FEB. 23, 1827.] The Colonial Trade Bill. [SENATE. est importance; and concluded by repeating his desire that a conciliatory overture on our part might first be made to the British Government. The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. HOLMES, and decided in the negative, by the following vote: greatest magnitude to the whole country, and the intro- YEAS-Messrs. Bateman, Bell, Chambers, Chandler, Chase, Harrison, Holmes, Knight, Robbins, Ruggles, Sey NAYS-Messrs. Barton, Benton, Berrien, Bouligny, Branch, Clayton, Cobb, Dickerson, Eaton, Edwards, Findlay, Hayne, Hendricks, Johnson, Ky. Johnston, Lou. King, M'Kinley, Macon, Marks, Randolph, Reed, Ridgely, Rowan, Sanford, Smith, Md. Smith, S. C. Tazewell, Thomas, Van Buren, White, Williams, Woodbury-32. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1827. The unfinished business of yesterday was then resumed, and the bill to regulate the intercourse between the United States and the Colonies of Great Britain was again taken up, the amendment offered by Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, still pending. Mr. MACON opposed the amendment. He wished to attempt to obtain our object by peaceful measures, and he understood the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland to be an offer, on the part of this country, to take up with terms offered formerly by Great Britain, and rejected by us, and he wished this question to be put to the British Government before this country went any further. Mr. TAZEWELL spoke at some length against the amendment offered by Mr. HOLMES. He considered the bill to be passed this session as the basis of future negotiation, and desired that that negotiation should be amicable and conciliatory rather than otherwise. The amend- Mr. JOHNSTON said, the bill under discussion, reportment of the gentleman from Maryland would save the ne-ed by the Committee of Commerce, proposes to interdict cessity of making use of any minatory proposition towards the intercoure between this country and the British ports the British Government. He preferred the bill as it came in her North American possessions, and West India and from the committee to the amendment of the gentleman other Colonies, after the 30th September next, provided from Maryland, amended by the gentleman from Maine. Great Britain shall refuse to open those ports upon the The latter destroyed the conciliatory character of the terms therein offered. The amendment proposes to strike amendment proposed by the gentleman from Maryland. out the interdiction, and leave the terms for their acceptHe considered the time between the 4th March and the ance; but without any indication of the policy or princi1st August altogether too short to expect any decision ples which will govern the future conduct of this Governfrom the British Cabinet. Mr. T. then considered, some ment. The question then submitted to the Senate is, what at large, the effects likely to arise out of a destruc- Whether, under the existing state of things, we shall imtion of the West India trade, and concluded by remark- pose the interdict upon British vessels arriving from the ing, that the bill reported by the committee was, in his Colonies, corresponding with their interdict upon Ameriopinion, better than the proposition of the gentleman from can vessels? Mr. J. said, he found his labors and responMaine, but the amendment of the gentleman from Mary-sibility greatly increassd by the course pursued by the land more appropriate than either. gentleman from Maryland. He had distinctly understood from him, that he approved the bill, and would support it; that he should have the sanction of his opinion and his aid in debate. You may judge my surprise, when I saw that gentleman rise to strike out the interdict from the bill, within a few minutes after conversing with him; and my astonishment is not diminished, by the extraordinary course of attack upon the bill, the report, and the Administration, in a long, studied, and premeditated speech. The gentleman seems to have undergone a very sudden and entire revolution; every thing is changed. The bill which he approved, has become very menacing in its character, and will Mr. BRANCH spoke against the amendment of Mr. be very offensive in its operation. The report is characHOLMES. When the proper time should arrive, he terized as a sort of declaration of war. Now, after readshould be ready to use measures as energetic as those ing both, he had said, he should support the bill, and he proposed by that gentleman. But we were bound first even said he had seen the President, and that he found to meet the British Government on conciliatory grounds. that he understood the subject right. I was very happy The amende honorable was due from this Government to to find myself sustained by the high authority which he Great Britain, and he hoped their first act would be to ac- referred to; but I did not anticipate that that interview knowledge that this country had been wrong. Let us with the Executive would end at last in an open accusado this in kindness, and tender friendly terms to the Bri- tion of ignorance and negligence of the rights and interfish Government. If they then rejected them, they would ests of the country. The report is now pronounced very have assumed the fault; and the blame, let what might en- provoking, and will be considered in England as the act sue, would not attach to this Government. Such an ac- of the Government. Mr. J. said he believed these things knowledgment was no more than the committee and are well understood in England. They would know that this Government had already made; and Congress should