If we were no longer Colonies, but independent States, we surely can do what all independent States do-regulate our trade as may suit our own interests; and Great Britain can have the least right of any nation to complain of it, because it is her own example which we follow. If war, therefore, should be made upon us, it would only prove a fixed determination to make it; and in that case pretexts more plausible than any commercial regulations could easily be found or framed for the purpose.

"He could not but view the present as, perhaps, the final chance of combining the opinions and interests of the Union in some proper and adequate plan. If, at a moment when so many occurrences conspire to unite the public councils, when the public mind is so well disposed to second all equitable and peaceable means of doing justice to our country, and when our commerce is so critically important to the vital resources of Great Britain, it should be found that nothing can be done, he could foresee no circumstances under which success was to be expected. To reject the propositions, therefore, whilst nothing better was substituted, must convey the most unfavorable impressions of our national character, and rivet the fetters of our commerce, as well as prolong other causes which had produced such injurious consequences to our country. He would not permit himself to apprehend that such would be the event of the deliberations of the Committee.'

The times, however, proved unpropitious to the carrying out of the Madison Resolutions. Other measures became urgent. The tariff was increased, and an important change made in the case of goods brought by foreign vessels. Instead of a rebate on goods by American vessels, ten per cent. extra duty was laid on goods by foreign vessels. The effect was to increase the discrimination against the latter. Meanwhile President Washington nominated Judge Jay as Envoy to England. The Senate confirmed the nomination, and the immediate effect was the suspension of discussion before the House of the important resolutions, whose policy was doubted under the circumstances then existing.

CHAPTER IX.

BRITISH HOSTILITY TOWARDS AMERICAN NAVIGATION.

Overbearing Course of England. Ever since the plot of Cromwell to attack the Dutch, capture their extensive carrying trade, and bring the commerce to the feet of his Commonwealth, the British have indulged a proud ambition, to excel at sea, and to rule, at least, the maritime world. This principle has inspired the course of England for two hundred and fifty years. Their first real defeat was acknowledged in the Independence of the United States. Here was a fresh foe planted in a new world — a shipbuilding, navigating, commercial people, that might, if not prevented, thrive, grow rich and great, and overtake Britannia. They would see that this did not happen. "America" must not launch many ships upon the ocean. must be taught by "restrictions" to humbly till the soil, to coast a little, fish a little, and be content to let British shipping carry her foreign commerce. As England willed, as to our marine, so it has eventuated.

In the debate

She

Madison's Charitable View. In the debate upon his resolutions, sketched in the preceding chapter, Mr. Madison was asked what ground existed for imagining that Great Britain would be led, by the measures proposed, to change her policy towards the United States? He replied:

"It is well known that, when she apprehended a readiness to admit a greater reciprocity into the commerce between the two countries, a bill for the purpose was brought into the House of Commons by the present Minister, Mr. Pitt, and would probably have passed into a law, if hopes had not sprung up that they should be able to maintain their exclusive system. Knox, an under-Secretary, appears to have been the chief adviser in the cabinet, as Lord Sheffield was the great champion before

the public of this experiment. It was founded, according to both witnesses, on a belief, first, that Nova Scotia and Canada would soon be able to feed the West Indies, and thereby make them independent of supplies from the United States. Second, that the general Government (ours) was so feeble that it could not execute a plan of retaliating restriction. Third, that local interests and prejudices predominated so much among the States, that they would never agree in making an attempt."

Mr. Madison misinterpreted generously the policy of Mr. Pitt, which was not to show liberality, but to prevent the States from resorting to the protective acts which passed, later, the different State Legislatures, as shown in chapter iv. Political economy has never cut any figure in British policy. It has simply veiled it. Every minister in Britain well knew that a footing-in-law might be equal, where the footing-in-fact was most unequal and out of level. Why did the British need their Navigation Act and their superior fleet to take the carrying trade from the Dutch? America could apply history. England would take time by the forelock, play liberality and await events. Ambition for the sea must not take root in the United States. It was most fortunate for us that Pitt's purpose had no popular backing, and that his bill was laid aside.

