one of our vessels pursuing that trade, to touch at an intermediate foreign port.

Under this law, however, until the continuity of the voyage had been broken, little difficulty could have existed. But when the acts 'concerning navigation,' and 'to regulate the trade of the British possessions abroad,' of 5th July, 1825, opened the colonial trade to all nations upon the same footing, the right of an American vessel, on her voyage to the British colonies, to touch at an intermediate foreign port, followed as a matter of course, being nowhere prohibited.

Nor can there be any doubt that a vessel of the United States landing a part of her cargo at a British colonial port, may proceed with the remainder to another British colonial port without being subjected to the payment of other duties than those accruing upon the goods landed at each port, or to the payment on the tonnage of the vessel at more than one of the several ports which she may enter in the course of the same voyage. Such vessel may, moreover, take in any part of her return cargo at one or more of the colonial ports for importation, either into the United States, or into any foreign port, excepting British European ports; the only restriction upon her trade with the several colonial ports, being to the landing at one port of any produce or cargo laden at another.

This course of trade is always allowable; the principle of the British navigation and commercial system being to treat all the colonial ports as one, and the only

regulations to which the vessel is subjected being the payment of tonnage entry, if any such be chargeable, at the first port of entry; the duties on so much of her cargo as shall be actually discharged at any one port; and the necessity of reporting at each, the several parts and amounts of her cargo which may be intended for landing or for exportation.

The tonnage duties here mentioned, however, must be understood as relating, rather to such as may be imposed or authorized by the acts of Parliament for the regulation of the colonial intercourse, than to those local or port charges which, being in the nature of tolls, or exactions for dock, or other local improvements, make a part of the municipal regulations by the local legislatures. these, however, both British and American vessels must be equally liable, and they will not be allowed, in any instance, to impair the privileges secured by the colonial legislation of the mother country, or to contravene such legislation.

To

It is believed that none such exist at present, and, indeed, I am not aware of any particular tonnage duty which is now chargeable. If, however, any such do exist, and an attempt should be made by the local officers, illegally, to exact those, of either character, from an American vessel, such particular case would become the proper subject of remonstrance here, and would be certainly decided according to the rules and principles to which I have adverted.

Taking the British law of navigation of the 5th July, 1825, and

the acts of the same date to regulate the trade of the British possessions abroad,' as now explained, as the basis, you will be enabled, without difficulty, by reference to Hume's digest, heretofore forwarded to the department, to trace, at once, all the objects and provisions of the British colonial regulations, which it may be important for the Government, or our merchants, to know in relation to the trade authorized by the arrangement recently concluded. It is obvious, that the subject of Mr Rush's despatch of the 12th August, 1824, to which you have referred me, was no more than an inquiry, at the instance of the consul at Barbadoes, into the then existing colonial regulations; and that Mr Huskisson's interference, at that time, was merely to ascertain the opinion of the Board of Trade of the import of those regulations, and not to adopt any new provisions, or to make any alteration in those already in force.

Mr McLane to Mr Van Buren.

London, March 14, 1831.

SIR: Your despatch, number 27, dated the 4th February, transmitting an official pamphlet, containing several protocols of the conferences between the American and British plenipotentiaries in the year 1818, relative to the West India trade, was received by me on the 7th instant.

This is the first opportunity I have had of examining this pamphlet, or the protocols which it contains. It is referred to in my original instructions, as form

ing a part of the documents left at the legation by Mr Gallatin; but it was not to be found in the archives when I took charge of the legation. As early as the 29th of May, 1830, I officially informed the department of the want of this document, and of the necessity of my being furnished with it, if the Government expected me to press those points in our relations to which its contents particularly relate.

In answer to that communication, Mr Brent, in his letter of the 19th July last, informed me that the pamphlet in question could not be found, but that copies of so much of Mr Rush's communications to the department as related to the navigation of the river St Lawrence, would be made and forwarded.

Independent, however, of the particular terms of the British article annexed to the 11th protocol, my general knowledge of the subject, enabled me, in my letter to Lord Palmerston, to refer to the British act of the 8th May, 1818, offering a course of trade which was not accepted by the United States, from an apprehension that it designed to favor the circuitous in preference to the direct intercourse; and, to the subsequent acts of 1822 and 1825, which, not merely in the way of overture, but positively and totally disclaimed any advantage to the circuitous trade. If these posi

tive enactments failed to illustrate the true principles of the previous colonial regulations of Great Britain-of the adjustment of 1825, and of the agreement recently concluded an overture made

by the British plenipotentiaries in 1818, and rejected by our Government in the same year, could not have been more effectual. In fact, the alleged treatment of that overture was no slight impediment in the way of my late negotiation, and, by Mr Vezey Fitzgerald, in particular, was alluded to in terms of unequivocal disapprobation. The treatment which this proposition of the British plenipotentiaries received in 1818, and the circumstances under which our negotiations of that year terminated, stripped of most of its advantages, even as evidence of the terms to which Great Britain was, at that time, willing to accede; and, in my view, seemed to make it more proper to press the argument upon the positive enactments of the acts of 1822 and 1825, and the clear stipulations in the letter of Lord Aberdeen.

On the receipt of your last despatch, however, I invited an interview with Lord Palmerston, which he afforded me on the 9th instant, in which I fully explained to him the bearing and import of the protocols contained in the pamphlet, in connexion with the whole subject; and I also informed him of the light in which this measure was viewed by my Government, and of the approbation by the President of the remonstrance I had submitted. I took this step in pursuance of your instructions, rather than from a hope of producing much effect in the present situation of the subject.