this was merely the exposé of a Committee, and that it not shrink from making it, lest it should shock the mor- derives all its authority from the truth of the facts, and the bil sensibility of the powers that be. Mr. B. then allud- force of the arguments. It was the object of the report, ed to the late war, and to the measures which caused it; to be temperate in its language, conciliatory in its manner, to the manner in which the interest of the manufacturers moderate in its terms, liberal in its views but firm and had advanced at the expense of the other classes of the fixed in its purpose. The Committee had no morbid decommunity, and to the peculiar interests of his own State, licacy. They stated in clear terms, and perhaps strong to which, he observed, the Colonial trade was of the high-language, the rights of the country, and the pretensions Mr. HOLMES replied to Messrs. TAZEWELL and SMITH, of Md. He still believed it would be practicable for the British Cabinet to revise their acts by the first of August. But he had no objection to lengthening the time to the first of September. He was happy that he had offered this amendment, as it had drawn forth opinions and sentiments of which he had not been aware; and it now appeared to him that the gentleman from Maryland was opposed to all restriction. If his amendment was not adopted, he should think it useless to do any thing on the subject. : (FEB. 23, 1827. of Great Britain. But they knew the difference between "prise and activity of their citizens, for a due participarude and offensive epithets, and the manly expression of "tion of the benefits of the sea-faring business, and for the national feeling, with the force and the dignity which "keeping the marine class of citizens equal to their obthe occasion required. The gentleman has said, that the "ject. But, if particular nations grasp at undue shares, report and bill ought to have been submitted to the Exe-"and, more especially, if they seize on the means of the cutive. To what can such doctrines lead, but to render "United States, to convert them into aliment for their this Government a machine to be moved up and let down "own strength, and withdraw them entirely from the by a spring, to be touched by the finger of one man? support of those to whom they belong, defensive and There is now an existing law, which imposes on the Presi- "protecting measures become necessary on the part of dent the obligation of declaring that the Colonial ports "the nation whose marine resources are thus invaded." are closed to our vessels, and, on the annunciation of that "Where a nation imposes high duties on our productions, fact, the laws of 1818 and 1820 revive by the force of law."or prohibits them altogether, it may be proper for us to The President, anxious to do what the public interest and "do the same by theirs." "Where a nation refuses to the public will require, has submitted the subject to Con- "receive in our vessels any productions but our own, gress, to ascertain if it is their disposition to change the "we may refuse to receive, in theirs, any but their own existing state of the law; and now it is thought we should "productions." "Where a nation refuses to consider any go back to inquire of him what ought to be done. What "vessel as ours which has not been built within our teraid can be derived from our local knowledge, our opin-"ritories, we should refuse to consider as theirs, any vesions, or our advice? Of what use is a legislstive body, if "sel not built within their territories." "Where a nawe shrink from our duty to avoid the responsibility, and "tion refuses to our vessels the carriage even of our own refer every thing to him. The pride of station, and the "productions, to certain countries under their dominadignity of a Senator, will not permit me to take my opin- tion, we might refuse to theirs, of every description, ions in that way, or to commit the fortune and destiny of "the carriage of the same productions to the same counthe country to any man; and if we did, we should turn "tries." "The establishment of some of these principles round hereafter upon the President, as the gentleman has "by Great Britain alone, has already lost us, in our comdone in this debate, and accuse him of being the author of "merce with that country and its possessions, between our laws, and hold him responsible for the consequences."eight and nine hundred vessels, of near 40,000 tons burHe now denies that he had any knowledge of the law of "den, according to statements from official materials, in 1823; that the bill was drawn by the then Secretary of "which they have confidence. This involves a proporState, and passed through Congress without discussion. "tional loss of seamen, shipwrights, and shipbuilding, Where was he, when a subject of such importance was "and is too serious a loss to admit forbearance of some passed? and when did he find out that law was so injudi- "effectual remedy." "It is not to the moderation and cious? How does he account for this to his constituents "justice of others we are to trust for fair and equal acThis doctrine must resolve this Government into a single "cess to market with our productions, or for our due share power. "in the transportation of them but to our own means The gentleman from Maryland has placed his amend-"of independence, and the firm will to use them." ment upon the ground that this country has been wrong I have consulted these principles in the present case. in this matter, and that some act of conciliation is due I have taken them for my guide. I believe it is the impefrom us. It will be my duty to vindicate the conduct of rious duty