Even admitting, however, up to any required extent, the difficulty of construing the Act, still it seems not so easy to account for the inaction of the American Legislature, and still less for that of the American Government. The Legislature might be unable to determine what was precisely meant by the condition of placing the Shipping of Great Britain and her Possessions abroad on the footing of the most favoured Nation: but there could be no doubt that the Condition, in any construction of it, could never be fulfilled, so long as the discriminating Duties remained unrepealed; that the abolition of those Duties was, therefore, an essential term in the Condition; and that this term could be supplied only by an Act of Congress. If however the Legislature could not thus proceed, at least the Government, which must have felt with it, had an effectual remedy for every difficultythat of reference to Great Britain for explanation; and the Undersigned is really at a loss to conceive why the whole Session of 1825-26 was suffered to pass away, without any resort to an expedient so obvious and decisive.

Besides, however, the alleged ambiguity of the British Enactment, there was a concurrent cause which prevented the Government and Legislature of The United States from taking any steps relating to it. They were satisfied that the British Government either considered The United States as exempt, or meant to take special means of exempting them, from the operation of the Enactment; and that the Commercial relations between The United States, and the British Colonies, were, after all, to be arranged by Treaty, and not by reciprocal Laws. The grounds on which this persuasion was entertained, are very fully set forth and discussed in the Correspondence between Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Canning, and the subject appears so nearly exhausted, that the Undersigned sees no occasion for entering into it at large.

It is indeed self-evident, that the Government of The United States set out with a very mistaken opinion of the views of Great Britain, respecting her Colonies, and, more especially, respecting the importance to those Colonies of a direct Intercourse with the Ports of The United States. This at least seems the only principle which would account for what is otherwise difficult of explanation, namely, that from the very few, and, at the best, doubtful indications alluded to in the Correspondence, the Government of The United States should not only have inferred intentions on the part of the British Ministry, which, primâ facie at least, were in direct contrariety to an elaborate Act of Parliament recently introduced by that very Ministry; but should have deduced such inference so confidently, as to act upon it for months together implicitly, although during all that period it received no support or confirmation of any kind from the British Government, and although it was more than once, in official communication with the American Government, strongly discountenanced by the British Minister at Washington.

The supposition entertained by The United States consisted of two alternative members, the first of which was, that the British Government did not mean so to construe the Act of July, 1825, as to comprehend The United States within it at all. That is, in an Enactment professedly regulating the Intercourse of the British Colonies with all Foreign Countries, the description "Countries not having Colonial Possessions," did not include The United States, although it is admitted that no other expression in the Act can possibly apply to the United States; although this very Negotiation proves the pre-eminent interest of The United States in the subject of the Enactment; and, although Mr. Gallatin himself observes, that, "with the exception of some of the German States, the terms (of the Enactment) apply to no other Maritime Power."

But if the Act could not be so construed, then it was believed that the British Government must be intending to exclude The United States from the sphere of it, by a special Order in Council. This supposition is indeed less violent than the former: the Enactment being expressly subject to the exception, "unless His Majesty by His Order in Council shall in any case deem it expedient to grant the whole or any of such privileges to the Ships of any Foreign Country, although the Conditions aforesaid shall not in all respects be fulfilled by such Foreign Country."

Yet surely, it was a little premature to assume, that Great Britain would gratuitously step forward to nullify the important rule which she had just enacted, in the very case to which (on this supposition) it preeminently applied. Still more, that she should, without reason shewn or asked, deviate from those principles of reciprocity for which she had been so strenuously contending, and deviate from them in the case of that very Nation to which she had, in regard to those very principles, been making frequent and unsuccessful remonstrances. And, most of all, does it seem remarkable that this persuasion, adopted by Mr. Clay in December, 1825, when he felt satisfied that the expected Order in Council was already on its way to America, should have been left wholly unshaken by the lapse of six months, during which no such Order arrived, nor the remotest intimation of its being passed or intended.

It will not for a moment be imagined that, by these observations, the Undersigned intends to cast any doubt on the explanation which has been given of the proceedings of The United States on the occasion alluded to, or to question the motives which dictated those proceedings. But he deems it due to his own Country, due indeed to both the Countries involved in these discussions, that each Party should state its opinions and impressions with perfect frankness,-a frankness, indeed, of which Mr. Gallatin himself has very honourably furnished an example, and which the Undersigned deems not only con

sistent with friendly feelings, but even essential to a mutual good understanding and confidence. It is then, in the judgment of the Undersigned, important to shew, and with all proper deference he conceives himself to have in fact shewn, that the misapprehensions with regard to the views and intentions of Great Britain, by which the Government and the Legislature of The United States appear, in the present instance, to have been misled, were not warranted by any part of the conduct or the language of the British Government; and that this Country, therefore, is not responsible for those misapprehensions, nor obliged, as of course, to reconsider any Measures on her own part, or to repair any ill consequences on the part of others, to which they may have given rise.

And hence the Undersigned is naturally led to the 3d, and only remaining topick of the present Note.

Mr. Gallatin asks, whether, in the event of such a Law as he describes being past by Congress, the British Government would revoke the Order in Council of the 27th of July, 1826, and adopt the other Measures which he concurrently mentions.

The Undersigned does full justice to the frank and friendly tone in which this enquiry is made, and he feels that the answer of the British Government ought in the same proportion to be explicit.