Testimony as to British Antagonism. A Secretary of the British Board of Trade, a branch of Government established to overlook the commerce of the Colonies, and later to take in the business of the world, should be good authority on commercial history. Such was Mr. John Macgregor, author of "Commercial Statistics of America," etc., published about 1846, when "Free Trade" had become a popular cry in England. From this work, vol. iii. pp. 1129-1132; we make the following quotations :

Minister Pitt's Bill. "In justice to Mr. Pitt, we must absolve him from any share of illiberality in regard to such a commercial intercourse with the United States. In March, 1783, he brought into Parliament a bill for the temporary regulation of this intercourse. By this bill vessels belonging to citizens of the United States were to be admitted into the ports of the West India Islands, with goods, or merchandise of American

growth or produce; and they were to be permitted to export to the United States any merchandise or goods whatever; subject only to the same duties and charges as if they had been the property of British natural born subjects, and had been exported and imported in British vessels.

"Violent opposition was made to this bill by the British shipping interest, headed by Lord Sheffield; and the Pitt administration being soon dissolved, the bill itself was laid aside; and the power of regulating the commercial intercourse between the two countries was, by the succeeding administration, lodged with the King and Council. By orders in Council soon after issued, American vessels were entirely excluded from the British West Indies; and some of the staple productions of the United States, particularly fish, beef, pork, butter, lard, etc., were not permitted to be carried there, even in British bottoms."

The Cause of our Shipping Difficulties. In this paragraph we have the secret of all the difficulties which we have ever experienced in accomplishing the carriage of our own commerce — the British shipping interest make a “violent opposition" to it. The British Government-the Ministry, Ambassadors and Consuls are vigilant agents of this interest. The "Lloyds " are another agent, and there are others. Minister Pitt would have managed to prevent any American ship protection, while the Sheffield school had faith in rough treatment. There was no difference in design. Continuing, Macgregor writes :

"But we must admit, that if there were an absence of wisdom, in respect to commercial policy, in the general, as well as in each State Government, there was manifested in the policy of England a far more lamentable spirit. When Mr. Adams, the United States Minister at the Court of St. James, proposed, in 1785, to place the navigation and trade between all the dominions of the crown of England and all the territories of the United States of America upon a basis of perfect and liberal reciprocity, this generous proposal was not only positively rejected, but he was given to understand that no other would be entertained.1

1 John Adams, in his letter to John Jay, our Secretary for Foreign Affairs, dated London, 21st Oct., 1785, referring to this rebuff, said: “This being the state of things, you may depend upon it the commerce of America will

Instead of acting wisely, and scorning an offer which would have been so beneficial to the empire (but not to the States), it was, by strong sovereign will, decreed, that the full measure of stringency provided for in the Navigation Act should be extended to the ships, the trade, and the citizens of the United States.

"In consequence of this wretched policy, on the part of the then sovereign and ministers of England, the Government of the United States, on the adoption of the Constitution, passed also a Navigation Act, which, as regards British trade and shipping, contained the same provisions as the Navigation law of England.1 . .

66

Odium of British Navigation Laws. Foreign countries always complained of the British Navigation laws; but during the war (with France) the circumstances detailed, in the first of this article (natural advantages), rendered any countervailing legislation, on the part of European nations, of little injury to British trade or shipping. This circumstance did not, however, apply to the maritime and commercial relations between the British empire and the United States. These considerations led finally to the adoption of the reciprocity system, which was first argued, and advocated, as well as the system of countervailing and protective duties, by the celebrated Alex. Hamilton." 2

This discloses another secret concerning the undoing of our marine in the foreign trade. Our natural advantages and the wise encouragement of navigation, due more to the exertions of Jefferson and Madison, than to Hamilton or any other statesman of those favoring an American marine for American commerce, proved to the British shipping interest, that Pitt's original policy was intelligent and foreseeing. The Navigation Act that could

have no relief, at present, nor, in my opinion, ever, until the United States shall have generally passed navigation acts. If this measure is not adopted, we shall be derided; and the more we suffer, the more will our calamities be laughed at. My most earnest exhortations to the States, then, are, and ought to be, to lose no time in passing such acts." (Treated of in chapter iii.)

1 Congress did not adopt any part of the British Navigation Act. Our laws differed from those of any nation. They agreed in protectiveness, but in nothing else.

2 Mr. Jefferson must be meant.