of those who direct the councils of this nation this Government, to justify the interdict, and to remark to preserve the rights, the character, and the dignity, of upon the conduct of the British Government, in relation the nation, by an adherence to known and approved printo the time, manner, and circumstance, of their interdict. ciples, and by following out to their results the maxims It has been a settled maxim in our policy, since the foun- and truths of political science, which time and opinion dation of the Government, to regulate our commercial in- have sanctioned. I beg the gentleman from Maryland to tercourse with all nations, upon terms of equality and re- look to great principles, not to temporary expedients ciprocity; to meet them in every act of friendship or hos- to meet Great Britain in the true spirit of the nation; not tility; and to be governed by an exact scale of justice. by humiliating his country before her. Let him rememI beg leave to refer to some of these principles. I read ber that submission never set bounds to encroachment; from Mr. Jefferson's commercial report in 1793, which that free trade is not to be given for restriction and procontains the great system of reciprocity for the govern- hibition; and acquiescence will not obtain a relaxation of ment of our intercourse with foreign nations. It corres- them. He will remember that these principles were viponds with the principles of Mr. Madison's resolutions. olently opposed in their day, and by arguments not unThey contain the true republican doctrines of that day, like those he has employed on this occasion. We have and on which our commerce and navigation have been heretofore acted on these principles. We have met her founded. They have been confirmed by time and prac- exclusion by non-intercourse: and if we now relax, if we tice, and have become the settled policy of the country, fail to meet the crisis, if we do not now act on our known and from which we cannot depart without an abandon- principles-we abandon our rights, and trust to favor and ment of our principles. They will be found a sure guide conciliation to obtain what was never granted to moderain all times. "But should any nation, contrary to our tion. You will sacrifice the principles of our policy, de"wishes, suppose it may better find its advantage by con-grade the country, yield up the trade, and, with it, the "tinuing its system of prohibitions, duties, and regula“tions, it behooves us to protect our citizens, their com"merce, and navigation, by counter prohibitions, duties, Having now shown the principles on which our system "and regulations, also. Free commerce and navigation is founded, let us pursue the subject to see how the charge, "are not to be given in exchange for restrictions and vex- which the gentleman has brought upon his own country, "ations: nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of is sustained; and, for this purpose, I hope I shall be par"them." "Were the ocean, which is the common pro-doned for the tediousness of this dry detail. Among the "perty of all, open to the industry of all, so that every first measures adopted by this Government for the protec"person and vessel should be free to take employment tion of our navigation, was a duty of one dollar a ton on "wherever it could be found, the United States would foreign vessels, and ten per cent. additional to the duties "certainly not set the example of appropriating to them- on the merchandise imported in them. Our own vessels "selves, exclusively, any portion of the common pay a tonnage duty of six cents. There is, therefore, a "stock of occupation. They would rely on the enter-discrimination of ninety-four cents a ton, and the ten per power of controlling and coercing it-in the vain hope of operating on British magnanimity. FEB. 23, 1827.] The Colonial Trade Bill. [SENATE. cent. on the duties, which foreign vessels pay over what principle which governs nations, to believe that Great is paid by American vessels. But, as this country was Britain opens her ports, or divides her commerce with desirous of placing her commerce upon the most perfect any nation, as a matter of favor. It is a matter of interest equality with all nations who would adopt the same prin- or necessity. We do not complain that she closes her ciple, authority was given to the President, by an act, in Colonial ports, but of that want of delicacy and reciproci1815, to remove this discrimination from the vessels of all ty which permits her to do, in ours, what she refuses us nations who would remove theirs from our vessels; and, to do in her own. Up to this period, then, it seems there accordingly, the vessels of all nations that admit ours on can be no ground of censure against the American Go the same terms as their own, are admitted in our ports vernment. It is sufficient for me to remark, without atwith the same charges as our vessels. In the Convention tempting to account for the motives or principles which of 1815, Great Britain accepted these terms, so far as re- governed her, that, in two years, she opened her ports. garded her European possessions and four ports in the She had tried the experiment how far agriculture could East Indies, but was unwilling to extend them to the be sacrificed to navigation; and how far and how long the West Indies and the North American possessions, and Colonies could endure the pressure. They were opother places mentioned in this bill. In regard to these pressed by debt, and scarcely able to bear up under the last, the right was reserved to each party to regulate the direct competition of the other islands, more favorably intercourse