cil was already on its way to America, should have been left wholly unshaken by the lapse of six months, during which no such order arrived, nor the remotest intimation of its being passed or intended. the part of others to which they may have given rise. And hence; the undersigned is naturally led to the third and only remaining topic of the present note. Mr. Gallatin asks, whether, in the event of such a law as he describes being passed by Congress, the British Government would revoke the Order in Council of the 27th of July, 1826, and adopt the other measures which he concurrently mentions? The undersigned does full justice to the frank and friendly tone in which this inquiry is made; and he feels that the answer of the British Government ought, in the same proportion, to be explicit. Without commenting on the particular provisions of the law which, according to the supposition of Mr. Gallatin, is to be enacted by Congress, it is proper to say that the British Government cannot prospectively commit itself to the adoption of any specific line of conduct, in the event of such law being enacted. It will not for a moment be imagined that, by these observations, the undersigned intends to east any doubt on the explanation which has been given of the proceedings of the United States on the occasion alluded to, or to question the motives which dicta-. ted those proceedings. But he deems it due to his own country, due indeed to both the countries involved in these discussions, that each party should state its opinions and impressions with perfect frankness-a frankness indeed, of which Mr. Gallatin himself has very honourably furnished an example, and which the undersigned deems not only consistent with friendly feelings, but even essential to a mutual good understanding and confidence. It is then, in the judgment of the undersigned, important to show, and with all proper deference, he conceives himself to have, in fact, shown that the misapprehensions with regard to the views and intentions of Great Britain, by which the Government and the Legislature of the United States appear, in the present instance, to have been Much, also, may turn on the misled, were not warranted by position and circumstances both any part of the conduct or the of this country, of the United language of the British Govern- States, and of the commercial ment; and that this country, commonwealth in general, at the therefore, is not responsible for time when such law come into those misapprehensions, nor obli- effect. This last consideration ged, as of course, to reconsider is indeed conclusive: for it has any measures on her own part, or relation to the very essence of to repair any ill consequences on the principles which the British With whatever conformity to the suggestion of Mr. Gallatin, the proposed law may, as to its general principles, be framed; still, those general principles, are liable to be accompanied by details, which no anticipation can brace. em Government entertains on the present subject. Strictly asserting her right to prohibit or to regulate the intercourse of foreigners with her colonies, according to her conception of her own interests, and without explanation or apology to other States, it would be impossible for Great Britain, without a compromise of her principles, to pledge herself by advance, and with reference to circumstances yet unknown, or partially foreseen, to the establishment of any particular system of policy in relation to such inter course. On another, and distinct ground, the mode of proceeding suggested by Mr. Gallatin seems liable to exception. In adjusting her colonial relations with foreigners, this country has preferred the method of municipal legislation to that of treaty; and the United States have at length acquiesced in that preference, though not themselves approving it. The process recommended by Mr. Gallatin (and which, if adopted, must become a precedent,) would seem to combine the disadvantages of both methods without proportionally securing the benefits of either. If the terms of colonial intercourse are to be adjusted by mutual laws, but those laws themselves are to be founded on informal agree ments, previously entered into between the Governments, it is manifest that a course of proceeding is pursued, which fully ensures neither the certainty and. notoriety of international convention, nor the facility and independence of domestic legislation. On the whole, His Majesty's Ministers feel themselves under the necessity of declining to give the pledge invited by Mr. Gallatin; and this with no special or exclusive reference to the peculiar measure in question. Their resolution is the result of considerations, general in their nature, and conclusive against a prospective pledge of any description respecting the colonial policy of Great Britain, whether of relaxation or restriction. In the formation of this decision, the undersigned is persuaded that it is unnecessary to disclaim the influence of any unfriendly feelings towards the United States. He can only repeat that the British Government cherishes, for the United States, sentiments only of sincere amity. The undersigned has the honour to renew to Mr. Gallatin the assurance of his high considerations. DUDLEY. Foreign Office, Oct. 1, 1827. MR. GALLATIN TO LORD DUDLEY. To the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Dudley, &c. &.c. The undersigned, Minister of the United States, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note addressed to him, on the first of this month, by Lord Dudley, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in answer to the notes of the undersigned, of the 4th of June, and 17th of August last, on the subject of the colonial intercourse. It is believed, that Lord Dudley would, on a close examination of the measures which the Presi dent of the United States was willing to recommend to Congress, have been satisfied that those measures would not only have tended to relax, but would have altogether abrogated all the restrictions imposed by the American Legislature on the colonial intercourse through the medium of British vessels. The objection drawn from an anticipation of the details, which might have accompanied the general principles of the proposed law, would have been easily removed. And those that are suggested against the process recommended by the American Government, seem less conclusive against it, than supporting the preference which the United States had given to an arrangement by treaty. But since His Majesty's Ministers are of opinion that much may turn on the position and circumstances of Great Britain, of the United States, and of the commercial world in general, when such laws should come into effect; and since, in declining to give the pledge invited by the overture of America, they have explicitly declared that their resolution was the result of considerations general in their nature, and conclusive against a prospective pledge of any description respecting the colonial policy of Great Britain; the undersigned, whose efforts to obtain a more favourable answer to the inquiry he had been directed to make, have been unavailing, has no other duty to perform, in that respect, than to transmit to his Government the determination of that of Great Britain. It is with regret that the undersigned finds that Lord Dudley, who