The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-28 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 28, 1827.

STATE PAPERS•

cORREsrOXIMIVCE ILIMATITH TO COMMERCIAL INTRIICOIIRSE
TT:Btils THE ITNIITED STATE, or ImS:I,IcAITISfI WI,9T
INDIA COLONIGS, AUGUST, 182 t, TO JANUARY, r11138171/4-rEn
BOTH rfollans PABLIAMBNT BY COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY,
ISTT.

No. 6.—Mr. Secretary Canning to Albert Gallatin, Esq.
Foreign-Office, Jan, 27, 1827.
The Undersigned, tee. has the honour to acknowledge
the note addressed to him on the 25th ultimo, by Mr. Gal-
-1 latin, &c.: in replying to which, the undersigned will, as
far as possible, conform himself to the example of Mr. Gal-
latin, in putting aside those points of the question in agita-
tion between them which have been already exhausted in
argument, and the further discussion of which would not
tend to any practical advantage.
The parts of Mr. Gallatin's last note which appear to the
undersigned to require any observation, relate to matters
rather of fact than of reasoning.
Mr. Gallatin complains that the Act of Parliament of
1825 was not officially communicated to the Governinent
of the United States.
It is perfectly true that it was not ; nor has it been the
habit of the two Governments to communicate reciprocally
to each other acts of their respective legislatures.
The act of Congress of 1823, an act, the provisions of
which specially affected Great Britain, was not officially
cbmmunicated either to the King's Minister at Washing-
ton, or to his Majesty's Government by the American Mi-
nister resident at this Court. So far from any such eom-
munication being made, or any voluntary explanation of '
the bearing of that act being offered, it was not till after
repeated and pressing inquiries that his Majesty's Minister
at Washington succeeded in obtaining from the American
Secretary of State the true construction of the most im-
portant clause of that act—the clause in which the United
States claimed that their trade to the British West India
Colonies should he put on the same footing with the trade
to the same Colonies from "elsewhere;" and learnt, to his
great astonishment, that under that word " elsewhere "
was intended to be signified, not only the other dependen-
cies of Great Britain, but the "mother country itself."
The undersigned, at the same time, begs that it may not
be supposed that the British Government withheld from
the Government of the United States a communication of
the Act of Parliament of 1825 from any notion of retalia-
tion for the omission of the Government of the United
States to communicate to that of his Majesty the Act of
Congress of 1823.
He refers to that instance of omission on the part of the
American Government only in proof;
First, That the ordinary and :natural course between
States is not to make diplomatic communications of the
Acts of their respective Legislatures ; and secondly, that no
inference could be drawn from such an omission on the one
side any more than on the other, of (what the undersigned
disclaims for his Government) an intentional want of cour-
tesy or respect.
But the Act of 1825 (lid not relate specially to the
United States. It held out to all nations of the world cer-
tain benefits, (or what were believed by the British Go-
vernment to be so) on certain conditions.
If a communication of the Act had been made to one
nation, it must have been made alike to all. Such com-
munication would have been liable to different misinterpre-
tations; some Governments might have considered it u a
solicitation to which they were bound in courtesy to give
some answer, explaining their reasons for declining, if they
did decline, to avait themselves of the provisions of the Act,
othcra might perhaps have taken umbrage at it, as an
authoritative pretension to impose the legislation of this
counter upon other nations.
The simplest course was to allow the provisions of the
Act to find their way to general knowledge through the
usual channels of commercial information.
The undersigned has no reason to apprehend that this
course has proved less effectual on the present than on
former occasions.
The conditions of the act of 1825 have been accepted
and carried into effect by some Governments that of the
United States has not thought it expedient to take ad-
vantage of them. But the undersigned cannot but be still
of opinion, that the resolution proposed in the House of
Representatives, at Washington, at the beginning of the
last Session of Congress, for the express purpose of urging
the executive Government of the United States to come
into the terms of the Act of 1825, the debates which took
place upon that proposition, and the final rejection of it by
a majority of only two votes show that it was not for want
of a sufficient understanding of the intent of the Act of Par-
liament, that the conditions of it were Rot accepted by the