according to their own views of their own in- situated. Their lands inferior, expenses greater, profits terest. It is the policy of Great Britain, although she has small and precarious, property sunk in value, and incapabeen obliged to abandon many of the pretensions which ble of sustaining any additional weight. In 1822, she she claimed, and on which her navigation system was partially opened her ports to us. She selected a few artifounded, still to maintain, not only the right to carry all cles of primary necessity, which we were permitted to the productions of her own dominions, but to enjoy all carry to her. She selected flour, biscuit, rice, live stock, the benefit of the intercourse between her colonies and and lumber, the particular articles which we were to furevery other country, as if, in the present state of the nish her, upon which to impose a duty equal to twenty world, any nation, and especially a maritime nation, could per cent. on the price in our market; and this trade was permit her to trade with them upon such principles! limited to a direct trade. In consideration of this reAnd, as if the commerce which she rightfully enjoys, stricted trade, our ports were opened to a direct interthrough her extensive Colonial possessions, with a fair course with her Colonies, for all their productions. But, participation in the commerce with every other country, although she was careful to limit us to a direct trade, she was not enough to satisfy her ambition, she claimed the immediately demanded not to be herself limited to the diright to prohibit our intercourse with her Colonies, al- rect trade. Reciprocity was our only object. We in though the articles which constituted the commerce, were tended to yield nothing, but to meet her fairly in every the productions of this country, and of indispensable ne- concession and restriction she might think it her interest cessity to them. The injustice of exercising this right, to adopt. The claims of Great Britain were not so much exclusively, and refusing any share to the People by in the spirit of encroachment, as in the spirit with which whose labor the commerce was created, was sensibly felt. she watches and guards her interests, and the sagacity and The dread of the agricultural interest of any change which ardor with which she pursues them. It is evident, that, might endanger the loss of a market, they then enjoyed, having reluctantly yielded any part of the trade with her rendered it exceedingly difficult to bring the public mind Colonies, she was not inattentive to the terms on which it to the point of resistance. It was not until 1818, that a was conceded. She looked, in this case, with that jeapartial restriction was obtained; but, in 1820, we imposed lous vigilance to her interests, which has ever marked her an absolute non-intercourse, the effect of which was to course. She demanded, also, that the existing discrimibring to the consideration of Great Britain the value of nating duty should be removed from their vessels, althis trade to her, by making her feel the inconvenience of though, by their act, no discriminations or charges were its loss. We then found we had the same right to say removed, nor any evidence furnished that none existed; who should trade with our ports, as she had to say who and the British Minister was unwilling to give assurances should not trade with hers. It was soon found that little on the subject. But the President not having power to injury was experienced in our markets; that our produc- repeal an existing law, unless they had furnished the evitions were immediately carried to all the other West In-dence that no higher duties or charges existed in the Codies, in our own vessels, and a new and active commerce lonial ports, on American vessels and merchandise, than opened to our citizens. Let us see, then, if, up to the on their own, a communication was immediately made to period of 1822, when Great Britain opened her ports, the British Minister, which Mr. J. said he would read, in there could be any matter of complaint. For three years, order to shew the frankness and good disposition of this from 1815 to 1818, she enjoyed exclusively the trade. Government, in relation to this subject. [Here Mr. J. From that time to 1820, her interdiet remained, and we read the last paragraph of Mr. Adams's letter of 11th Nomade only a partial attempt to retaliate. In that year, vember, 1822.] It must not be forgotten that, during we were compelled to meet her by prohibitory regula- all the discussions on this subject, there was a constant tions. In the state of non-intercourse which for two years desire manifested on our part to open the trade, and to succeeded, there is nothing but an effort to do ourselves meet them on terms of reciprocity. This subject came justice, and to place our country upon an equality. The before Congress, and the act of 1823 was passed with pretension of intruding into our ports, while our vessels great unanimity. That law gave the President power to are excluded from her ports, cannot be justified on any remove the discriminating duty, on condition, in effect, ground, nor tolerated on any principle. If Great Britain that no higher duties were imposed on our articles than has a right to regulate the trade with her Colonial ports, those coming from any other place. Here the ground we have also the right to regulate the trade in our own was directly taken by the American Government, "all productions. It is sufficient to say, that we offered her the branches concurring," that our discriminating duty the utmost freedom of commercial intercourse, which she was only a fair equivalent for the limited trade which she rejected, and met only by an absolute refusal to permit gave us, in a few articles burthened with a heavy duty. our vessels to enter her ports. The gentleman from Each party was the judge of its own interests, and both, Maryland [Mr. SMITH] justifies her on the ground of perhaps, equally well informed, and equally anxious to right, and asserts that this trade is a mere boon-a favor protect them. "which his Majesty grants." A boon is something without equivalent; and I know, said Mr. J. too well, the VOL. III.