no goods shall be imported into any British possessions in Asia, Africa, or America, in any foreign ships, unless they be ships of the country of which the goods are the produce, and from which the goods are imported.' The first of the acts mentioned above, viz. that of the 24th June, 1822, is virtually repealed by that of 5th July, 1825, 'to regulate the trade of the British possessions abroad;' and importations into the dominions of Great Britain, in foreign vessels, are now regulated by the act last referred to, and the law of navigation above mentioned. From a careful comparison between the language of the act of 1822, and that of the two acts 5th July, 1825, a doubt has arisen here, whether it was contemplated by the British Government that the importations into its possessions, in foreign vessels, should be as strictly confined to a direct voyage, as the insertion of the word directly' in the act of 1822 would imply: or, whether the entire omission of that, or other words of similar import, in the acts of 1825, indicates such a relaxation in the restriction referred to, as to allow the admission of a foreign ship and her cargo to entry in a British colonial port, although she should, between the port of clearance and that of destination, have touched at a foreign port, or at some other British colony, to land part of her cargo, or for any other purpose not involving a violation of British regulations; or, in other words, whether an American vessel could be permitted to clear from the United States with a cargo destined for two or more British colonial ports. The less restricted language of the act of 1825, but, more particularly, the obvious spirit of the legislation of Great Britain in relation to her navigation and colonial systems, would appear to favor the more liberal construction of those acts, whose object is more to confine foreign vessels trading with her possessions, to the transportation of their own produce, than to cramp the navigation of other countries by restrictions from which no benefit can accrue to her. Inquiry upon this point has been elicited by the late arrangement of the colonial question, which has made it desirable that the two Governments should understand another in relation to it. one On reference to the negotiation of Mr Rush in 1824, you will find that this subject had given rise to some conversation between him and the British plenipotentiaries, not so much on the main point, however, which appears to have been conceded by Great Britain, as respecting the question, whether a vessel of the United States, landing part of her cargo at one colonial port, and proceeding to another with the remainder, would be subjected to the payment of the tonnage duty at more than one of these ports during the same voyage? a question which Mr Huskisson, at that time President of the Board of Trade, promised to have adjusted upon principles of reciprocity, by placing vessels of the United States in the British West Indies upon the same footing as British vessels in the United States. The enclosed extract from Mr Rush's despatch, No. 10, to the Secretary of State, dated 12th August, 1824, will make you acquainted with what passed between him and the British plenipotentiaries upon that point. Under our view of the subject, the two following questions present themselves: 1. Whether a vessel of the United States, clearing from a port of the United States for the British colonies, shall be bound to clear for a particular port in said colonies, and to proceed direct to the port of her destination, without touching at any intermediate place? 2. Whether a vessel of the United States, landing a part of her cargo at a British colonial port, and proceeding with the remainder to another British colonial port, shall be subjected to the payment of other duties than those accruing upon the goods landed at such port; and to the payment of the duty 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? The anxious desire of the President that as little as possible, of what relates to the subject of the colonial trade, should be left to doubt, sarmise, or future discussion, has led to the directions I have received from him to call your immediate attention to this branch of the subject, with a view that you should ascertain the construction put by the Brit ish Government upon the language of their acts in this respect, and enable this Government to answer the numerous inquiries which are, and will probably continue to be, addressed to this department upon the details of the arrangement happily concluded between the two Governments. I forbear from enforcing, by any arguments which will readily occur to you, the propriety of this question receiving a liberal solution from the British Government ministers, whose frank and friendly deportment in the negotiation so satisfactorily terminated, leaves no cause to doubt their disposition to place the matter upon the most advantageous footing to the two countries. You will take an early opportunity to lay the subject informally and confidentially before the Earl of Aberdeen, and apprize this department, as speedily as possible, of his decision upon it. You will of course understand, that, in the right of our vessels to stop at an intermediate port, or to land portions of their cargoes at different ports, that of exporting any articles from colony to colony, is not intended to be included. It will be seen by the enclosed correspondence between the Secretary of the treasury and myself, under date of yesterday, that the privilege and exemptions asked for in this regard, are secured to British vessels in the ports of the United States. This circumstance, together with what occurred at London in 1824, as well as the obvious justice of the request, induces us to hope that it will be readily conceded by Great Britain, if it is not already secured by her colonial regulations applicable to other nations. All the information with which you can supply this department in respect to those regulations, will be acceptable. I am, with great respect, your obedient servant, M. VAN BUREN. Mr Van Buren to Mr McLane. Department of State, Washington, 4th February, 1831. SIR: Your despatch, No. 28, with a copy of your note, of the 30th November, to Lord Palmerston, was received, on the 2d instant, at this department, and submitted to the President. He has directed me to express to you his approval of the ground taken by you in that note with regard to the bill introduced into the British Parliament by Mr Herries, proposing a new schedule of duties upon importations of foreign produce into the British West India Islands, and the satisfaction he has derived from the very able manner in which you have presented to Lord Palmerston, the views of your Government upon that subject. It is his desire that you should continue to occupy the position thus assumed, and to prosecute, by all the means which circumstances will render expedient and proper, your opposition to the adoption of the objectionable principle upon which the bill referred to is predicated. In doing this, however, you will be careful not expressly to commit this