United States.
To one piece of evidence, which proves the perfect under-
standing in America, not' only of the purport and provisions
of the Aet of Parliament of 1825; but of the conditions
which it would be requisite forr the American Legislature
to perform, in order to entitle the United States to the
benefit of that Act, the undersigned might have scrupled
to refer (as not being of the nature of a diplomatic docu-
ment), if Mr. Gallatin had not encouraged him to bring
forward any document tending to throw light on the matter
in dispute, by citing, in support of his own view of that
matter, a private letter from Mr. Clay to a Member of
Congress.
Early in the session of Congress of 1825-26, a petition
from Baltimore was presented to both houses of the Ameri-
can Legislature, in which petition it was distinctly pointed
out, that the British Act of Parliament of July, 1825, had
not only manifested the readiness of this country to remove
all discriminating duties, but also to permit American ships
to clear out front British colonies, not, as theretofore, to
the ports of the United States only, but to all parts of the
world, (the United Kingdom and its dependencies alone
excepted, )
The petition, with equal distinct :it-se, invited the atten-
tion of the American Legislature to the conditions on which
these advantages might be secured to the United States, and
prayed for the removal of the several restrictions imposed
by the American Act of 1823, not of the " discriminating
duties" only, but of the prohibition, of what is called by
Mr. Gallatin, " circuitous intercourse in British ships :"
the petitioners expressly submitting to Congress the pro-
priety of admitting British vessels, from whatever ports, on
the same terms as the vessels of the most favoured nations.
It appears from the reports of the proceedings of Con-
gress, that it was against the prayer of this petition (but
without impeachment of any of its allegations) that the
decision of the American Legislature, at the close of the
Session, was taken. It cannot be doubted, therefore, that
the American Legislature had the whole purport and bear-
ing of the Act of 1825 full before their eyes.
The fact that some of the British Authorities abroad
took upon themselves to suspend the execution of the Act
of 1825, towards the United States, is undenied.
But the only effect of this suspension was, the continu-
ance of the benefits of the then existing state of things to
the United States, for heady a twelvemonth longer than
they would otherwise have enjoyed it.
That continuance was permitted by the British Govern-
ment, mainly in consideration of the then pendency in the
Legislature of the United States, of the resolution herein
before mentioned, for conforming to the conditions of the
Act of 1825.
Immediately upon the receipt of authentic intelligence of
these proceedings at Washington, an instruction was sent
out to Mr. Vaughan, grounded on the belief of the British
Government, that Congress would not separate without
adopting the resolution then under their consideration.
In that ease, and upon r"eiYing an assurance from the
American Government that the restrictions and charges on
and British colonial produce, would be
British shipping
withdrawn by the United States, Mr. Vaughan wee
authorised to deliver a note to the American Secretary of
State, declaring that the discriminating duties imposed
upon American ships and their cargoes in the West Indies
should immediately cease. Mr. Vaughan was actually in
possession of this instruction, when the resolution, on the
assumed adoption of which the instruction to Mr. Vaughan
had been founded was rejected.
It was no part of Mr.
Vaughan's duty to, make any communication upon the sub-
ject to the American Government before the result of the
discussion was ascertained. After that result (wholly un-
expected in this country),
any such communication would
have been not only useless, but might, perhaps, have been
considered as an improper appeal against the formal deci-
sion of the American Legislature.
That Mr. Vaughan should not aftervrards have been au-
thorised to enter into any discussion of the provisiOns of
the act of 1825 " so late as October Lit," is not
when it is considered that Mr. Vaughan, immediatily after
the close of the session of Cougre") was indencted to-an-
nounee the• intention of his Majesty's Government to pass
the order in council of July (consequent upon the decision
of the American legislature) by which the terms of the set
of 1825 were virtually declined.
Mr. Gallatin accounts for the rejection of the resolution,

proposed to the American legislature, by the persuasion;
which he says, the Government of the United States enter-
tained, that the negotiation on the subject of the commer-
cial intercourse between the United States and thu British
West India colonies would be renewed.