-29 It is acknowledged that Great Britain had the right to open her ports under any reservations; it was ours, equat SENATE.] The Colonial Trade Bill. [FEB. 23, 1827. ly, to judge of them, and prescribe the equivalent: " ges of a free trade." Yes! Great Britain opening the whether her terms were liberal, or ours were equal: eyes of the world to the advantages of a free trade!! whether both were too guarded, are matters of specula-Then, it was the gentleman's object to exhibit the ruintion. They were the deliberate acts of the two Govern- ous policy of this country in regulating the Colonial ments. Great Britain had reserved the right to close her trade; now, he finds the British Government justified in ports, and our law was passed under a direct menace that | interdicting the trade altogether, because the act of 1823 the right would be exercised; and we also reserved to was a most unwise measure, and of which she had a right ourselves the right to close our ports, when she should to complain. close hers. Not having closed them, she virtually accepted the provisions of our law, by laying a duty equal to our discriminating duty, upon American vessels, in order to countervail ours: a measure which was adopted, says Mr. Huskisson, “because it was the mildest, and because a disposition was manifested to negotiate." The vessels of both Nations paid the same discriminating duty. They paid it in our ports: we in theirs. All our ports were open to their productions, paying the same duties as the same articles from any foreign country: theirs were open to us on the same terms; both were limited to the direct trade. The mind cannot perceive a greater degree of equality in terms. If we derived an undue share of the trade, it must be owing to circumstances: vessels better adapted to the trade, greater economy, a higher degree of activity and enterprise, excited by competition, local position, and other causes. 66 Up to this period, then, both Nations had regulated this trade according to their respective views of their own interests; perhaps their regulations were somewhat une. qual in operation; but they were as nearly equal in terms, and reciprocal in privileges and charges, as they could be made. If there was any inequality in their operation, it must be ascribed to causes inherent in the nature of things, which the Legislature cannot control. Laws cannot be made that will divide equally the naviga tion and commerce of two countries: those who, by skill, industry, and economy, can carry for less price, will obtain the trade: if we have any advantage it is that. Against such a law of nature there is no way to legislate, but by interdiction. Suppose Great Britain undertakes to protect her navigation in the colonial trade, what is the effect? Her staple is sugar, which depends on a foreign market, where it meets with an active competition But, the gentleman from Maryland, although he is now with the sugars of the other Islands. If she pays a dollar laboring to put us in the wrong, said, last session, that a barrel duty on flour, and a like duty on every other arthis state of things was most beneficial to Great Britain. ticle of consumption, for the benefit of Canada, while the Mr. J. read from his speech of last session: "But how other sugar Colonies do not pay it, and we can carry are they (the ports) open? Why, by our paying the those articles to them free of duty, and their sugars to enormous duty of ninety-four cents per ton, &c. on our Europe cheaper than the British are carried, does it not " vessels; and I shall not be surprised if they should con- follow that the British sugars will be more heavily charg"sent that they should be kept open, by order in coun- ed? and that, being in a glutted market, (and all the su"cil, forever, on these terms. We pay to their revenue gar markets are glutted) they must sink to the price at "one hundred and ninety dollars, when they pay to ours which the cheaper sugars can be sold? This will fall on "only ten dollars it is a simple financial operation." the Islands; they will be sacrificed to the primary policy He says, also, (page 12) "The retaliatory duty falls so of navigation, and to the like necessity of protecting Ca"heavily, that I am surprised they (our articles) are not nada against foreign competition, at the expense of the "carried in British ships alone." He says, (page 9) the other Colonies. This state of things cannot exist in the act of Parliament of 1822, "opened their trade upon present intelligent and active condition of the world. "terms more liberal than heretofore, yet reserving many We had no right to ask Great Britain to take off the duty "advantages." I do not rely, said Mr. J., upon those on flour and lumber, which operated injuriously to our opinions to prove that the terms on which the trade was agriculture-and we did not. But it was a policy which opened, were equal; but it is a fair argument against the we thought the interests of the West India Colonies regentleman himself: and, if the terms seemed so favor- quired. But of that she is the judge. We thought the able to him last