Commons Sitting of 26 March 1827

TOBACCO AND SNUFF DUTIES—PETITION OF R. M. PRICE.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he rose to present a petition upon a subject of great importance to the revenue. The petitioner was a Mr. Robert Morgan Price, residing in the Vauxhall road, a gentleman well versed in the business connected with the petition. He had formerly laid before the lords of the Treasury a plan for preventing the smuggling of tobacco, and had been referred to Mr. Carr, the solicitor of Excise, with whom he had had several interviews. But as soon as Mr. Price proposed the repeal of an act which had been passed at Mr. Carr's suggestion, that gentleman would have nothing more to say to Mr. Price's scheme. It must be admitted, that Mr. Carr's office was largely paid, by fees

37
upon Excise prosecutions, arising out of the existing system. The hon. gentleman proceeded to show, from the petitioner's statement the great facility which his plans would afford for collecting an increased revenue, and preventing smuggling. In consequence of the present imperfect system, there was a great defalcation in this department of the revenue. In one article, that of cigars, his suggestions had been attended to, and the result was, that in four months, the quantity on which duty was paid had increased from eighty-four pounds to sixteen thousand pounds of that article. Mr. Price calculated that if his plans were adopted, they would produce an increase of 1,000,000 l. a year, with a decreased duty; but not under the present laws. For even at the decreased duty the smugglers might still realize a profit of 1,200 l. per cent. In America the price of the raw article was 1d. per lb. In Holland it was 2d., and in England 2½d.; and the duty was 3s. per lb. So that the House would see what a wide field was opened for smuggling. Now, it was to put an end to this practice, and to give an improved revenue that Mr. Price had directed his attention. He thought that this plan of Mr. Price was well worth the attention of government, embracing as it did a proposition to increase the revenue by so large an amount, and at the same time to check the practice of smuggling. What he wished was, that there should be an investigation, either by the House or by the Treasury, into Mr. Price's plans. The necessity of some such inquiry would be evident, from what was stated with respect to the decrease in the quantity on which duty had been paid in Ireland, which had decreased from 9,000,000 l. to 4,000,000 l. The subject was one which deserved investigation, and if the right hon. gentleman consented to the appointment of a committee he was ready to assist in the inquiry.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not mean to deny the respectability of the petitioner, but he thought the hon. gentleman attached too much importance to the petition, and he did not think that the facts were fairly stated. So far from the plans of Mr. Price having been rejected as unworthy of consideration, he himself had had interviews with that gentleman on the subject, and had read over with attention a variety of papers submitted by him; but he protested he could
38
not make himself so far master of them as to say he clearly understood them. The plans consisted, for the most part, in the suggestion of an infinite variety of restrictions on the tobacco trade. Now, he owned he was not disposed to commit himself by adding to the restrictions on this trade; which, though they might, he could well conceive, be approved of by the great dealers, would not meet the general approbation of the trade, and would be injurious and vexatious to them, as tending to produce large monopolies One reason why he was unwilling to sanction any such restrictions was, that some time ago Mr. Carr had proposed a new tobacco excise bill, adding many provisions much more onerous on the trade than those which already existed, but the proposition being opposed by the great mass of the trade, was abandoned by the right hon. gentleman who then held the office which he had now the honour to fill. He was unwilling, after such a rejection, to press what he knew would add to the restrictions already in force. It had been insinuated that Mr. Carr refused to pay further attention to Mr. Price's plan, when that plan suggested any alterations in his own act, as if such alterations would lessen his fees from prosecutions. Now, the fact was, that, if Mr. Carr had any fault, it was that of suggesting many restrictions which if adopted would have the effect of materially diminishing his own profits. If the hon. member were in the situation which it was his fortune to fill, and were compelled to attend to all the schemes for the amelioration of particular branches of the revenue which he received from ingenious, and he might say, fanciful men, he would find that he would have no time to bestow upon the real and more important business of his situation.
Sir John Newportrecommended the right hon. gentleman to pay attention to the subject matter of this petition. In Ireland 400,000 l. was annually raised upon these tobacco duties, of which 200,000 l. was paid back to the preventive service. He conceived that if the duty was diminished to ls. 6d., the revenue would be augmented by the increased consumption of the article which the diminution of the duty upon it would create. Besides, it would act as a prevention to that demoralization which always prevailed among a population which was accus-