Without commenting on the particular Provisions of the Law which, according to the supposition of Mr. Gallatin, is to be enacted by Congress, it is proper to say, that the British Government cannot prospectively commit itself to the adoption of any specifick line of conduct in the event of such Law being enacted.

With whatever conformity to the suggestions of Mr. Gallatin, the proposed Law may, as to its general principles, be framed, still those general principles are liable to be accompanied by details, which no anticipation can embrace.

Much also may turn, on the position and circumstances, both of this Country, of The United States, and of the Commercial Commonwealth in general, at the time when such Law shall come into effect. This last consideration is indeed conclusive, for it has relation to the very essence of the principles which the British Government entertains on the present subject. Strictly asserting her right to prohibit or to regulate the Intercourse of Foreigners with her Colonies, according to her conception of her own Interests, and without explanation or apology to other States, it would be impossible for Great Britain, without a compromise of her principles, to pledge Herself by advance, and with reference to circumstances yet unknown or partially foreseen, to the establishment of any particular System of policy in relation to such Intercourse.

On another and distinct ground, the mode of proceeding suggested by Mr. Gallatin seems liable to exception. In adjusting her Colonial

Relations with Foreigners, this Country has preferred the method of Municipal Legislation to that of Treaty, and The United States have at length acquiesced in that preference, though not themselves approving it. The process recommended by Mr. Gallatin, (and which, if adopted, must become a precedent), would seem to combine the disadvantages of both methods, without proportionably securing the benefits of either.

If the terms of Colonial Intercourse are to be adjusted by mutual Laws, but those Laws themselves are to be founded on informal Agreements, previously entered into between the Governments, it is manifest that a course of proceeding is pursued, which fully ensures neither the certainty and notoriety of International Convention, nor the facility and independence of Domestick Legislation.

On the whole, His Majesty's Ministers feel themselves under the necessity of declining to give the pledge invited by Mr. Gallatin, and this with no special or exclusive reference to the peculiar Measure in question. Their resolution is the result of considerations, general in their nature, and conclusive against a prospective pledge of any description respecting the Colonial Policy of Great Britain, whether of relaxation or restriction.

In the formation of this Decision, the Undersigned is persuaded that it is unnecessary to disclaim the influence of any unfriendly feelings towards The United States. He can only repeat, that the English Government cherishes for The United States sentiments only of sincere amity.

Albert Gallatin, Esq.

The Undersigned, &c. &c.

DUDLEY.

No. 4.-Albert Gallatin, Esq. to the Earl of Dudley.

Upper Seymour-street, 3d October, 1827. THE Undersigned, Minister of The United States, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the Note addressed to him on the 1st of this month, by Lord Dudley, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in answer to the Notes of the Undersigned, of the 4th of June and 17th of August last, on the subject of the Colonial Intercourse.

It is believed that Lord Dudley would, 'on a close examination of the measures which the President of The United States was willing to recommend to Congress, have been satisfied that those measures would not only have tended to relax, but would have altogether have abrogated all the restrictions imposed by the American Legislature on the Colonial Intercourse through the medium of British Vessels.

The objection drawn from an anticipation of the details, which might have accompanied the general principles of the proposed Law, would have been easily removed. And those that are suggested against

the process recommended by the American Government, seem less conclusive against it than supporting the preference which The United States had given to an arrangement by Treaty.

But since His Majesty's Ministers are of opinion that much may turn on the position and circumstances of Great Britain, of The United States, and of the Commercial World in general, when such Law should come into effect, and since, in declining to give the pledge invited by the overture of America, they have explicitly declared that their resolution was the result of considerations, general in their nature and conclusive against a prospective pledge of any description respecting the Colonial Policy of Great Britain, the Undersigned, whose efforts to obtain a more favourable answer to the enquiry he had been directed to make have been unavailing, has no other duty to perform in that respect than to transmit to his Government the determination of that of Great Britain.

It is with regret that the Undersigned finds that Lord Dudley, who had at first considered the Note of the 4th of June as not calling for any reply, has now deemed it necessary to offer some comment, on the explanations contained in that Note, of the conduct of the Government of The United States, in relation to the Colonial Intercourse subsequent to the Act of Parliament of July, 1825. He had designedly separated the explanations from the enquiry, and suffered more than 2 months to elapse between his 2 Notes, in order to afford sufficient time for any reply which that of the 4th of June might require, and in order that, the discussion on the topicks embraced by it being finally concluded, the proposal he had to make might be taken into consideration, without any retrospect of antecedent circumstances, and solely as a question of policy and mutual convenience. It is with unfeigned reluctance that he finds himself compelled again to revert to points already so much debated, and to take some notice of Lord Dudley's observations, on explanations which, it had been hoped, would have been deemed satisfactory.

It is correctly stated that the reasons alleged by The United States, for not having complied with the condition prescribed by the Act of Parliament of July, 1825, were, 1st, because the opinion was entertained that it was still the intention of Great Britain that the Intercourse should be arranged by Negotiation; 2dly, because it was not known whether the condition was rightly understood.

On the last point Lord Dudley seems to think that the doubts, which the Undersigned had mentioned as attaching to the meaning of the Act, were rather the suggestions of his own mind, than the recorded grounds of the perplexity felt by the American Government or Legislature. And he infers, from the specifick proposal contained in the Note of the Undersigned of the 17th of August, and from an allusion to a declaration of Mr. Canning, that the condition in question had