year, how can he now put his own Go- new lights, which British statesmen have since thrown vernment in the wrong? How can he say, we demand-upon free trade, would have made this error visible. ed too much, and accuse the Administration of sacrificing Mr. JouNSTON said he concluded that, up to that time, the interests of the country? He was surprised, last year, there was no error, except a common error of restriction how we carried a barrel of four under the heavy discri- on both sides: mutual error, arising from too much attenminating duty imposed on our vessels. His object then tion to the means of protection by law, of that which seemed to be, as it now is, to put this Government in the should be left only to the fair and open competition of wrong but then all the existing regulations were injuri- skill and enterprise. The cord was drawn too tight. If ous, not to Great Britain, but to ourselves; but now it is the gentleman from Maryland has not made good his necessary to shew that the terms on which we opened the charge, let us pursue the subject and see how the charge trade were unequal and disadvantageous to Great Britain, of neglect is sustained. In 1824, the two Governments in order to justify the interdict, and the argument is chang- had a full conference in London on the Colonial relations. ed. Then the gentleman said, the "countervailing duty The British Government refused to yield either the duty "fell on our agriculturists," threatened our navigation on our productions, or to treat of the St. Lawrence queswith the loss of trade, and was, altogether, most unwise le- tion in this negotiation, with which it was most naturally gislation. If the terms were so unfavorable to ourselves, connected; but most pertinaciously adhered to the exerhow can he now justify the interdict on that ground? Icise of her rights on both, while she insisted on the reavail myself of these opinions, (which I shall shew to be peal of the discriminating duty. The propositions were erroneous before I sit down) merely to answer him— mutually exchanged, and theirs were referred to this "equal and opposing forces counteract each other." country. It was still the same question; and nothing Then it was the gentleman's object to laud British states- had occurred to induce a change of opinion, or any change men. He said of one of them, (Mr. Huskisson, certain- in the terms on which the trade was then established. ly of very liberal principles and enlarged views) "That The occupations of the Department, during the necessary “great man, and his colleagues, form the most able, the engagements of a short session of Congress, did not af"most wise, and most useful Administration that has ford time for reflection and consultation, even if it had ever existed in Great Britain. They are doing great been proper to decide on those propositions which were "good to commerce, great and useful services to the Na- to effect the legislative enactments of the country, pend"tion, and opening the eyes of the world to the advanta- ing a change of Administration, which took place in FEB. 23, 1827.] The Colonial Trade Bill. [SENATE. March, 1825. When the Secretary of State came into learned Judge, nor his counsel on the spot, having known office, he had great labor in making himself acquainted it was repealed, or thought of searching for it in an act, with the diplomatic relations, and preparing instructions which, it is now said, also repeals the act of 1822, entifor different negotiations. With Great Britain we had tled "An act to repeal the several laws of the customs." several points of great importance, on all of which in- In the act of the 27th June, 1825, I found that certain structions were to be furnished to our Minister, about to goods might be imported in the Colonies from America, proceed to London. The documents were numerous, the Europe, Asia, or Africa; but we had this right already duty highly responsible, and the greatest care and atten- by the law of 1822. But the right of exportation was tion necessary to present our rights justly and fairly be confined to Europe, Asia, and Africa, and in the vessels fore him. They embraced the Slave Convention, the of the country to which the exportation was made. I Northeastern boundary, the Northwestern coast, the na- could, therefore, find nothing in this act relating to us; I vigation of the St. Lawrence, the Colonial question, and was, in consequence, convinced the act was not intended some smaller points. Instructions were furnished on to operate on us, or, in any way, to change the existing some of these subjects, and full powers given to treat of relations. In the act of 5th July, 1825, to regulate the all. The Minister was directed to proceed to the nego-trade of British possessions abroad," I found nothing retiation of the Slave Convention first, being of most press-lating to America except the fourth section, which says, ing urgency, as the Commission had found itself unable" and, whereas, by the law of navigation, foreign ships to proceed; and he was informed that instructions would" are permitted to import into any of the British posses. follow for the adjustment of the Colonial question. "sions abroad, from the countries to which they belong, And here the gentleman will pardon me for saying, he &c. and to export goods from such possessions to be has been wanting in candor and liberality. He knew that," carried to any foreign country whatever." This referwhen the present Secretary came into office, it became ence to the law of navigation is neither by title nor date. his duty to decide on the British proposition of 1824, and The law enacted eight days