Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow GALLATIN TO HENRY CLAY. - The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 2

Return to Title Page for The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 2

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Economics
Subject Area: Political Theory

GALLATIN TO HENRY CLAY. - Albert Gallatin, The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 2 [1879]

Edition used:

The Writings of Albert Gallatin, ed. Henry Adams (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1879). 3 vols.

Part of: The Writings of Albert Gallatin, 3 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


GALLATIN TO HENRY CLAY.

No. 8.

London, September 13, 1826.

Sir,—

After we had, in the conference of the 11th instant with Mr. Canning, disposed for the present of the subject of the proceedings of the commission appointed under the St. Petersburg convention, Mr. Canning informed me that he had prepared an answer to my note of the 26th of August, relative to the order in council of the 27th of July, and that I would receive it either that evening or the ensuing day. He then said that the government of the United States seemed to have considered the intercourse with the British colonies as being of the same nature with that with Great Britain itself, and which ought, therefore, to be adjusted by mutual arrangement. Great Britain could not consider it in that view. An intercourse with her colonies was only permissive, and accordingly regulated by her own laws. I asked whether this was only the declaration of an abstract right, or whether I was to understand that it was the intention of Great Britain to act accordingly, and to decline entering into negotiations with the United States on that subject; to which the answer was immediately given that such was the intention of his Majesty’s government.

I replied that, this declaration being important and altogether unexpected, I must wait till I had received Mr. Canning’s intended note before I could express an opinion upon it. I would only observe at present that every species of foreign trade was permissive. There was no nation that had not and did not exercise the right of regulating the intercourse of foreigners with its own territories, wherever situated. And yet almost every nation had found it convenient, if not necessary, to adjust that intercourse by conventions or treaties. So long as the colonial system was preserved entire, every species of intercourse with foreign nations was altogether prohibited. Whenever it suited the policy of a nation having colonies to open that intercourse, the same question would recur as with respect to home possessions, viz.: Was it more convenient to regulate it by mutual arrangements than by the conflicting laws of each party? In the present case it had always been thought that an intercourse between the United States and the British West India colonies was beneficial, and therefore a proper subject for negotiation. And accordingly there had never been a negotiation of a commercial nature between the two countries in the course of which the subject of that intercourse had not been taken up. The determination now communicated to me was, therefore, entirely unexpected, and avowed a change of policy.

Mr. Huskisson said in reply that, generally speaking, it had been the constant usage of nations to make commercial treaties respecting the intercourse with territories which were not colonies, but that, on the contrary, it had never been customary to make such treaties respecting colonial intercourse. This had always been considered as a subject exclusively belonging to the mother-country. Great Britain never had—he did not know of any nation that ever had—made a treaty on that subject. It was true that, so long as a partial intercourse was admitted by England between her colonies and the United States only, it had been attempted, but without success, to regulate it by a conventional arrangement. But a material change had taken place in her policy; and I understood Mr. Huskisson to say that he had, during the negotiation of 1824, given notice to Mr. Rush that such a change was intended. The British colonies were now opened on certain conditions to all nations, and Great Britain could not enter into arrangements on that subject with the United States without exposing herself to much inconvenience with respect to other nations.

Mr. Canning, in allusion to my having stated in my note to him that the delay in renewing the negotiations must in a great degree be ascribed to Mr. King’s state of health, added that, according to information received from Mr. Vaughan, the Secretary of State at Washington had told him that he could not have instructions prepared for that subject before the month of last May. To this I replied that I had spoken in general terms, and that the cause I had assigned was, as I understood, that of the delay in preparing the instructions. I was not, however, at all prepared to discuss the subject; and it was only for the sake of information that I would ask whether it was also intended to decline a negotiation as respected the intercourse by inland navigation with Canada. To this Mr. Huskisson answered that, the British North American colonies being adjacent to the United States, there was no objection to treat of the intercourse by land or inland navigation on the ground of mutual convenience, but not on that of a right on the part of the United States, a subject on which the British government had given their answer in 1824.

The objects of negotiation were then mentioned by Messrs. Canning and Huskisson to be the renewal of the convention of 1818, the boundary west of the Stony Mountains, and the North-East boundary. I said that I reserved the question (on which I had not yet formed an opinion) whether, on account of the refusal to treat of the colonial intercourse, I ought to refer to my government the propriety of renewing the convention of 1818. No observation was made on the Western boundary. Concerning the North-East boundary, Mr. Huskisson said that, for the purpose of reference to a third power, it seemed necessary that we should agree to some kind of statement whereby some distinct and intelligible questions should be submitted to the umpire for the decision.

On my asking at what time the British commissioners would be ready to open the negotiation, Mr. Huskisson expressed his utter reluctance to do it now, it being the only time allowed him and his colleagues for relaxation, and mentioned November as sufficiently early for every purpose. He added that the meeting of Parliament would be no impediment to our transacting business. I said that I was of course ready at any time, and that the earliest day would suit me best; and I alluded to the time when Congress must necessarily adjourn. But I abstained from pressing further that point, as it appeared certain that he would have refused altogether an earlier meeting than he proposed; and, as the colonial intercourse was out of the question, there was no advantage, with the apparent temper, in the immediate discussion of any subject.

I have the honor, &c.