Imagens das páginas


one of our vessels pursuing that regulations to which the vessel is trade, to touch at an intermediate subjected being the payment of foreign port.

tonnage entry, if any such be Under this law, however, until chargeable, at the first port of the continuity of the voyage had entry ; the duties on so much of been broken, little difficulty could her cargo as shall be actually dishave existed. But when the acts charged at any one port; and the

concerning navigation,' and to necessity of reporting at each, the
regulate the trade of the British several parts and amounts of her
possessions abroad, of 5th July, cargo which may be intended for
1825, opened the colonial trade landing or for exportation.
to all nations upon

the same foot- The tonnage duties here mening, the right of an American ves- tioned, however, must be undersel, on her voyage to the British stood as relating, rather to such colonies, to touch at an interme- as may be imposed or authorized diate foreign port, followed as a by the acts of Parliament for the matter of course, being nowhere regulation of the colonial interprobibited.

course, than to those local or port Nor can there be any doubt charges which, being in the nature that a vessel of the United States of tolls, or exactions for dock, or landing a part of her cargo at a other local improvements, make a British colonial port, may proceed part of the municipal regulations with the remainder to another by the local legislatures. To British colonial port without being these, however, both British and subjected to the payment of other American vessels must be equally duties than those accruing upon liable, and they will not be allowthe goods landed at each port, or ed, in any instance, to impair the to the payment on the tonnage of privileges secured by the colonial the vessel at more than one of legislation of the mother country, the several ports which she may or to contravene such legislation. enter in the course of the same It is believed that none such voyage. Such vessel may, more- exist at present, and, indeed, I am over, take in any part of her re- not aware of any particular tonturn cargo at one or more of the nage duty which is now chargeacolonial

ports for importation, ei- ble. If," however, any such do ther into the United States, or in- exist, and an attempt should be to any foreign port, excepting made by the local officers, illeBritish European ports; the only gally, to exact those, of either restriction upon her trade with the character, from an American resseveral colonial ports, being to sel, such particular case would the landing at one port of any become the proper subject of reproduce or cargo laden at another. monstrance here, and would be

This course of trade is always certainly decided according to the allowable; the principle of the rules and principles to which I British navigation and commer- have adverted. cial system being to treat all the Taking the British law of navcolonial ports as one, and the only igation of the 5th July, 1825, and

the acts of the same date 'to reg- ing a part of the documents left ulate the trade of the British pos- at the legation by Mr Gallatin ; sessions abroad,' as now explain- but it was not to be found in the ed, as the basis, you will be ena- archives when I took charge of bled, without difficulty, by refer- the legation. As early as the ence to Hume's digest, heretofore 29th of May, 1830, I officially forwarded to the department, to informed the department of the trace, at once, all the objects and want of this document, and of provisions of the British colonial the necessity of my being furnishregulations, wbich it may be iin- ed with it, if the Government portant for the Government, or expected me to press those points our merchants, to know in relation in our relations to which its conto the trade authorized by the ar- tents particularly relate. rangement recenıly concluded. In answer to that communica

It is obvious, that the subject tion, Mr Brent, in his letter of the of Mr Rusli's despatch of the 19th July last, informed me that 12th August, 1824, to which you the pamphlet in question could have referred me, was no more not be found, but that copies of so than an inquiry, at the instance of much of Mr Rush's communicathe consulat Barbadoes, into tions to the department as related the then existing colonial regula- to the navigation of the river St tions; and that Mr Huskisson's Lawrence, would be made and interference, at that time, was forwarded. merely to ascertain the opinion of Independent, however, of the the Board of Trade of the im- particular terms of the British port of those regulations, and not article annexed to the 11th prototo adopt any new provisions, or to col, my general knowledge of the make any alteration in those al- subject, enabled me, in my letter ready in force.

to Lord Palmerston, to refer to the British act of the 8th May,

1818, offering a course of trade Mr McLane to Mr Van Buren.

which was not accepted by the London, March 14, 1831. United States, from an apprehenSır: Your despatch, number sion that it designed to favor the 27, dated the 4th February, circuitous in preference to the ditransmitting an official pamphlet, rect intercourse; and, to the subcontaining several protocols of the sequent acts of 1822 and 1825, conferences between the Ameri- which, not merely in the way of can and British plenipotentiaries overture, but positively and totally in the year 1818, relative to the disclaimed any advantage to the West India trade, was received circuitous trade. If these posiby me on the 7th instant.

tive enactments failed to illustrate This is the first opportunity I the true principles of the previous have had of examining this colonial regulations of Great Britpamphlet, or the protocols which ain — of the adjustment of 1825, it contains. It is referred to in and of the agreement recently my original instructions, as form- concluded — an overture made by the British plenipotentiaries in Herries, in respect to the anticle 1818, and rejected by our Gov- of flour, on which it leaves the ernment in the same year, could duty, in the direct trade, as imnot have been more effectual. In posed by the act of 1825; and fact, the alleged treatment of of white or yellow pine timber, that overture was no slight impe- on which it proposes a duty of diment in the way of my late ne- twentyeight shillings per thousand gotiation, and, by Mr Vezey Fitz- feet of inch thick, until the first gerald, in particular, was alluded of January, 1834, and of twentyto in terms of unequivocal disap- six shillings until the first of Janprobation. The treatment which uary, 1936, at which period the ibis proposition of the British duty will return to the rate speciplenipotentiaries received in 1818, fied in the act of 1825. It inand the circumstances under creases it, however, even beyond which our negotiations of that that proposed by Mr Herries, on year terminated, stripped of most staves and headings, until the first of its advantages, even as ev

ev- of January, 1836, when it will idence of the terms to which be reduced to the rate of 1825. Great Britain was, at that time, On all other articles, excepting willing to accede; and, in my bread and biscuit, flour or meal not view, seemed to make it more of wheat, peas, beans, rye, oats, proper to press the argument upon barley, Indian corn, rice, and live ihe positive enactments of the stock, there is no cliange from the acts of 1822 and 1825, and the duty of 1825; and the importation clear stipulations in the letter of all these, in the direct trade to Lord Aberdeen.

the West Indies, is permitted duty On the receipt of your last de- free, but then no duty whatsoever spatch, however, I invited an in- is payable on the importation of terview with Lord Palmerston, American produce into the northwhich he afforded me on the 9th ern colonies. instant, in which I fully explained alone, is the measure liable to any to him the bearing and import of material objection, as intended the protocols contained in the to encourage the indirect trade pamphlet, in connexion with the through the colonies. whole subject; and I also inform- On the growers of produce in ed him of the light in which this the United States, this measure is measure was viewed by my Gov- calculated to confer greater adernment, and of the approbation vantages than they have heretoby the President of the remon- fore enjoyed; enabling them to strance I had submitted. I took supply their productions not merethis step in pursuance of your in- ly for a part of the consumption structions, rather than from a of the northern colonies, but for hope of producing much effect in the whole export trade of those the present situation of the sub- colonies to England and elseject.

where. The present bill is less unfavor

In respect to lumber, even both able than that proposed by Mr the producer and the shipper en

In this respect

joy superior advantages to those sional modifications : that the act afforded them by the restricted of 1825, itself, was but a legisintercourse; wbile of flour and lative measure, liable to be repealof all articles admitted duty free, ed whenever the interests of Great or at the rate prescribed by the Britain or her colonies made it act of 1825, our shipping must desirable ; and that an assent to have the exclusive carrying.

As a renewal of the intercourse, acthe subject may now be consider- cording to that act, could not ed as having passed beyond my have greater force, especially power, if not as absolutely dispo- when coupled, as it was, with the sed of, it becomes proper for me reservation in respect to the scheto inform you, generally, of what dule of duties annexed to the act has occurred since the date of my of 1825. The suspension of the despatch number 28.

direct intercourse was again atI determined to bring the sub- tributed to our remissness, and ject to the immediate attention of hence it was inferred that we Lord Grey, who, it is but just to could not reasonably object to a say, has always professed the best temporary protection of those indisposition towards our country, terests which had been thereby and, in this particular instance, fostered. It was further observhas appeared inclined to meet our ed that all the measures of Great expectations as far as the present Britain, subsequently to the act situation of the ministry would of 1825, had looked to the syspermit. Accordingly, on

Accordingly, on the tem of free ports in the northern 15th February, I obtained an in- colonies; and that as, in this reterview with Lord Grey, at which spect, the United States would Lord Oakland, the President, and be placed upon the same footing Mr Poulett Thompson, the Vice with all other nations, we could President of the Board of Trade, bave no just grounds of comwere present. On this occasion, plaint. That, independently of the whole subject was fully dis- ibis principle, the change in the cussed and explained on both rate of duty from that prescribed sides, and I distinctly required by the act of 1825, was confined that the bill should be conformed to two commodities, and that for to the terms and spirit of the a limited period; and that, with agreement concluded with Lord respect to a great number of arAberdeen.

ticles, forming of themselves a In reply, it was repeated that considerable trade, the duty bad the letter of Lord Aberdeen been taken off altogether. could not be considered in the To these observations, the genlight of an agreement, at least in eral topics and remarks contained the nature of convention or trea- in my letter to Lord Palmerston ty: that this Government had were opposed by me, and urged uniformly insisted upon legisla- in a manner most likely, in my tive regulation for this trade in- judgment, to produce effect. In stead of convention ; the former addition to these, I suggested admitting more readily of occa- other views more appropriate to the form of the present discus- The act of Parliament impossion. I stated that all the consid- ing a less rate of duty on Amererations by which it was now at- ican cotton, when imported tempted to sustain the proposed through the British colonies, than measure, might have been urged, when imported directly from the with more propriety, before the United States, and Mr Barbour's letter of Lord Aberdeen; and correspondence with Lord Aberthat if they were then insufficient deen upon that subject, (of which to prevent the agreement on the I have heretofore informed you) part of Great Britain to restore were referred to, and were supthe direct trade, they could not posed to justify the principle of be sufficient now to authorize its the present measure; as, in that violation. The letter of Lord case, the principle was reconcilaAberdeen, I observed, must be ble with our commercial convenreceived as meaning something tion, or, at least, was acquiesced beneficial; and the assent to re- in by the late administration of new the intercourse, could inean our Government. only that intercourse which had Independently, however, of the been interdicted, namely, the di- material fact, that the colonial rect trade, as regulated by the act trade, both direct and indirect, of 1825. That the letter of was expressly excluded from the Lord Aberdeen was not an agree- convention, the discrimination as ment merely, but an agreeinent to cotton, and the basis on which to restore the direct trade, was it was attempted to be justified, proved by the fact of the issuing afforded no apology for the presthe order in council of the 5th of ent measure; but on the contrary, November last, actually restoring demonstrated its impropriety. the trade according to the act If that case could not be disof 1825.

tinguished from the present, it Consequent upon these posi- would itself be a violation of ertions, I asked, even admitting the isting treaties, and ought for that mere power of Parliament to re

reason, to inculcate greater caupeal the law of 1825, whether tion, if not more liberality, in Great Britain could, consistently future. The discrimination in the with good faith, arbitrarily rescind, cotton duty was justified, however, within a month, or a year, the upon the ground that it did not order in council of the 5th No- propose to give any preference to vember last, and re-enact that of ihe indirect trade, but merely 10 1826 ? This question could not adopt the difference to the addibe answered in the affirmative; tional cost of the circuitous route, and it was frankly admitted that and the landing and re-lading of such a course would be improper. the cargo in a colonial port, and I, therefore, agreed that it would thus placing both trades upon an be equally a breach of faith, and equality, a violation of that agreement, to That, giving the utmost latiaccomplish the same end by covert tude to the reservation in Lord and indirect means.

Aberdeen's letter, and the most

« AnteriorContinuar »