The present bill is less unfavorable than that proposed by Mr

Herries, in respect to the article of flour, on which it leaves the duty, in the direct trade, as imposed by the act of 1825; and of white or yellow pine timber, on which it proposes a duty of twentyeight shillings per thousand feet of inch thick, until the first of January, 1834, and of twentysix shillings until the first of January, 1836, at which period the duty will return to the rate specified in the act of 1825. It increases it, however, even beyond that proposed by Mr Herries, on staves and headings, until the first of January, 1836, when it will be reduced to the rate of 1825. On all other articles, excepting bread and biscuit, flour or meal not of wheat, peas, beans, rye, oats, barley, Indian corn, rice, and live stock, there is no change from the duty of 1825; and the importation all these, in the direct trade to the West Indies, is permitted duty free, but then no duty whatsoever is payable on the importation of American produce into the northern colonies.

In this respect

alone, is the measure liable to any material objection, as intended to encourage the indirect trade through the colonies.

On the growers of produce in the United States, this measure is calculated to confer greater advantages than they have heretofore enjoyed; enabling them to supply their productions not merely for a part of the consumption of the northern colonies, but for the whole export trade of those colonies to England and elsewhere.

In respect to lumber, even both the producer and the shipper en

joy superior advantages to those afforded them by the restricted intercourse; while of flour and of all articles admitted duty free, or at the rate prescribed by the act of 1825, our shipping must have the exclusive carrying. As the subject may now be considered as having passed beyond my power, if not as absolutely disposed of, it becomes proper for me to inform you, generally, of what has occurred since the date of my despatch number 28.

I determined to bring the subject to the immediate attention of Lord Grey, who, it is but just to say, has always professed the best disposition towards our country, and, in this particular instance, has appeared inclined to meet our expectations as far as the present situation of the ministry would permit. Accordingly, on the 15th February, I obtained an interview with Lord Grey, at which Lord Oakland, the President, and Mr Poulett Thompson, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, were present. On this occasion, the whole subject was fully discussed and explained on both sides, and I distinctly required that the bill should be conformed to the terms and spirit of the agreement concluded with Lord Aberdeen.

In reply, it was repeated that the letter of Lord Aberdeen could not be considered in the light of an agreement, at least in the nature of convention or treaty: that this Government had uniformly insisted upon legislative regulation for this trade instead of convention; the former admitting more readily of occa

sional modifications: that the act of 1825, itself, was but a legislative measure, liable to be repealed whenever the interests of Great Britain or her colonies made it desirable; and that an assent to a renewal of the intercourse, according to that act, could not have greater force, especially when coupled, as it was, with the reservation in respect to the schedule of duties annexed to the act of 1825. The suspension of the direct intercourse was again attributed to our remissness, and hence it was inferred that we could not reasonably object to a temporary protection of those interests which had been thereby fostered. It was further observed that all the measures of Great Britain, subsequently to the act of 1825, had looked to the system of free ports in the northern colonies; and that as, in this respect, the United States would be placed upon the same footing with all other nations, we could have no just grounds of complaint. That, independently of this principle, the change in the rate of duty from that prescribed by the act of 1825, was confined to two commodities, and that for a limited period; and that, with respect to a great number of articles, forming of themselves a considerable trade, the duty had been taken off altogether.

To these observations, the general topics and remarks contained in my letter to Lord Palmerston were opposed by me, and urged in a manner most likely, in my judgment, to produce effect. In addition to these, I suggested other views more appropriate to

sion. I stated that all the considerations by which it was now attempted to sustain the proposed measure, might have been urged, with more propriety, before the letter of Lord Aberdeen; and that if they were then insufficient to prevent the agreement on the part of Great Britain to restore the direct trade, they could not be sufficient now to authorize its violation. The letter of Lord Aberdeen, I observed, must be received as meaning something beneficial; and the assent to renew the intercourse, could mean only that intercourse which had been interdicted, namely, the direct trade, as regulated by the act of 1825. That the letter of Lord Aberdeen was not an agreement merely, but an agreement to restore the direct trade, was proved by the fact of the issuing the order in council of the 5th of November last, actually restoring the trade according to the act of 1825.

Consequent upon these positions, I asked, even admitting the mere power of Parliament to repeal the law of 1825, whether Great Britain could, consistently with good faith, arbitrarily rescind, within a month, or a year, the order in council of the 5th November last, and re-enact that of 1826? This question could not be answered in the affirmative; and it was frankly admitted that such a course would be improper. I, therefore, agreed that it would be equally a breach of faith, and a violation of that agreement, to accomplish the same end by covert and indirect means.

ing a less rate of duty on American cotton, when imported through the British colonies, than when imported directly from the United States, and Mr Barbour's correspondence with Lord Aberdeen upon that subject, (of which I have heretofore informed you) were referred to, and were supposed to justify the principle of the present measure; as, in that case, the principle was reconcilable with our commercial convention, or, at least, was acquiesced in by the late administration of our Government.

Independently, however, of the material fact, that the colonial trade, both direct and indirect, was expressly excluded from the convention, the discrimination as to cotton, and the basis on which it was attempted to be justified, afforded no apology for the present measure; but on the contrary, demonstrated its impropriety.

If that case could not be distinguished from the present, it would itself be a violation of existing treaties, and ought for that reason, to inculcate greater caution, if not more liberality, in future. The discrimination in the cotton duty was justified, however, upon the ground that it did not propose to give any preference to the indirect trade, but merely to adopt the difference to the additional cost of the circuitous route, and the landing and re-lading of the cargo in a colonial port, and thus placing both trades upon an equality.

That, giving the utmost latitude to the reservation in Lord Aberdeen's letter, and the most