(Inclosure.)-Mr. Everett to the Earl of Aberdeen.

Legation of The United States, April 2, 1843.

THE Undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of the Earl of Aberdeen, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated 1st March, 1842, relative to the duties heretofore levied on rough rice imported from the United States of America. As the Undersigned is specially instructed by his Government to sustain the interests of the parties concerned in these importations, and as those parties have earnestly invited his continued interposition on their behalf, he feels himself constrained, as a matter of duty, again to invite the attention of the Earl of Aberdeen to the claim of the parties for the return of the Exchequer bills now held in deposit, and for the reimbursement of the discriminating duties, levied, as the Government of The United States consider, in contravention of the Treaty of Commerce between the 2 countries, of 3rd July, 1815. The Undersigned ventures to ask the early attention of Lord Aberdeen to the subject, that it may be in the power of Her Majesty's Government, if they deem it expedient, to introduce some measure of relief for the parties interested, into any Bill which may be submitted to Parliament, to carry into effect the Treasury Minute of the 15th October, 1841.

Lord Aberdeen acquaints the Undersigned that his representation of the 30th of December last, on that subject, has been submitted to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, for their consideration; and that their Lordships, in substance, state that the Board has, "during a protracted discussion upon this subject, uniformly resisted the claim advanced by The United States, on the ground that it was not conformable to what they considered the proper interpretation of the Treaty of Commerce between the 2 countries."

The Undersigned begs leave in order to a correct understanding of the state of the question, briefly to review the history of the discussion.

A case having arisen, in which the duty of 20s. per quarter was demanded on a cargo of rough rice, the produce of The United States, while the same article, from the Western Coast of Africa, was, under a recent statute, admitted on the duty of 1d. a quarter, Mr. Stevenson, the predecessor of the Undersigned, in a note dated 15th February, 1839, called the attention of Lord Palmerston to the subject, and requested that the cargo in question might be admitted at the low rate of duty. No answer having been returned to this note by his Lordship, Mr. Stevenson renewed the application on the 18th of the following July. On the 13th of January, 1840, being still without any answer to his former notes, Mr. Stephenson made a third repre

sentation to Lord Palmerston on the subject. In his reply of the 8th February, his Lordship, without stating that the interpretation given to the Treaty by Her Majesty's Government differed from that of The United States, observed that "the question was found, when examined, to affect other questions of great importance, and to be embarrassed with impediments, which it would require much mature consideration to devise suitable means of removing." His Lordship added, that "the question is still under the consideration of the Lords of the Treasury and of Her Majesty's Law Authorities; and it is hoped that the decision of Her Majesty's Government upon it may be come to without much longer delay."

After a further lapse of about a twelvemonth, (during which no answer was returned by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the American Minister,) Mr. Stevenson, on the 1st of February, 1841, again addressed Lord Palmerston, in reference to another importation of rough rice from The United States, on which a discriminating duty had been demanded at the Customs. On this occasion, Mr. Stevenson entered fully into the argument of the question, under the provisions of the Treaty of Commerce between The United States and Great Britain. No answer having been returned to this communication, Mr. Stevenson, on the 5th of April, 1841, again invited the attention of Lord Palmerston to the subject, and received, in reply, a note of the 7th, stating merely that Lord Palmerston had referred Mr. Stevenson's letter to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. No further communication on the subject was received from Her Majesty's Government till the 1st of September, when a note was addressed by Lord Palmerston to Mr. Stevenson, in which it was stated "that it was the intention of Her Majesty's present Government, if they had remained in office, to have brought into Parliament a prospective measure upon" the subject of the remission of duties imposed on rough rice. On the 28th September a note was addressed to the Earl of Aberdeen, by Mr. Stevenson, briefly stating the progress of the discussion, and in reference to the suggestion of Lord Palmerston, that a measure was to have been proposed to Parliament, suggesting that, in these cases, as in the similar one of bees-wax, it was competent for Her Majesty's Government, without an Act of Parliament, to restore to the rough rice of The United States the benefits provided by the Commercial Treaty of 1815.

In Lord Aberdeen's answer of the 20th October, it is observed, "that Mr. Stevenson is aware that the late Boards of Treasury and Trade took a different view of the construction of the IInd Article of the Convention between Great Britain and The United States, of the 3rd of July, 1815, as bearing upon this question, from that which Mr. Stevenson takes, and upon which Mr. Stevenson founds his application for the low rate of duty, in favour of American rice;" and this

statement is repeated in the note which Lord Aberdeen did the Undersigned the honour to address to him, dated March 1st. The Earl of Aberdeen, however, will perceive, from the above brief recapitulation of the origin and progress of the discussion, that, from the first application of Mr. Stevenson to Lord Palmerston, in February, 1839, down to the retirement of his Lordship from office, no statement was made in writing by Lord Palmerston, in reply to Mr. Stevenson's numerous and pressing notes, from which a distinct difference of opinion, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, as to the construction of the Treaty, could be inferred. The Undersigned does not find any communication on file from Lord Palmerston, in which the correctness of the American construction of the Treaty is questioned. In the only note in which Lord Palmerston alludes to the causes of the delay which had taken place in the decision of a question seemingly so simple, the note of the 8th February, 1840, that delay is ascribed to the fact that the "question, when examined, was found to affect other questions of great importance; and to be embarrassed with impediments, which it would require much mature consideration to devise suitable means of removing."