The Undersigned is at a loss to understand on what
ground it was assumed at Washington, that there would be,
at all times, an unabated disposition on the part of the Bri-
tish Government to make the trade of its West India colo-
nies the subject of diplomatic arrangement.
The circumstances of the ease were entirely changed.
Repeated negotiation had failed to produce any material
approximation of opinions upon that subject.
The last attempt at an adjustment had boon made, with
an evident conviction on both sides that there existed be-
tween them an unconquerable difference of principle, and
that it was by that difference, rather than by any &cid,'
irreconeileableness of interest, that a satisfactory arrange-
ment was rendered hopeless.

The nature of the difference has been sufficiently dis-
cussed ; it Ike in the determination of the United States
to dispute, and in that of Great Britain to maintain, the
established distinction bstween the gmetal and eolunial
trade.

II Great Britain had, therefore, an obvious motive for
doing thenceforward whatever she might think it right to
do, in relaxation of her colonial system, rather by the
instrumentality of her own legislature than by compact
with a State, with which she disagreed in opinion, as to
the principles of colonial trade, so widely, that it would
have been impossible to construct a preamble to a treaty on
that subject, in the enunciations of which the two contract-
ing parties should have concurred.
Hut there was vet another reason for avoiding further
negoeiations upon the subject.
Hitherto when the trade with the !British West India
colonies had been opened at all, it had been opened chiefly,
though not exclusively, to the United States.
To no other country had it been opened by specific and
positive convention.

But a time had now arrived when, from motives of ge-
neral policy, Great Britain thought it advisable to allow
access to her colonies to all foreign powers, without excep-
tion, on conditions tendered alike to all.
Such indiscriminate opening could only be effected by
some
processto
p arwhoja weret
3r :ap:
trizinuist permitted o r
invited
takecaodnranotnag!:(,aflilt those oisuei
main-
tained towards all parties, and the power of control over
her own colonies was at the same time retained in the hands
of the mother country.
Time undersigned believes that be has now touched ou
every topic in the last note addressed to him by Mr. Galla-
tin, to tchich ho had not had occasion to advert in former
stages of their correspondence. He will not allow himself
to be drawn again into a discussion of topics already more,
than sufficiently debated.
The undersigned trusts that it is unnecessary for him
in concluding this note, to return to Mr. Gallatin's assur-
ances of the friendly disposition of time United States of
America—assurances equally sincere, that there is the most
cordial desire, on the part of Great Britain, to cultivate the
friendship of the United States.
The ties of common origin, laws, and language, must
always form strong bonds of national alliance between
them. Their respective interests, well understood, har-
monise together as much as their feelings.
But it has never yet been held a duty of international
amity (any Mors than of friendship in private life) to sub-
mit to unequal compacts. Nor has it even 'been held an
offence against such duty that a nation (any more than
an individual) should decline to make uncompensated
sacrifices.

Between two nations, as between two individuals, most
friendly to each other, there may sometimes happen, un-
fortunately, to exist some known subject of incurable
difference of opinion. In ally such case, it is perhaps
most advisable to keep that subject as much as possible
out of sight, and to take care that it shall not interfere
with the tenour of their general intercourse and of their
habitual relations.

The refusal to regulate the trade of our colonies by a
commercial treaty which the British Government may
-,pink (even if erroneously) disadvantageous to its interests,
cannot give just cause of offence to any power whatever.
In the present instance the undersigned is most happy
to be able to qualify such refusal with the declaration, that
it is not in any degree dictated by sentiments either un-
friendly or disrespectful to the United States, or by any
indifference to the amicable settlement of all other questions
at present pending between them and Great Britain.

Of these questions, one has been already happily arranged
since Mr. Gallatin's arrival in this country.
The undersigned looks forward with confidence, no leis
than with anxiety, to such an arrangement of the remain-
der, us, effacing all traces of pastdiscnssions, and satisfying
all fair and reasonable pretensions on both sides, may secure
for a long period of years to come, reciprocal good under-
standing and good will between two kindred nations. The
undersigned has the honour, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE CANNING.
Albert Gallatin, Esq., &c.