Government as to the course the President may feel it his duty to pursue in order to protect the interests of the United States against the effects of the proposed measure, in case it should be persevered in. Your communication to the British Minister so completely embraces the subject in all its parts, as to leave but little, if anything, to be added in the shape of argument. I therefore will content myself, for the present at least, with referring to a circumstance which, in the examination of this extended and complicated matter, may have escaped your attention, or, of the knowledge of which you may not be possessed, although I am under the impression that the evidence of it is to be found in the archives of the legation. It is the unqualified concession by Great Britain, in the negotiation of 1818, of the principle now contended for by you, as you will perceive from the protocols of the 3d and 8th conferences between the British and American plenipotentiaries, in that year, which you will find in the pamphlet herewith transmitted to you, and from which it appears that this point was then a matter of perfect accord between the two Governments, and, in fact, almost the only one on which they agreed. You will easily be able to make the British Government sensible of the influence which this circumstance is calculated to exercise over your present discussions, as well in establishing the justice of what we now insist upon, as in affording ground for the expecta i 1 tion, on our part, that no principle conflicting with our claim, in this respect, would again be set up by Great Britain after the recent arrangement of this subject of protracted negotiation. I am, with great respect, your obedient servant, M. VAN BUREN. Mr McLane to Mr Van Buren. SIR: I have already informed you of the measure introduced into the House of Commons by the late President of the Board of Trade, relating to certain impost duties in the British American colonies, and of my intention to remonstrate against its adoption as inconsistent with the arrangement recently concluded with this Governinent. I have the honor, herewith, to forward a copy of the bill and schedule as introduced by Mr Herries, and also a copy of the note which I addressed to Lord Palmerston on the subject, which letter will satisfactorily explain the grounds of my objection to the proposed measure. I have not received a written answer to this note, but have understood both from Lord Palmerston and the President of the Board of Trade, and officially from the former, that the proposed measure will not be insisted upon, but will be withdrawn; and I am in daily expectation of receiving a formal note to that effect. A substitute will be introduced, however, on the reassembling of Parliament, which will take place between the 10th and 20th February, and will be framed with a view to foster those interests in the British northern possessions which have arisen during the late restricted intercourse. I am unable now to say what the precise character of the substitute will be. The Board of Trade, so far as their sentiments may be inferred from the interviews I have had with the President, do not appear to attach the same importance that I do to the agreement contained in Lord Aberdeen's letter, but rather insist upon treating the act of 5th July, 1825, and cousequently all arrangements connected with it, as a part of a general system of legislation regarding the commercial and navigating interests of the country, and liable to such modifications as those interests may occasionally require. Independently, however, of the question of strict right, the President of the Board of Trade, Lord Oakland, professes a disposition to view the subject with a liberal eye, involving considerations of national amity, and to frame the substitute in such a manner as to place the commerce of the two countries upon a permanent footing, and as nearly reciprocal as the peculiar circumstances of the case will permit. I do not consider that my instructions give me any power to negotiate respecting a scale of duties which the Government may be disposed to adopt. My instructions on this subject were at an end when the arrangement which they authorized was concluded; and the objects of my interference since, have been to It is impossible to view the let ter of Lord Aberdeen in any other light than in that of an agreement, upon the issuing of the Mr McLane to Viscount Palmer preserve inviolate the terms of that arrangement, to avoid the necessity of a recurrence to countervailing legislation, and, in any event, to leave the action of my own Government free; so that if future proceedings on its part should be provoked by new legislation on the part of this Government, we may stand fair before our own countrymen and the world, in the measures to which it may be found necessary to re sort. will be afforded, which I shall not neglect, of discussing any subsequent bill which may be introduced. In the mean time, the trade will be enjoyed by both nations under the arrangement already executed, and the check, which we have always relied, that of mutual legislation, will remain. on It is not to be supposed that the recent bill has been withdrawn with any other motive than to substitute a measure of greater reciprocity, and more likely to prove permanently satisfactory. President's proclamation, to revert to the colonial system as definitively established by the act of the 5th July, 1825, and to restore to us the advantages of that system. It is equally clear that, in liberal national faith, there ought to be no departure from that agreement. But it is not to be concealed that the system of 1825, has been undergoing repeated alterations, even as to those nations who had seasonably complied with its terms. And that there are now existing acts of Parliament, passed in 1826, 1827 and 1829, conferring advantages on the indirect trade, which was not contemplated by the act 5th July, 1825. The act of 1826, (the act of 7 George IV.) was in operation, as I have heretofore informed you, at the date of Mr Gallatin's proposition, and he certainly did not understand that his proposition would have authorized us to demand its refusal. For the present, however, our object is attained, and the same opportunity ston. 9, Chandos St. Portland Place, November 30, 1830. It is not without unseigned regret that the undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, finds himself constrained, by circumstances, to invite the attention of Viscount Palmerston, his Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the arrangement recently concluded with his Majesty's Government for the restoration to the United States of the direct trade with the British West Indies. It is not unknown to Lord Palmerston, that the difficulties, so happily adjusted by this arrangement, had been, for many years, a source of unpleasant controversies between the two Governments, and that each viewed, with satisfaction, an opportunity of finally extinguishing them. That the Government of the United States has been sincerely actuated by such feelings, and that it will continue to be actuated : |