anomaly ought to affect the regulation of our commercial intercourse with Foreign Powers. A Country, having no Colonies, may be so situated as to afford the same kind of productions, as both another Country and its Colonies. And there may be a greater difference in the nature and value of the productions of two different Countries, neither of which have Colonies, than exists between those of a Country and its Colonies, and another which has no Colonies. It might as well be argued that the fact of 24 States composing this Union, entitles it to demand concessions from all other Powers whose Territory is not divided into an equal number of similar parts, or that The United Kingdom, being constituted by the union of three Kingdoms, would be justified in demanding, upon that ground, from any Power composed only of a single Kingdom, more than it granted. In all commercial intercourse between different Powers, the question resolves itself into one of profit and loss. If it be the interest of the Parties, that the trade should be allowed, it is altogether immaterial how those Territories are governed or divided: both have an equal right to judge of the conditions of the intercourse. It would be most strange if the fact of a Foreign State (Sweden for example) possessing a Colony, no matter how unimportant, entitled such State to treat on different principles with Great Britain, in respect to an intercourse with her Colonies, from The United States.

Neither can it be admitted that the possession of Colonies entitles the Nation holding them, to the exclusive enjoyment of the circuitous Navigation between the Parent Country and a Foreign Country, through any or all of those Colonies, upon the ground of its being the prosecution of a Colonial trade, which is understood to have been taken by Great Britain. If the connexion between the United Kingdom and its numerous Colonies is to be regarded in the light of that of a contiguous Coast, it must be allowed that this Coast has very great extent. It passes around Cape Horn, doubles the Cape of Good Hope, crosses the Atlantick Ocean, penetrates alınost every Sea, touches every Continent, and encircles the Globe. A Colonial coasting trade of this universal reach presents none of the properties of an ordinary coasting trade, except that of the identity of sovereign power. The foundation on which Nations are supposed to reserve to themselves, exclusively, their own coasting trade, is not merely that of monopoly, but principally because they are thereby better enabled [to check all invasions of their own Laws; a reason which is inapplicable to the widely dispersed condition of the British Colonial Possessions.

Entertaining such opinions as have been herein stated, in regard to the power of Commercial Regulation, the Government of The United States has always conceived that the trade between them and the British Colonies was open to all considerations, which are applicable to

any other trade, and that it was, consequently, a fit subject of arrangement by Treaty, or in any manner by which any other trade might be regulated. Great Britain may, undoubtedly, if she pleases, deny to herself the advantage of consulting with Foreign Powers, through the accustomed organs of intercourse, as to the conditions on which, with mutual benefit, the trade may be carried on. But if she chooses to restrict herself to the single mode of regulating it by Act of Parliament, it cannot be admitted either that such restriction is a necessary consequence from the uature of Colonies, or, as will be hereafter shewn, that it is in accordance with the practice of the British Government itself.

The British Secretary of State alleges that in 1822, the British Government opened the Colonial Intercourse to us, and withheld it from all other Powers; that, in effect, we thereby acquired a monopoly in the supply of the consumption of the British West Indies; but that Great Britain did not preclude herself from the right to open her Colonial Ports to other Nations whenever it might suit her purposes. We did not ask that Great Britain should shut her Colonial Ports to other Powers. The occlusion was, no doubt, in consequence of the estimate which she made of her own interests, without any intention to confer an exclusive benefit upon us, as the opening of them by the Act of 1825, is according to a similar estimate. We have no right to complain, and never have complained, that Great Britain seeks for the United Kingdom and for its Colonies the best markets for sale and purchase, any more than we anticipate any complaint from her, if, when we are driven from her Colonial Ports, we should exercise the like liberty. If she has reason to felicitate herself, that by the course of events, she is enabled to draw from other sources those supplies which her Colonies had been in the habit of obtaining from The United States, we have, perhaps, occasion for equal congratulation that, by the same or other events, markets have been opened to us, which may be found ample substitutes to those which it is her pleasure to close against us.

As to the monopoly, which it is alleged we have enjoyed, it should be observed that the relative position of the British West India Colonies to The United States, and the nature of their respective climates and productions, are eminently favourable to a mutually beneficial Commerce between them. From their proximity to The United States, they find their convenience in drawing from us those perishable and bulky articles which they want, rather than from more distant Countries. If the West India Islands were situated on the European instead of the American side of the Atlantick Ocean, and Europe could supply as cheaply and abundantly the same description of articles as The United States, the British West India Colonies would prefer obtaining their necessary supplies from Europe. The United States contribute to

other West India Colonies, in as great extent, and share in the Navigation between them as largely, as they do in their intercourse with those of Great Britain. This is the effect of the Law of proximity. If it be a monopoly, it has emanated from no human power, but from a much higher source. Far from repining at the dispensations of Providence, Nations, contented with the portion of His bounty which has been allotted to each, would do well to acquiesce, with cheerful submission, in the arrangements of the Universe, which, in His wisdom, He has thought proper to order.

The United States have never made it a subject of serious complaint that, for the indulgence which their Laws have granted of unrestricted liberty of importation or exportation of whatever is produced or manufactured in The United States, or in the British Colonies, respectively, they have been met, in return, with a long catalogue of prohibitions and restrictions, including some of the staple commodities on both sides. Although they have desired the abolition of those restrictions, they have left it to the sole and undisturbed consideration of the British Government, whether the prosperity of their Colonies themselves would not be best promoted by the application to the intercourse, of those liberal principles which have obtained the sanction of the present enlightened age. The Government of The United States has contented itself with insisting that, circumscribed as the trade has been, according to the pleasure of the British Government, the regulation of the Navigation employed in it should be founded on principles of reciprocity, so as to allow fair competition between the Vessels of the two Countries.

The position now assumed, that Colonial trade with Foreign States is not a fit subject for Negociation with those States, but belongs exclusively to the regulation of the Parent Country, is entirely new. It is not sustained by the practice of other Powers having Colonies. It is not sustained by the practice of Great Britain herself; and this brings me to the consideration of what has passed between the two Governments in relation to this trade.

They negociated on that subject, to go no further back, in the year 1794. Their Negotiations resulted in the 12th Article of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, which was then concluded. The very fact of treating, between two independent States, implies the right in each of considering and determining the mutual propositions which may be offered. The two Powers again negotiated on the same subject in 1796, and, because the Government of The United States did not conceive that the concessions of Great Britain, contained in the 12th Article of the Treaty of 1794, were equivalent to the concessions on their side, it was annulled. They again negotiated in 1815, and actually entered into stipulations which, as you well know, form a part of the Convention of the 3d of July, of that

year, for the regulation of the British East India trade; but, not being able to come to any agreement, in regard to the British West India trade, it was left to the two Countries to regulate this subject by their respective Laws. On that occasion, it was stated by Lord Castlereagh, that the British Government would not regard as unfriendly, any measure which The United States might think it expedient to put into operation for the regulation of that trade. And, to guard against all misconception, it is moreover expressly provided in the Treaty itself, that "the intercourse between The United States and His Britannick Majesty's Possessions in the West Indies, and on the Continent of North America, shall not be affected by any of the provisions of this Article, but each Party shall remain in the complete possession of its rights with respect to such an intercourse." With what propriety, then, can it be affirmed that " to withhold from the Ship of a Country having Colonies, trading from the Mother Country to a Foreign State, under a regular Treaty between the two Countries, the right of clearing for another Port belonging to that Mother Country, in another part of the World, is an injury”—an injury, “undoubtedly in deviation from the spirit of the Treaty." The regular Treaty referred to, excludes, by its positive terms, all regulation of the Intercourse between The United States and the British Colonies in the West Indies. And yet it is contended, that Great Britain has the right, according to the spirit of the Treaty, not only to the benefit of the application of its provisions, to a subject which it alone professes to regulate, but to have them applied also to another subject which is expressly declared not to be regulated, and as to which both Parties are left in the "complete possession" of all their rights. And this is insisted upon, in behalf of Great Britain, without any corresponding privilege on the part of The United States. If the Treaty be competent to carry a British Vessel through the British West India Ports to The United States, and vice versa, whilst, under similar circumstances, those Ports are to remain shut, by British Authority, against a Vessel of The United States, it would equally entitle such British Vessel to pass through the Ports of any and every Country upon the globe, to and from The United States. The United States might, without any violation of the Convention of 1815, interdict all Intercourse with the British West Indies, direct or circuitous. And surely the right to adopt the stronger and more comprehensive, includes the choice of the weaker measure, that of prohibiting to be done, by British Vessels, what Great Britain prohibits, under analogous circumstances, American Vessels from doing. It is alleged that that right, from the enjoyment of which we are interdicted by British regulation, nevertheless existed in Great Britain antecedently to any Treaty, and at a period when no claim to any trade with British Colonies had even been whispered by The United States. As a right it never

existed one moment, since the Independence of The United States. If the privilege were exercised, it was from their moderation and by their sufferance. Since that epoch we are unaware of any period of time, when The United States did not claim a reciprocal Intercourse with the British Colonies. The two Countries again unsuccessfully negotiated, in relation to the Colonial Trade, in 1817, when Lord Castlereagh submitted a Draft of 4 Articles, which did not prove acceptable, and in 1818, and 1819, and finally in 1824. What was the footing on which the Intercourse had been placed, by the Laws of the two Countries, at the period of opening that last negotiation, you will see by adverting to the Instructions of my Predecessor, under date 23d June, 1823, with a Copy of which you have been furnished. The long and arduous discussions which took place between Mr. Rush and Messrs. Huskisson and S. Canning, in 1824, brought the Parties very near together. Each exchanged with the other the proposal with which he would be satisfied, but, as they could not then agree upon either, it was concluded to suspend the negotiation, with a distinct understanding, on both sides, that it should be again resumed at some convenient day, [see Protocol of the 25th Conference.] From a comparison of the American and British proposals [see the former annexed to Protocol of the 3d Conference,] [and the British Counter-Projet, marked L,] [see also the British paper marked W.] it will be seen;

1. That both Parties were willing to abolish all discriminating duties on either side.

2. That the British Government was satisfied, and actually offered that the Intercourse should continue restricted to the direct voyage, as it then was by the respective Laws of the Parties; that is to say, that an American Vessel clearing from the British West Indies, with their produce for an American Port, should be required to land her Cargo in such Port; and, on the other hand, a British Vessel clearing from The United States, with their produce, for a Colonial Port, should be required to land her Cargo in such Port.

But, thirdly, the point on which the Parties could not then agree, was, that The United States insisted that American produce should be admitted into the British Colonial Ports, upon the same terms as similar produce received from any where else; that is, either from a British Possession or any Foreign Country.

Such an equal admission of our produce was contended for, in pursuance of the enactments of the Congress of The United States in the Act of March, 1823.

Thus the two Parties amicably separated, I repeat, with the perfect understanding of each, that the negotiation, in which such encouraging progress had been made, should be resumed and brought to a final conclusion, at some future day. To that renewed negotiation The United States have invariably looked with the confident hope that,