Star.
London, England, 1827-03-30 00:00:00

( Enclosure, in No. 1.)

TOO sea ray emir TO TM It Null. C. C. 16
Department of ;kg', Dee. IS, 112.5.
SIR-I have perused the letter which you left with
me, and wi i:h is herewith returned. respecting the con-
struction put. at Halifax, upon the la.e l3,itish Act.of
Parliament. opening the trade and intercourse between
the &kid' American Colonies and foreign countries.—
And I hare also examined the Acts of Parliatheot of
the 4th and sth of GeOrge IV. referred to iu the 5 h
section of the aboirementioned Act. The result is a
belief, that the Halifax coristruction is not that which
was intended by the Btiti>h Government, or, if it be,
that it was designed by an Order n Council to except
the trade and intercniose with the United States from
the operation of the Act, when so interpreted. I should
strongly incline to think, bet for the opposite view erer
tettaited at Halifix, that the Act to regulate the trade
of the British possessions abroad, passed in July last,
did not intend to disturb or affect the trade between
the British American C lonies and the 'United States,
but meant to leave that trade on the footing which it
was put by the aforesaid Act of the 4.h George IV. and
the subsequent Act of Indemnity of the sth George IV.
That the British Government did not look forwarcho
such.an operation of the Act of Parliament as is about
to be enforced at Halifax, I think clear, from the fol-
lowing considerations:
First. It would be inconsistent with professions made
by that Govetoment to this, and with negotiations be-
tween the two Governments, contemplated, if nut yet
resumed.
Second: No notificati,m has been given at Washing-
ton or at London of such a purpose as that which, for
the first time, is indicated at Halifax.
Third. The British Minister here is unadvised by his
Government of any intention to close the Colonial ports
against our vessels ; and
Fourth. No information has been received here from
any British Colonial port, except Halifax, of such in-
tention.
I 1 the Halifax construction be correct, I am persuaded
that the British Government must have intended to
• have created an exception to our trade, by an Order in
Council, which had not arrived at the date of the last
advices from Halifax. _ _

It I am right in that conjecture, the Order may yet
reach that place before, or a few days after, the day
6x ,d (the sth of January next) for- the commencement
of the Act.
I am, ace. (tiva) H. CLAY.
The Hon. C. C. Cambreltng, aft.
xo 6.—am SZCSSTAST CATIROG TO /Mini. OACIATIN'
Foreign aloe, Jan. 47, 1147.
The Undersigned, &c. has the honour to acknow-
ledge the note addressed to him on the 28th ult. by Mr.
&c. in replying to which, the Undersigned
will, as far as possible.sonform himself to the example
of Mr. Gallatin, in putting aside those points of the
question in agitation between them which have been
already exhausted in argument, and the further discus-
sion of which would not tend to any practical advantage.
The parts of Mr. Gallatin's note which appear to the
Undersigned to require any observation, relate to mat-
firs' rather of fact than of reasoning.
Mr. Gallatin complains that the Act of Parliament of
1525 was not officially communicated to the Guvern-
anent of the United States.

it is perfectly true that it was not ; nor has it been
the habit of the two Governments to communicate reci-
procallyto each other Acts of their respective legislatures.
The Act of Congress of 1828, an Act, the prov.sio'ns
of which specially affected Great Britain;was not offi-
cially communicated either to the King's Minister at
Washington, or to his Majesty's Government by the
American Minister resident at Ibis Cour t. So far from
any such communication 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 ob-
taining from the American S:cretary of State the true
construction of the most important clause of that Act—
the clause in which the United States claimed that then
trade to the British West India Colonies should be put
on the same footing with the trade to the same Colonies
from " elsewherr;" and learnt, to Iris great astonish-
ment, that under that word " elsewhere" was intended
to be signified, not only the other dependencies 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 communi-
cation of the Act of Parliament of 1825 from any notion
of retaliation for the omission of the Government of the
United Stares to communicate to that of his Majesty
the Act of Congress of 1825.
He refers to that•instance of omission on the part of
the American Government only in proofs •
First, That the ordinary and natural course between
States is not to make di?liimatic communications of the
Acts of their respective Legislatures; and,. secondly,
vat nn inference could be drawn from such an .omis-
sion on the one side any more than on the other, of
( • hat the Undersigned disclaims fur his Govern men )
, an intenticual want of courtesy or respect.
But the Act of 1825 di i not relate specially to the
United States. It held out to pll nations of the world
certain benefits. (or what were believed by the British
Government to be so) on certain cgoditions.
If a communication of the Act had been made to
one nation, it must have been made alike to all. Such
communicati..n would have been liable to different mis-
repiesentations: s.•me Governments right have coml•
dried it as a solicitation to which they were bound iu
courtesy to give some answer, explaining their reasons
for declining. if they did i'ecline, to avail themelves of

the ptovisions of the Act: others mib;ht, perhaps. have
taken umbrage at it, as an. authoritative pretension to
impose the legislation of this country upon other nations.
The simplest course was to allow the provisions ,o 1
the Act to find their way to genet al knowledge through
the usual channels of commercial information.
The Undersigned has no reason to apprehend that
this course has proved less effectual en the present than
on fain er occasions.
Thr coriduir.ns of the Act of 1825 have been ac-
cepted and carried into effect by some Governments:
chat of the United S.aies has not t' ought it expedient
to take advantage of them. But theUnaletsigned cannot