preceding, did not include to frame his instructions accordingly. It was desirable to America in the right to export to any foreign country; both countries that the question should be put at rest; and I was ignorant to what law of navigation it had referbut it was important to maintain the just rights of the ence, unless to that last recited act. I had found nothing nation; and, unwilling to act on his own judgment alone, to satisfy me that the privileges of the act extended to this or to compromit the public interest, he addressed a circu- country. In an act of the same day, "for the encour lar letter to the most distinguished commercial men, and, agement of British shipping and navigation," I was suramong them, to the gentleman himself; and I ask him if prised to find that an act of that session, to repeal laws he does not know that the delay in drawing the instruc- relating to the customs, had repealed the laws of navigations on this subject, arose from the desire of obtaining tion; and that, by that operation, all trade must be free this information: and from the desire, too, of being able that was not therein prohibited, as it had been previousto meet the views of the British Government; and from ly prohibited, unless relaxed by special law. I could not the important interests which his decision involved. 1 find the trade with the United States prohibited, and could appeal to the gentleman late a member from Mas- therefore inferred that that act was the one alluded to, by sachusetts, [Mr. Lorn] to the gentleman from Maine, which the right to export to foreign countries was grant[Mr. HOLMES] and several others of both Houses, both for ed to the United States. In the absence of all informathe interest and zeal manifested on this subject, and for tion on the subject, some doubts were entertained of the the opinions then entertained by him. The first letters construction of these laws. A letter was addressed to from Mr. King announced his own ill health, and the re- Mr. Vaughan, to inquire if American vessels were pergret of Mr. Canning that his indisposition rendered it ne-mitted, under that law, to export from the Colonies to cessary to leave town. It was not until the 26th of Sep- any foreign country, and if the discriminating duty was tember, 1825, that Mr. King had his first meeting with repealed; to which he could give no satisfactory answer, the Minister, and not until the 11th of November, his having received no advice or instructions on the subject. presentation to the King. But, on the 26th of Sep- Nor was it understood, whether, if we did not avail our. tember the new Acts of Parliament arrived here. No no- selves of the right to export to any foreign country granttice was given to this Government of the intended opera- ed in this bill, by placing them on the footing of the most tion of the laws. It was not known whether they super- favored Nation, that the law would go into operation and seded the laws then in force, as regards the United States, exclude us from the direct trade in which we were then or were expected to do away the necessity of negotia- engaged. There was a power left in the King and Countion. This Government was left entirely in the dark as cil to extend those privileges to Nations who might not to the views or wishes of the British Government. The comply with the provisions of this law, which it was realaws themselves did not furnish a very satisfactory expla- sonable to believe were intended to apply to our case. nation on these points. The gentleman from Maryland Besides, this law, if put in operation, would close the says they are quite clear. They may be to him, but I ports of the North American possessions, which it is her can say they have cost me some labor to unravel them. interest, and has always been her policy, to keep open. There were three acts, embracing one hundred and thir- But we now know, that these laws did not go into operaty sections. I read, attentively, the several laws, but I tion against us, except in one instance, which was revoksearched in vain for any repeal of the act of 1822, which ed. But, to the gentleman from Maryland, there was no regulated the trade with this country. It has been said, difficulty in the laws; to him every thing was clear. that it is repealed; but I venture to appeal to the gen- The gentleman enjoyed the peculiar advantage, of which tleman from Maryland, and to ask him if he has yet he has made so much in his speech, of not being a lawfound out how it is repealed? The learned Sir W. Scott yer. His mind is not trammelled by professional learnhas given a decision in the case of the Jubilee, in con- ing. He marches boldly up to the question, assumes his formity with an act no longer in force, and neither the premises, and jumps to his conclusions. The labor of "Mr. Gallatin's despatch, of the 27th October, 1825, shewed the extreme difficulty of comprehending the British statutes. He had not, up to that day, been able to obtain satisfactory information about their provisions. He concludes with these words: "It seems to me, that the in❝tricacy of these several acts of Parliament, and the difficulty of understanding their precise meaning, might have been considered by the "Government of Great Britain as a sufficient reason why that of the United States might not have been disposed to the conditions on which, "by those acts, the intercourse was opened with the British Colonies. In point of fact, it was understood by the American Government that "one of those conditions was a prohibition to export goods in American vessels from those Colonies, to any other country than the United States."-Note by Mr. J. |