that my instructions, and the overture by me submitted on the 12th December last, and now assented to by Great Britain, are entirely coincident."

I have been thus minute that the precise and uniform object of our negotiation with this Government should not be mistaken; and that the President, clearly and explicitly understanding these, may feel no hesitation, when executing the law, to interpret each particular clause in conformity with the obvious scope and design of the act.

Less difficulty, if possible, than on these points, can exist in regard to the entry of British vessels and their cargces in the ports of the United States, from the islands, provinces, or colonies, designated in the second section of the act. According to Mr. Gallatin's despatch, "the intercourse by sea between the United States and the British West Indies and North American colonies, has already been considered as necessarily connected together by the British Government, and and that this connexion has been kept up in all the acts of Parliament." It will not, therefore, be now separated. The general terms employed in this section are sufficiently comprehensive to embrace any description of entry; and in his instructions to the several collectors, the President may properly direct an entry similar to that specified in the first section of the bill, and in the spirit of cur proposition.

Such, I presume, was the purpose of the law. I have, however, suggested to this Government, in answer to the difficulty felt upon this point, the possibility that these general terms may have proceeded from an apprehension of the existing discriminating duty of one dollar per ton on American vessels in these northern colonial ports. Should such be the case, it will not escape you that this duty is prescribed by the order of the King in Council in 1823, in retaliation of our law of that year; and that, by the terms of my proposition, it will be now abolished.

If the remaining words of apparent difficulty constitute a provision incensistent with our proposition, and the act of the 5th July, 1825, I am obliged to confess myself incapable of comprehending either their object or meaning. I refer, of course, to the following clause: "leaving the commercial intercourse of the United States with all other parts of the British dominions or possessions on a fcoting not less favorable to the United States than it now is."

Such a provision, or any thing resembling it, is now introduced, for the first time, into our legislation upon this subject. With all other parts of the British dominions, our commercial intercourse is regulated either by the convention with Great Britain, or, with the exception of the ports in the northern provinces, absolutely prohibited by acts of Parliament. No legislation on either side can affect the stipulations of the convention, and any relaxation of existing prohibitions must be beneficial.

This clause, as it stands, if it be not altogether nugatory and cut of place, would seem rather to apprehend some evil, not understood or explained, from advantages to be conferred on our trade by G. Britain. In any view of the subject, however, it can properly relate only to the footing on which cur commercial intercourse with other ports will be left at the time of conceding such advantages. Happily, therefore, with whatever object the clause may have been introduced, the President may issue his proclamation with every assurance that the correspondent acts on the part of this Government will leave "the commercial intercourse of the United States with all other parts of the British dominions cn a footing not less favorable to the United States than it now is."

That you may have all the British acts of Parliament relative to this subject before you, and compare without difficulty the various provisions of the act of the 5th July, 1825, for the encouragement of British shipping and navigation, and of that of the same date regulating the trade with the British possessions abroad, I have the honor herewith to forward you "Hume's Custom Laws," containing all that may be useful in your researches.

The observations of the Earl of Aberdeen relative to the scale of duties in favor of those interests incidentally fostered by the suspension of the intercourse between the United States and the West Indies, are less unfavorable than, at the date of my despatch of the 6th April, I had reason to apprehend. It was on the ground of this apprehension, principally, that, in my note to Lord Aberdeen of the 12th July last, I alluded so particularly to the acts of Congress reducing the duty on several articles of West India produce.

Though it may be probable that the schedule of duties adopted contempora necusly with the act of Parliament of the 5th July, 1825, will be hereafter modified, the effect must be more severely felt by the West India planter, already overburthened, than by our merchants; and in this there is a safe guarantee against any excessive alteration. There is good reason to believe, moreover, that such modification, whenever it shall be made, will consist in reducing the duty on some important articles, while it may increase it on others; and that our trade, in the aggregate, will not be materially affected. This modification, however, is not a part or condition of the present arrangement, and will therefore depend upon fu ture contingencies, of which each nation will be free to take advantage; and ours, particularly, to resort to countervailing duties, if that course be deemed expedient.

On this question, we will always have the West Indian interest on our side; and that, after the concessions heretofore made, is all we can expect. The arrangement now proposed will restore to our vessels the direct trade with the British colonial ports, and place the navigation of both countries in that trade upon an equal footing. We may safely rely upon the skill and enterprise of the American merchants to accomplish the rest.

I need scarcely refer to the period for which this question has embarrassed the trade of our citizens, and the relations of the two countries, nor to the numerous failures which have attended the efforts of our Government to adjust it. But it ought not to be forgotten that, in producing these failures, technical interpretations and misapprehension of legal provisions have had their full share. Sensible of this, I felt it my duty to guard, if possible, against their recurrence; and after the solicitude and perseverance with which I have conducted the negotiation, I could not shun the responsibility of attempting to reconcile the apparent obscurities of the law with the clear and frank object of our Government. I am happy to be lieve, moreover, that, in the attempt, I am fully sustained by the soundest principles of construction. In any event, I shall feel conscious that, with the sincerest desire to conform to the instructions and sustain the character of the Executive, I have faithfully contributed to succor the enterprise of my fellow-citizens, and to place the foreign relations of the country upon a foundation of lasting harmony. I have the honor to be, Sir, &c. LOUIS MCLANE.

To the Hon. Martin Van Buren, Secretary of State, Washington.

124.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. McLane.

Explanation of the Construction relative to the Consent of the British Government to restore, to the Vessels of the United States, a Direct Intercourse with Her American Colonies.

Foreign Office [London] Aug. 17, 1830. The undersigned, His M,'s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Mr. McLane, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America to this Court, dated the 12th of July; communicating certain measures which have been adopted by Congress with a view to remove the obstacles which have hitherto impeded the re-establishment of the commercial intercourse between the United States and the British West India colonies

Previously to the receipt of this communication, his Majesty's Government had already had under their consideration Mr. McLane's note of the 16th March last, explanatory of the proposition contained in his letter of the 12th of December, 1829, with reference to the same subject; and the undersigned assures Mr. McLane that his Majesty's Government, in the earnest and dispassionate attention which they bestowed upon this proposition, were actuated by the most friendly feelings towards the Government of the United States, and by a sincere disposi tion to meet the proposals which he was authorized to make in the spirit with which they where offered.

But the undersigned considers it unnecessary now to enter into any detailed discussion of the points embraced in those previous communications of Mr. McLane, because they are in a great measure superseded by the more specific, and therefore more satisfactory propositions contained in his note of the 12th July; to the contents of which note, therefore, the undersigned will principally confine his present observations: