that Intercourse, in conformity with the terms of the Commercial Convention between the Two Countries.

The Undersigned prays Lord Dudley to accept, &c.
ALBERT GALLATIN.

Lord Viscount Dudley.

(No. 3.)-The Earl of Dudley to Albert Gallatin, Esq.

Foreign Office, October 1, 1827. THE Undersigned, &c. has the honour of acknowledging the two Official Notes of the 4th of last June, and the 17th of last August, addressed to him by Mr. Gallatin, &c. on the subject of the Intercourse between The United States and the Colonial Possessions of Great Britain.

The Note of the 4th of June, although it closed with a profession of the acquiescence of the American Government in the decision of Great Britain, that the Intercourse in question should be regulated by mutual Laws rather than by Treaty, was yet directed chiefly to an explanation of certain circumstances in the conduct of The United States, and did not appear to the Undersigned to call for any Reply on his part.

In the succeeding Note, however, of the 17th of August, the statements and reasonings of the former are followed out by Mr. Gallatin into a definite Proposition, undoubtedly requiring from the British Government a direct answer. In this Note it is stated that the President of The United States is willing to recommend to Congress the adoption of certain measures, tending to relax the restrictions imposed by the American Legislature in the Intercourse of The United States with the British Colonies through the medium of British Ships; which Measures Mr. Gallatin shortly specifies; and it is asked whether, if Congress should, during its next Session, pass a Law to that effect, "the Order in Council of the 27th of July, 1826, will be revoked, the discriminating Duties on American Vessels in the British Colonies be abolished, and these Vessels be allowed to enjoy the privileges of Trade and Intercourse with those Colonies according to the Act of Parliament of the 5th July, 1825."

It is at the same time observed by Mr. Gallatin, that the Government of The United States would have had no doubt that, on the enactment of such a Law by Congress, the Interdict laid on American Shipping, under the Act of Parliament of 1825, would be removed as a matter of course, had not Mr. Canning, in his Letter to Mr. Gallatin of the 11th September, 1826, declared, that after having been compelled to apply the Interdict to any Country, the British Government cannot hold itself bound to remove that Interdict, as a matter of course, whenever it may happen to suit the convenience of the Foreign Government to reconsider the Measures by which the application of that Interdict was occasioned.

Mr. Gallatin truly adds, that an Act of Parliament was afterwards passed, containing provisions corresponding with the declaration so made by Mr. Canning.

The Undersigned takes pleasure in recognizing, in both these Letters of Mr. Gallatin, and especially in the enquiry which closes the second of them, the same spirit of good will and conciliation, which, in the midst of discussions involving no small difference of opinion, has characterized Mr. Gallatin's Correspondence with the British GoThe Undersigned hopes it is unnecessary to observe, that His Majesty's Government is influenced by the same sentiments, and that, although he thinks himself bound to offer some observations on topicks of debate and conflicting interest, he presents them with no feelings but such as ought to pervade discussions between two Nations, allied in origin, and he trusts he may add, allied also in desire to improve and strengthen the relations of ancient kindred by mutual offices of kindness and amity.

Connecting together the two Notes of Mr. Gallatin, the topicks which they suggest for present consideration, seem to be three.

First. It may be expedient to observe on the declaration which Mr. Gallatin has quoted from Mr. Canning, and which appears to be regarded by the Government of The United States as a deviation from what might have been anticipated as the natural course of proceeding.

Secondly. Some comment may be offered on the explanation into which Mr. Gallatin has entered, of the conduct of the Government and the Legislature of The United States, in relation to the Intercourse with the British Colonies, under the operation of the Act of Parliament of July, 1825.

And this course of observation will naturally introduce into view, in the third place, the Proposition which forms the more immediate subject of the Note of the 17th of August.

1. With regard to the declaration of Mr. Canning, the Undersigned thinks it not unimportant to remark that the sentiment, which in that declaration Mr. Canning so pointedly expresses, is in fact exactly consistent with the general principles always professed by the British Government on the subject of Colonial Intercourse, which principles are expounded in the argument of Mr. Canning.

The leading position contended for by Mr. Canning is this, that the exclusion of Foreigners from a direct Intercourse with the British Colonies, is altogether agreeable to the received and ordinary doctrines of the Colonial Policy of modern times.

The established usage of Nations possessing Colonies, interdicts that Intercourse to all but their own subjects. If such Interdict be in any case relaxed, the case is one of exception, and if, having once been relaxed, it is re-enforced, this is but a restoration of the received rule. The necessary consequence is, that in any instance, not governed

by special regulation, it would be the continuance, and not the suspension, of the Interdict, that would alone be contemplated as a matter of course.

In re-asserting these principles, and in immediately connecting them with the declaration cited from Mr. Canning, it is by no means the object of the Undersigned to revive a discussion which is already exhausted. He is desirous only of shewing, that the reservation which Mr. Canning for his Government makes, of a discretionary continuance of the Interdict in question, in every case in which it has been once imposed, is in entire harmony with the general maxims of Colonial Policy, and, consequently, that the application of the rule, in any given instance, ought not to be regarded as a proceeding of a singular, and still less of an unfriendly, character.

2. In this connexion, however, the question may seem to arise, whether the proceedings of The United States were such as fairly to incur the application of the Interdict in the first instance. The ques tion is, in fact, involved in the explanations, into which Mr. Gallatin has at some length entered, respecting the conduct of The United States, during the time that elapsed between the passing of the Act of Parliament of July, 1825, and the issuing of the Order in Council of July, 1826. To those explanations The Undersigned will next briefly advert.

The effect of Mr. Gallatin's argument may perhaps be thus exhibited.

Admitting that, after the British Statute of July, 1825 was passed, The United States ought to have done certain acts to bring themselves within the benefit of that Statute, yet the omission by The United States to do those acts was not, (as the British Government supposed, when it issued the Order in Council of 1826), an advised and deliberate proceeding, but was the result of an erroneous impression respecting the views and intentions of the British Government; and hence there may appear some ground for a revision of the British Order in Council, that Measure having, in truth, been resorted to, under the influence of a reciprocal mistake.

In commenting on this argument, it is not necessary to enquire whether, on the supposition that the error or inadvertence of The United States had been occasioned by some default on the part of the British Government, that Government would have been under an equitable obligation to reconsider the steps it had taken, in ignorance of such error or inadvertence.-There is, in fact, no room for any such supposition.

Deeply as Great Britain must regret the misapprehensions, whatever they might be, under which The United States acted, she cannot in justice charge herself with having occasioned them. She cannot but think that a fair opportunity was afforded to the American Go

vernment and People to avail themselves, if they thought fit, of the Provisions of the Act of July, 1825, and the term of that option having expired, she cannot conceive herself called upon to retract, as a matter of course, the Measures which, under the actual circumstances in which she found herself placed, she was led to adopt, on a matter so peculiarly within her exclusive controul as the Trade of her own Colonies.

It may be proper, however, to examine this subject a little more particularly. From the statement of Mr. Gallatin, it appears that the omission of The United States to comply with the Conditions prescribed by the Act of July, 1825, is resolvable into two Causes:-First, neither the Government nor the Congress rightly understood those Conditions, the interpretation of which, indeed, is represented to be a matter of much difficulty:-Secondly, the Government, and probably the Congress also, entertained an opinion, that Great Britain did not mean to affect The United States by the Act of July 1825, but intended to arrange the Intercourse of that Country with the British Colonies by Negotiation.

Mr. Gallatin is also at pains, on this part of the subject, to explain the proceedings in the American House of Representatives, respecting the Bill for the repeal of the discriminating Duties on goods imported in British Vessels from the British Colonies. The Bill, he observes, was not, as Mr. Canning had supposed, rejected; it was, by a majority of two votes, ordered to lie on the Table, which would not have the effect of preventing the House from proceeding with it on any future day; though, either on account of the lateness of the Session, or, what is more probable, from reliance on the successful issue of Negotiations, the consideration of it was not, in fact, resumed.

To begin with the point last mentioned. Mr. Gallatin, on the nature and effect of the proceedings in the House of Representatives, is, of course, an authority beyond exception. Even on that authority, however, it appears that the Bill in question was dropped deliberately; for it was disposed of after a keen contest, and was never revived; a mode of treating it, which, judging from analogous proceedings in the Legislative Assemblies of this Country, can hardly be regarded otherwise than as an effectual, though an indirect, rejection.

But whatever construction may be put on the fate of that abortive Measure, this, at least, may be asserted, that the Congress, having during a whole Session had the subject under consideration, designedly omitted to legislate in reference to the British Act of July, 1825. The reasons assigned for that omission are next to be considered.

Mr. Gallatin very clearly states, that the Conditions on which it was intended, by the Act of July, 1825, to open the Colonial Trade to American Vessels, were not distinctly understood in The United States; but what was the precise nature of the difficulty experienced in con

struing those Conditions, the Undersigned has not been able to collect. For, with regard to the specifick doubts which Mr. Gallatin mentions as attaching to the meaning of the Act, these he seems to state, rather as suggesting themselves to his own mind, on a view of the Provisions of the Act, than as the recorded grounds of the perplexity felt by the American Government or Legislature.

A full exposition of those doubts was, in fact, given by Mr. Gallatin in his Note to Mr. Canning of the 28th December, 1826, and that exposition is, by reference, embodied in the Note now under consideration, of the 4th of June, in which last Note Mr. Gallatin observes, that no explanation, in respect to those doubts, has ever been given by His Majesty's Government.

The portion of the Act to which the remarks of Mr. Gallatin apply, is the condition on which the Intercourse with the British Colonies is opened to other Countries possessing Colonies of their own; namely, that they shall place the Commerce and Navigation of this Country, and of its Possessions abroad, upon the footing of the most favoured Nation.

Without meaning to admit or to deny the justice of Mr. Gallatin's criticism on that Clause, the Undersigned bears a willing tribute to its force and ability; but the question, after all, is, whether the Clause referred to, threw such a practical difficulty in the way of American Legislation on the subject, as to account for the total inaction of the Congress of The United States. And to this question the last Note of Mr. Gallatin, (that is the Note of the 17th August,) presents a conclusive answer.

It there appears that, notwithstanding those unexplained doubts, the American Government has found no difficulty in tendering to the British Government the passing of certain specifick Enactments by Congress, as the Condition contemplated by the Act of July, 1825; that is, as the very Condition which appeared so inexplicable.

Not only so, but it is observed in that Note, (as has already been mentioned,) that, had it not been for Mr. Canning's declaration to the contrary effect, "the Government of The United States would have had no doubt that, upon the passage of an Act of Congress of that tenour, the Interdict laid on American Shipping under the Act of Parliament of 1825, would be removed as a matter of course." It is unnecessary to remark, that the conditions on which, under that Act of Parliament, the Interdict on American Shipping would be revocable, are the very conditions on which the Act makes Foreign Shipping admissible to the British Colonies; the passage, consequently, just cited from Mr. Gallatin, shews, that whatever doubts might attach to those conditions, on the principles of severe construction, they seemed to the Government of The United States so perfectly clear for all practical purposes as to be susceptible only of one interpretation.