Слике страница
PDF
ePub

riment: and if we suffer less, or more patiently, under those privations than they expected, or if we happen to think, that our position is rather improved than injured, by the consequences of their resentment, - it furnishes no case in which they are entitled to persevere in their course, and to upbraid us for not departing from ours.

From the moment, however, that they drove away our ships, they have constantly reminded us of the punishment they are inflicting on us, and pointed out the easy submission to their terms, by which our contrition will be received.

Their language, however, was not at first quite so placable, and their Minister commenced the discussion on the higher ground of argument and doctrine.

The Order in Council had hardly been published a month, before the American Minister in this Country, Mr. Gallatin, commenced a correspondence with Mr. Canning complaining of the order, the motives for issuing which he declared his utter inability to comprehend, at the same time that he feared that " for the

very “ reason that the object in view could not be “ understood, it might be misconstrued.”

The two points most laboured by Mr. Gallatin in these notes which he addressed to Mr.Canning were, 1st, That the United States had placed British ships trading between the United States and the Colonies on a footing of perfect reciprocity, with the single exception of a discriminating duty on goods imported in such ships. 2dly, That this being the case, it was an ungracious act on our part absolutely to interdict all their trade with our Colonies, at a moment when the United States were prepared to enter into negotiations for settling this single ground of complaint.

With respect to the first point, what has already been stated is sufficient to show both the incorrectness of Mr. Gallatin's proposition and the important distinction between Colonial and general Trade-a distinction which Mr. Gallatin in his argument not only did not make, but the existence of which he seemed by no means disposed to admit. He endeavoured to confound the two kinds of Commerce, by asserting that the abstract right to interdict general trade, was the same as the abstract right to interdict Colonial Trade: “But,” said Mr. Canning, “ however that might be, one thing was certain, " that the exercise of that right had been so usual “ in one case, and so unusual in the ot " that the difference of usage (if it were no

more) amounted almost to a difference in principle. " When therefore it was contended that the 'right' by which Great Britain prohibited

Foreign Countries from trading to her Colo“ nies was the same right' with that by which w she might, if she thought fit, prohibit them from “ trading with herself, this argument implied “ that the special prohibition was a grievance to “ the United States, if not of the same amount, “ of the same kind, as the general prohibition " would be.

“ This," said Mr. Canning, “ was a doctrine “ which Great Britain explicitly denied.

" Mr. Gallatin seemed to admit, indeed, that “ there was a time when the distinction between “ the colonial trade of the Mother Country was “ tenable; but he had assumed, in no obscure “ terms, on the part of the United States, that “ the colonial system was now virtually at an " end.

“ Great Britain denied this assumption: 66 and whatever relaxation she might think fit “ to introduce, for her own sake and that of her 6 Colonies themselves, into her colonial system, “ she held her 'right' to maintain that system, “ as with respect to foreign nations, to be “ unaltered and entire."

It was on these principles that Mr. Canning grounded his assertion, that the United States had not allowed us to carry on upon equal terms the share which we might take in that trade of which we had permitted them to partake ; and it was because there existed between the British and American Government an unconquerable difference of principle, that Great Britain preferred relaxing her Colonial System by the instrumentality of her own legislature rather than by diplomatick arrangement with a State, with whom she thus disagreed in opinion.

With respect to the second point, Mr. Canning shewed that he had no reason for believing that the Government of the United States were so ready as Mr. Gallatin asserted to enter into negotiations on the subject; nor “ could he “ understand on what ground it was, that 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 of its West. Indian Colonies a subject “ of diplomatick arrangement."

So far from that being the case, he declared that his Government not only could not consent to renew the negotiation, “so long as the pre“ tension recorded in the Act of 1823, and then

applied to British Colonies alone, remained “ part of the law of the United States," but could not even hold itself bound to remove the interdict on commercial intercourse whenever it might suit the United States to reconsider the measures which had occasioned its application.

There are discussed in this somewhat lengthy correspondence other topicks of minor interest, with which it is unnecessary to delay the reader. It is sufficient to observe, that it is now adınitted on both sides of the Atlantick, that Mr. Canning had the best of the argument, although due praise must not be denied to Mr. Gallatin, for the skilful manner in which he defended, what it is likewise admitted to be, a bad cause. If there were any of Mr. Gallatin's remarks, which would have been better omitted, they are those in which he sought to fasten on the Order in Council, and on the refusal to reconsider it, a character of hostility on the part of this Country towards the United States. Such was not their character, nor were either the one, or the other dictated by vindictive motives. Mr. Canning was not in any degree actuated

by sentiments either unfriendly, or disrespect“ ful to the United States." No British states

. man indeed ever laboured with greater zeal than he did, “ to secure for as long a period as “possible a reciprocal good understanding, and “ good will between these two kindred nations, “ whose respective interests, well understood, “ harmonized together as much as those feelings, “ necessarily growing out of the ties of common

origin, laws, and language.”

With the account of these discussions with the United States, this chapter must end. In the course of it, it has been shown that Mr. Canning's conduct on commercial affairs was regulated, not by views of mere temporary convenience, but by sound principles, which he did not adopt, until by the most deliberate examination he had

« ПретходнаНастави »