Foreign Nations might justly complain of the one interdiction,— that of trade with the Mother Country, as an innovation, but they have no just ground of complaint (and no other Nation than The United States has ever complained) of the interdiction of Trade to the Colonies; because, in all Ages, all Nations, having Colonies, have maintained such an interdiction.

Mr. Gallatin, after having objected, in the beginning of his Note, to the use of the word "right," as applied by the Undersigned to the Colonial Trade of Great Britain, applies the same word himself, (inadvertently, perhaps) in a subsequent part of his Note, to the interdiction by The United States of a trade in British Ships between The United States and the British West India Colonies.

That trade Mr. Gallatin describes as a trade which had been carried on merely by "permission"-"a permission which, (says Mr. Gallatin,) The United States had a right to grant or to withhold."

Now, as according to Mr. Gallatin's doctrine, The United States have, in strictness a "right" to exclude British Trade altogether from their Ports, the Undersigned cannot presume to contend that they have not the same "right" to prohibit a trade between those Ports and the British Colonies.

But the Undersigned ventures to affirm, that the right which they have exercised in the latter prohibition has no peculiar and separate character growing out of long and general usage, to distinguish it in principle from a prohibition of all trade whatever with The United States.

Up to the year 1818, Mr. Gallatin admits that the trade, since prohibited by The United States, was enjoyed by British Vessels in common with those of all other Countries. The interdiction, therefore, is not of antient usage, and so far is it from being generally applied by The United States to Foreign Vessels, that it operates against Great Britain alone.

Is it not at least singular, that Mr. Gallatin should reserve for a practice thus novel and thus partial the character of "right" which he denies to an usage as old as the establishment of Colonies, and universal among all Nations to which Colonies have belonged?

Is it not singular also, that while Mr. Gallatin denies any claim on the part of Great Britain to the continued enjoyment of a trade in The United States, which she is admitted, by Mr. Gallatin, to have enjoyed uninterruptedly up to the year 1818, Mr. Gallatin puts forward a claim on the part of The United States to trade with the West India Colonies of Great Britain, on the ground of usage and practice?

The United States, says Mr. Gallatin, found "their reclamation to participate in that Commerce" (the trade with the British West India Colonies) on this ground:

"That trade has been allowed by Great Britain, it may be said from the beginning, and at all times, and has become thereby so far assimilated to that with the European Dominions of Great Britain, that The United States did think that they had the same claim to a participation in both."-" As early as the year 1783, the Government of Great Britain, deviating from that principle of the Colonial System, according to which her Colonies were prohibited from trading directly with any other Country, allowed her West India Colonies to trade directly with The United States of America in British Vessels.”

It may be observed as to these facts, as stated by Mr. Gallatin himself, that no two things can be much more different than a permission (on the one hand) given by Great Britain to British Vessels to trade directly between a British Colony and another Country (the Vessels of that other Country remaining by Law, and, in fact, excluded from the Ports of the Colony) and that "participation" on the other hand, which implies a trade between The United States and the West India Colonies in Vessels of The United States.

The relaxation to which Mr. Gallatin, refers, in fact, did nothing more than permit British Vessels to bring certain Articles into the Colonial Ports directly from the place of their production, intead of bringing the like articles circuitously through the United Kingdom. The question, whether these articles should be imported circuitously through the United Kingdom, or directly from the place of their growth, was a mere municipal concern, which did not vary the exclusive character of the Colonial System, so long as that importation was confined to British Ships.

Undoubtedly, The United States might then, if they thought proper, have interdicted the trade to British Vessels between their Ports and the British West India Colonies, unless American Vessels were allowed to participate in it—but they did not.

The history of the usage, therefore, is, that up to a certain period, a trade between the Ports of The United States, and the British West India Colonies in British Ships, went on unquestioned, while, as Mr. Gallatin is aware, no American Vessel could enter the Ports of the British West India Colonies, except under occasional and temporary suspensions of the Colonial Law. And yet it is upon this usage that

Mr. Gallatin founds:

First. A right in The United States to prohibit British Vessels from clearing out from the Ports of The United States to the British West India Colonies;

Secondly. A claim on the part of The United States to participate in the Colonial trade of Great Britain.

The things may be right or wrong in themselves; but usage surely points exactly the contrary way to that in which Mr. Gallatin applies it.

Mr. Gallatin has yet another ground on which to rest this claim of The United States to a participation in the Colonial Trade of Great Britain:

"During the European War, Great Britain found it convenient occasionally, but repeatedly, to open her West India Ports to American Vessels; at the same time that she was asserting the principle uniformly denied by The United States, that a Neutral was not authorized by the Law of Nations to carry on in time of War a trade with a Colony, in which he was not permitted to participate in time of Peace.".

First. If the Ports were occasionally opened, the very terms of the proposition show that they were generally shut. It would be difficult to imagine either a more complete proof of the acknowledged right, to admit or exclude Foreign Trade from the Colonies as the governing Authority might think fit; or a more perfect refutation of the plea of usage, in favour of a permanently open Trade.

Secondly. The Rule of 1756, appears to have little application to the point in dispute. It might to be sure be, in all such cases, a question with the Neutral, whether he would be tempted by the open Ports of one Belligerent, to run the risk of capture by the other. But the point in dispute is, whether, by occasionally opening her Colonial Ports, Great Britain virtually abandoned the right of closing them again, when she thought proper: and, on this point, the merits of the Rule of 1756, have not, so far as the Undersigned can make out the most distant bearing.