had at first considered the note of the 4th of June as not calling for any reply, has now deemed it necessary to offer some comment on the explanations contained in that note, of the conduct of the Government of the United States, in relation to the colonial intercourse, subsequent to the act of Parliament of July, 1825. He had designedly separated the explanations from the inquiry, and suffered more than two months to elapse between his two notes, in order to afford sufficient time for any reply which that of the 4th June might require, and in order that the discussion on the topics embraced by it being finally concluded, the proposal he had to make might be taken into consideration, without any retrospect of antecedent circumstances, and solely as a question of policy and mutual convenience. It is with unfeigned reluctance that he finds himself compelled again to revert to points already so much debated, and to take some notice of Lord Dudley's observations on explanations which it had been hoped, would have been deemed satisfactory.. It is correctly stated that the reasons alleged by the United States for not having complied with the condition prescribed by the act of Parliament of July, 1825, were, first, because the opinion was entertained, that it was still the intention of Great Britain that the intercourse should be arranged by negotiation: secondly, because it was not known whether the condition was rightly understood. On the last point, Lord Dudley seems to think that the doubts which the undersigned had mentioned as attaching to the meaning of the act were rather the suggestions of his own mind, than the recorded grounds of the perplexity felt by the American Government or Legislature. And he infers, from the specific proposal contained in the note of the undersigned of the 17th of August, and from an allusion to a declaration of Mr. Canning, that the condition in question, had seemed to the Government of the United States so perfectly clear for all practical purposes, as to be susceptible only of one interpreta tion. 66 a The note of the undersigned, in which he tried to explain in what consisted the difficulty of understanding what was meant by the condition of the act of Parliament, is that of December 28, 1826; and that note was explicitly stated to be founded on despatch from the Secretary of State of the United States, the substance of which he was instructed to communicate to Mr. Canning.' The statement of the doubts attaching to the meaning of the act, though varied in the expression, was, in substance, taken from that despatch; which, although it has not attracted the notice of Lord Dudley, was communicated to Congress, and republished in December or January last, in several of the London newspapers.. Senate, of March, 31, 1826, to which he had already alluded in his note of 4th of June. This document will satisfy Lord Dudley that the Committee had under consideration the Baltimore memorial, requesting that British vessels, from whatever ports, might be admitted (in the ports of the United States) on the same terms as the vessels of the most favoured nations; and that the Committee's report against the prayer of the petitioners was founded on two reasons: first, that, to admit British vessels indiscriminately, with their cargoes, from whencesoever arriving, or of whatsoever composed, on the same terms as vessels of the most favoured nations, or, in other words, to comply with the condi tion of the act of Parliament, as understood by the Committee, would operate as a surrender of the principle of equality, &c. Secondly, that a (corresponding) desire to arrange the colonial intercourse on a satisfactory footing, appeared to exist on the part of the British Government; and that the negotiations respecting it were expected to come to a defnitive issue before the next session of Congress. To this day, the Government of the United States are not sure that they understand precisely what was intended by the condition. Desirous as they were that their proposal should be accepted, they wished to present it in the most, unexceptionable form; and if, instead of 'offering to comply with the act of Parliament, which certainly was the most simple proposition, and the most likely to be favourably received, a specific proposal has been made, it is, in fact, because it was thought unsafe to agree to terms not sufficiently understood, and which have not been explained. It has been justly observed by Lord Dudley, that the abolition of the discriminating duties must, under any construction of the act, have been an essential term in the condition. The undersigned in his note of December 28, 1826, when observing that the words "commerce and navigation of this country," might have been intended to include only the circuitous intercourse, expressly stated, what was true, that "this last interpretation had been suggested only by the observations that had occurred in the course of Mr. Canning's correspondence with him." Mr. Canning had limited his animadversions on the acts of the United States to two enactments only-the discriminating duties, and the restrictions on British vessels employed in what has been called the circuitous or indirect intercourse. The specific proposal made by the United States, embraces those two objects. Having no other light but was derived from the correspondence, they presume, without being certain that they were not mistaken, that it might be accepted as a fulfilment of the condition. The intimation that they would have considered the removal of the interdict as a matter of course, had it not been for Mr. Canning's declaration, is clearly to be understood as founded on the supposition that they were not mistaken in the interpretation, which, for the reasons that have been stated, they had ventured to give to the act of Parliament. But it cannot certainly be inferred, that, because in framing a proposal, and reasoning upon it, they have been induced to adopt, or rather to assume, a certain construction they no longer have, much less that they never had, well founded doubts on the meaning of the act. It is rather remarkable that, after those doubts had been so explicitly stated in the note of December 28, 1826, to Mr. Canning, he did not even advert to that branch of the discussion in his reply of January 27, 1827: and still more so, that Lord Dudley, whilst commenting upon it, should have carefully avoided giving any explanation; and, on the contrary, should have distinctly said, that he neither admitted nor denied that the construction, which the undersigned had suggested as being the literal, and which Lord Dudley designates as the severer interpretation of the act. undersigned is at a loss how to account for the reluctance which seems to have been evinced, of saying, at once, what was truly intended by the condition so often alluded to. The The final disposition of the bill, which had been introduced for the repeal of the discriminating duties, even if considered as an absolute rejection, proves only that, either it appeared to be unnecessary, as not fulfilling all the conditions required by the act of Parliament, or that the American Legislature relied on the issue of the expected negotiation. ' If the Government of the United States did not apply to that of Great Britain for an explanation of the condition, it was partly |