but be still of opinion. that the resolution
the House of Representatives, at
beginning of the last Session of f.
press purpose of urging the esecoti
the United States to come into the
1825,,thedebates which took place
tion,,and the final rejection of it
two votes, shear t} at was not for want .
understanding of the intent of the Act of Parliament,
that the conditions of it were not accepted by the
Visited States.
To one piece of evidence, which proves the perfect
fanderstaniting in America,not only of the purport and
provisions of the Act of Parliament of 1825, but of the•
conditions which it would.be requisite for the American
,Ingislature to per form,in order to entitle theUnnedStates
to the benefit of that Act, the Undersigned might have
scrupled to refer (as not being of the nature of a diplo-
matic document); if Mr. Gallatin had not encouraged
him to bring forward any document tending to throw
light on the vr(ter in dispute, by citing, in support of
his own view of that matter, a private letter from Mr.
Clay to a Menitter of Congress. •
Early in the Session of Congress of 1825.26, a peti-
tion from Baltimore was presented to both Houses of
the American legislature, in which petition it was dia.
tinctly pointed out, that the British Act of Parliament
of July, 1825, had not only manifested the readinessof
this country to remove all discriminating duties, but
also to permit American ships to clear out from British
Colonies, not, as theretofore, to the ports of the (joked
States only, but to all parts of the world (the United
Kingdom and its dependencies alone excepted).
The petition, with equal distinctness, invited the at-
tention of the American Legislature to the condi tops
on which these advantages might be secured to the
United States, and prayed for the removal of the rte.'
vetsl restrictions imposed by the American Act of IN%
not of the " discriminating duties" only, but of the
prohibition, of what is called by Mr. G tllatin, "cir-
cuitous intercourse in British ships ;" the petitioners ex
pressly submitting to Congress the propriety of ad
mitting 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
Congress, 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 bearing 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 con-
tinuance of the benefits of the then existing state of
things to the United-States, for nearly a twelvemonth
longer than they would otherwise have enjoyed it.
That continuance was permhted by the British Go-
vernment mainly in consideration of the then pendency
in the Legislature of the United States, of theresolution
herein before mentioned, for conforming to the condi-
tions of the Act of 1825.
Immediately upon the receipt of authentic intelli-
gence of these proceedings at IVashington, an instruc-
tion 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 case, and upon receiving
an assurance from the American Government that the
restrictions and charges on British shipping, and British
colonial produce, would be withdrawn by the United
Stotts, Mr. Vaughan was authorized to deliver a Note
to the American Secretary of State, declivhsg—that
the discriminating duties imposed opon American ships
and their cargoes in the/Vest Indies should immediately
cease. Mi. Vaughan was actually in possession of this
instruction, when the resolution. on the assumed adop-
tion of which the instruction to Mr. Vaughan had been
founded, was :ejected. It was no part of Mr.Vaoghan's
duty to make any communication upon the subject to
the American Government before the result of the dis-
cussion was ascertained. After that tenth, (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 decision of. the American Legislature.

That Mr. Vaughan should not afterwards have been
authorized to enter into any discussion of the provisions
of the Act of 1825 " so late as October last." is not
surprising, when it is considered that Mr. Vaughan,
immediately after the close of the session of Congress,
was instructed to announce the intention of his Mi.
jesty's Government to pass the Order in Council of July
(consequent upon the decision of the American Legis-
lature), by which the terms of the Act of 1825 were
virtually declined.

Mr. Gallatin accounts for the rejection of the reso.
lotion proposed to the American Legislature by the
persuasion which, he says, the Government of the Uni-
ted States entertained, that the negotiation on the sub-
ject of the commercial intercourse between the United
States and the British West India Colonies would be
renewed.
The Undersigned is at a loss tolunderstand oa abot
grcund it was assumed at Washington that there would
be, at all times, an unabated disposition on the part of
the British Government to make the trade to its West
India Colonies the subject of diplomatic arrangement.
The circumstances of the case were entirely changed.
Repeated negotiation had failed to produce any
material approximation of opinions upon that subject. 1
The last attempt at an adjustment had been made with
an evident conviction on both sides that there existed
between them an unconquerable difference of principle,
and that it w•as by that difference, rather than by any
deciJed irreconcileableness of interest, that a satisfac-
tory arrangement was rendered hopeless.
The nature of that difference has been sufficiently
discussed; it, lies in the determination of the United
States to dispute, and in that of Great Britain to main-
tain, the estatilished distinction between general and
Coln ial trade.
Great' Britain had, therefore, an obvious motive for
doing thenceforward whatever she might think it right
t•r 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 opi-
nion as to the principles of Colonial trade so widely,
Neat it would have been impossible to construct a pre-
amble to a treaty on that sutiject, in Vie ounciations of
which the two contracting parties sh• old have con
curred.—But there was yi t another reason tor avoiding
further negotiations upon the:eject.
Hitherto, when the trade with the Dritish Wettlndia

esolntion proposed sti'loaiigils4 Weis opened at all, it ha i bee
it • Washington, st the chit*, though not exclusively, to the United
Congress, for the es. To uotther country bad it been opened b
cotive Government of, and positive convention.
he terms of the Act 4lf nit
a time had now arrived when, from n
ice upon that proposi• policy, Great Britain thought it adl
by a majority of onii *mess to her Colonies to all foreign Poi
or want of a sufficient out exception, no conditions ten2ered alike tc
L