Thirdly. As it is intended to prove that The United States have a claim to participate in the Colonial Trade for ever, because the Ports of the Colonies were occasionally opened during the War, Mr. Gallatin describes the Ports as having been opened to American Vessels. True, but not to American Vessels only or specifically. The Ports were open to the Vessels of all Friendly Powers. The argument, therefore, as to the special claim of The United States, falls to the ground.

The truth, however, is, that under the words "right” and “claim,” so frequently recurring in this discussion, lies the real and fundamental difference of opinion between Great Britain and The United States, which has frustrated all attempts to settle the disputed question of Colonial Intercourse upon common principles by Conventional Arrangement.

When it is contended that the " right" by which Great Britain prohibits Foreign Countries from trading with her Colonies, is the same "right" with that by which she might (if she thought fit) prohibit them from trading with herself, this argument (which is employed by The United States alone) implies, that the special prohibition is a grievance to The United States, if not of the same amount, of the same kind as the general prohibition would be.

This is a doctrine which Great Britain explicitly denies.

It seems to be admitted, indeed, that there was a time when the distinction between Colonial trade and the trade of the Mother Country was tenable. But it has been assumed, in no obscure terms, on the part of The United States, that the Colonial System is now virtually at an end.

Great Britain denies this assumption.

Whatever relaxation Great Britain may think fit to introduce for her own sake, and for that of her Colonies themselves, into her Colonial System, she holds her " right" to maintain that System, as with respect to Foreign Nations, to be unaltered and entire. Great Britain, therefore, cannot consent to any diplomatick Arrangement by which such "right" may appear to be relinquished, or by which her assertion of it can be understood to be in any degree qualified or controuled.

Hence the impracticability (already so repeatedly proved) of any Treaty upon this subject between Great Britain and The United States. Hence the necessity for Great Britain of doing whatever she means to do in the way of relaxation of her Colonial Monopoly, by Acts of her own Legislation.

This deduction brings the Undersigned to the last point in Mr. Gallatin's Note, and that on which he is most anxious that there should be no misconception between them.

Mr. Gallatin speaks of a "permanent exclusion of The United States by Great Britain, from a trade open to the rest of the World" as a measure different in character from a general exclusion of all Foreign Nations.

But is this a just description of the effect of the Act of 1825?

Considerations (of which Great Britain alone is the judge) have induced her to open her Colonial trade to other Nations. She opened it to them not as a matter of special favour, or of special "claim" to any one, but on specified conditions, common to all Nations who might think fit to subscribe to them, and to The United States among the

rest.

If some of the Nations of the World have taken advantage of the opening thus offered to them, by accepting the conditions annexed to it, and others have omitted to do so, and if The United States are (by their own choice) in the latter class, surely it is not a correct description of the consequence of this, their own voluntary omission, to say that The United States are "excluded" by Great Britain, from a trade, which, on the contrary, Great Britain invited them to share.

Exclusion of Foreigners from the Colonial trade is the general principle of Colonial Policy; admission to that trade is the exception -an exception, which, in this instance, Great Britain was willing to grant to all those who were ready to purchase it on terms tendered equally to all.

The United States cannot mean to put forward the pretension, that what is granted to others on terms, should be granted to them unconditionally. If not, it seems difficult to imagine how they can feel it to be unjust or unkind, (it certainly is not so felt, or intended, on the part of this Country) that The United States having, upon a free, and (as is known from the publick proceedings of their Legislature) deliberate consideration, declined to subscribe to the terms on which exception from Colonial prohibition was tendered impartially to all Nations, they should find themselves, in common with such of those Nations as have decided like themselves, liable to that exclusion, which is, and always has been, the general principle of Colonial trade. The Undersigned avails himself, &c.

Albert Gallatin, Esq.

GEORGE CANNING.

No. 5.Albert Gallatin, Esq. to Mr. Secretary Canning.

Upper Seymour Street, 28th December, 1826.

THE Undersigned, &c. did not fail to transmit to his Government the Note which Mr. Canning, &c. did him the honour to address to him, on the 13th of November, in reply to the Answer which had been returned by the Undersigned, to Mr. Canning's Note of the 11th of September. But, unwilling to continue a discussion, which did not seem likely to lead to any practical result, he abstained from making any further observations on the subject, until he should have received special Instructions from his Government, in reference to a state of things, which was altogether unexpected at Washington, at the time of his departure.

Having now received a Despatch from the Secretary of State of The United States, the substance of which he is instructed to communicate to Mr. Canning, the Undersigned, in performing that duty, will, on those points, to which he had already alluded in his former Note, have but some explanatory remarks to add.

The Right of Great Britain, which is that of every Nation, to prohibit or allow Foreign Commerce with any part of her Dominions, is unquestionable. That Right, in reference to her Colonies, has never been denied by The United States, any more than with respect to any other part of her Possessions, and it is also admitted, that she may, within her own jurisdiction, prescribe the conditions on which such Commerce shall be tolerated, and, at her will, again interdict altogether the intercourse thus permitted.

On the other hand, The United States, unless restricted by Treaty, which in this case they are not, have precisely the same right to prohibit, to allow, and within their own jurisdiction, to regulate, Foreign Commerce with their Dominions, whether that Commerce be with the Foreign Country itself, or with its Colonies or Possessions Abroad. It