From this, the only allusion found in the correspondence to the grounds of delay which had arisen in the decision of a matter so frequently and earnestly pressed on the consideration of Her Majesty's late Government, the Undersigned thinks it would naturally be inferred, not so much that different views were taken of the provisions of the Treaty, but that other considerations embarrassed Her Majesty's Government in yielding to the American claim. The Undersigned begs leave to add, that, in examining the records of the Legation, in reference to this matter, though he finds mention of personal interviews between Lord Palmerston and Mr. Stevenson, in which it was the subject of conversation, yet he nowhere finds in the report of those conversations, transmitted by Mr. Stevenson to his Government, any distinct traces of a decided difference of opinion as to the true construction of the Treaty. If the Undersigned does not mistake, Lord Aberdeen's note of the 20th October contains the first positive information that there was a difference between Her Majesty's late Government and that of The United States, as to the construction of the Treaty. Till that note was received, it might have been naturally inferred that the delay which had taken place in admitting the justice of the American claim, arose from its connection with "other questions of great importance," and the embarrassment experienced in finding a remedy for the evil complained of by the American Government, without sacrificing other objects deemed of importance by Her Majesty's Government.

This view of the subject must have derived strength from a debate which arose in the House of Commons, on the 22nd of May, 1840, on

a motion for the second reading of the Customs Bill. The subject of the discriminating duty on rough rice was brought forward on that occasion by Mr. Herrics. In the course of the debate, it was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (Mr. Baring,) that "the great object, when the Slave Trade was abolished, had been to protect and encourage the produce of the Western Coast of Africa, in order to allure the natives from their sanguinary feuds to habits of peace, order, and civilization." This, the Undersigned supposes he may safely assume to be the object (certainly a most praiseworthy one) to which Lord Palmerston had alluded in his note of February 8th; and that the embarrassment spoken of in the same note consisted in the impossibility of reconciling the pursuit of this object with the stipulations of the Treaty of July, 1815, with The United States; in other words the impossibility of encouraging the products of the agriculture of Africa by a discriminating duty of 240 per cent. over the same products of The United States, the Treaty providing that no higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the territories of Her Britannic Majesty, in Europe, of any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of The United States, than are, or shall be, payable on the like articles being the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in explanation of the law, observed, "that the rice might not be grown in our settlements; but, if it were imported from the neighbouring districts into our settlements, and thence to England it was liable to the lower duty only.” It is obvious, however, that this argument applies only to the law as it existed prior to the Act of 28th July, 1836. By the previous law, viz., that of 9th September, 1835, a duty of 1d. per bushel was levied on "rough rice, or paddy, the produce of the West Coast of Africa, imported from a British possession on that coast." To the provisions of this Act, the argument of Mr. Baring might apply, although the Undersigned can by no means admit the conclusion. But, by the Act of July, 1836, the law was altered; the condition of being imported from a British possession (in which lay the entire force of the argument), was dropped; and it was enacted that "rice, rough and in the husk, imported from the West Coast of Africa,” should pay a duty of 1d. per quarter; while, by the General Customs Law, the same article from the United States of America paid a duty or 20s. per quarter. To this new law, it is plain that the reasoning of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has no application; and that it is not possible, by any construction, to reconcile it with the Treaty of 3rd July, 1815.

The President of the Board of Trade, (Mr. Labouchere,) while expressing the opinion that the discriminating duty might be reconciled with the strict letter of the Treaty, admitted that "a question

might arise, whether we had not taken an indirect mode of violating the spirit of the Treaty, which would render it matter of fair and just complaint against us by a foreign State." Mr Labouchere then proceeded to show that the discriminating duty was not inconsistent with the letter of the Treaty, because it gave an advantage, not to rice the product of the West Coast of Africa, but to any rice imported from that coast. His idea appears to have been that the planter of Carolina might send his rice to the coast of Africa, to be thence imported into Great Britain, a circuitous voyage of 4 months, which would at least double the charge of freight on a bulky article; and, from the greatly increased length of the voyage, under a tropical sun, would subject the cargo to such risk and damage as to render the trade nearly impracticable. The Undersigned will only remark, that it appears to him far more evident that such a construction is in violation of the spirit, than in conformity with the letter, of the Treaty. In the apprehension of the Undersigned it violates both. Should The United States pass a law, that all articles of woollen and cotton imported from France should pay a duty 240 times less than the same articles imported from any other country, the Undersigned feels confident that Her Majesty's Government would deem it a positive violation both of the letter and of the spirit of the Treaty of 3rd July, 1815; and would consider it a very insufficient answer, to be told that British fabrics destined for America could be sent to the ports of France, and there enjoy the benefit of the low duty. In fact, unless an advantage was given to the African over the American rice by the duty, why was it laid? If there be an advantage, the argument fails.

In addition to this, it may be observed, that the analogy drawn by Mr. Labouchere between an imaginary trade in American rice sent to the coast of Africa, and thence transhipped to England, and the admission into England of American timber and potash, passing through Canada, applies like the argument of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, only to the law as it existed previous to the Act of 28th July, 1836, and not at all to the law as it existed when this debate took place, and as it now exists.

In this debate, the discriminating duty was spoken of by Mr. Herries and Mr. Goulburn, as clearly inconsistent with the Treaty of July 3rd, 1815, between The United States and Great Britain. The Undersigned begs leave particularly to call the attention of Lord Aberdeen to the argument of Mr. Herries, as reported in Hansard's Debates, pp. 513, 515. The Undersigned infers that this was also the opinion of the distinguished gentleman now at the head of Her Majesty's Government; and that he considered the discriminating duty to be an infringement of the rights secured by the Treaty, not merely to the American citizen, but to the British subject, who might be disposed to invest his capital in American rice.