39
tomed to engage in offences against the revenue laws.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer roseagain, merely for the purpose of repelling the imputation attempted to be cast upon Mr. Carr, who had repeatedly told him that, in his opinion, a low duty upon all commodities that were in constant request among the people, would prevent smuggling more effectually than any other mode that could be resorted to.
Mr. Maberlythought that the best way to prevent any imputations from being cast upon Mr. Carr, was for the right hon. gentleman to carry into effect the recommendation which had been given with respect to that gentleman's office, and to give him a permanent salary.
Ordered to lie on the table.

FOREIGN RELATIONS
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he had some papers to lay upon the table of the House. The first of these was a Treaty entered into between his Majesty and the Emperor of Brazil, for the final and total abolition of the African Slave-trade. This treaty had lately been signed, and its object was to be effected in three years after the exchange of treaties; and, during the interval, the Brazilian slave system was to be subject to the same impositions and duties as the Portuguese slave system was at present. The second of these papers was a Treaty between the United States and this country, regarding a dispute which had existed ever since the war, and which had been the subject of much discussion. That dispute related to the claims made by American citizens, in respect of slaves taken from their owners and proprietors during the war. The House were aware that this subject had been referred to the arbitration of a third power—he meant of the emperor of Russia, who had decided it unfavourably for his majesty. Since then the discussion had been renewed, principally with regard to the amount of compensation claimed; and two years ago he (Mr. Canning) had come down to the House, and had obtained a vote of 200,000 l. on account. When the second discussion was terminated, the amount claimed was settled, and the compensation, which the Americans had first stated at 2,000,000 dollars, was finally bated down to 1,200,000 dollars. As the money which the House had already voted on account was insufficient to satisfy that
40
sum, he should be obliged to ask for a further vote, to make up the deficiency. The third portion of the papers which he had to lay before the House, formed the completion of the correspondence which had taken place between this government and the United States, regarding certain commercial regulations between the United States and the British West-India colonies. This correspondence had already been laid before the Houses of Congress of the United States, and three of the letters had already been published. As the world was at present in possession of a part of the correspondence, he saw no reason to withhold the rest, and the whole, therefore, would be printed. There was no cause for keeping any part of it secret. All the papers to which he had referred were authenticated, according to custom. The right hon. gentleman spoke in a very low tone of voice, and seemed to be still suffering from the effects of his late indisposition.
Mr. Humeasked, whether the letters now to be laid before the House finished the correspondence, or whether it was still in continuation?
Mr. Canningsaid, he considered it finally closed, for he had had the last word.
The following are copies of the said Papers.
BRAZIL.—Convention between his Majesty and the Emperor of Brazil, for the Abolition of the African Slave Trade, Signed at Rio de Janeiro, November 23, 1826. Presented to both Houses of Parliament, by Command of his, Majesty, 1827.
Whereas, upon the separation of the Empire of Brazil from the Kingdom of Portugal, his Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and his Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, respectively acknowledge the obligation, which devolves upon them to renew, confirm, and give full effect to, the stipulations of the treaties subsisting between the Crowns of Great Britain and Portugal, for the regulation and final abolition of the African Slave-trade, in so far as these stipulations are binding upon Brazil:
And whereas, in furtherance of that important object, his Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and his Majesty the Emperor of

41
Brazil, are animated with a sincere desire to fix and define the period at which the total abolition of the said trade, so far as relates to the dominions and subjects of the Brazilian empire, shall take place, their said Majesties have accordingly named as their plenipotentiaries to conclude a convention for this purpose, that is to say:—
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the right hon. Robert Gordon, a Member of his Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Brazil:—And his Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, the Most Illustrious and Most Excellent Marquis of lnhambupe, Senator of the Empire, of the Council of State, Dignitary of the Imperial Order of the Cross, Commander of the Order of Christ, and Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and the Most Illustrious and Most Excellent Marquis of Santo Amaro, Senator of the Empire, of the Council of State, Gentleman of the Imperial Chamber, Dignitary of the Imperial Order of the Cross, and Commander of the Orders of Christ, and of the Tower and Sword:—
Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles:—
Art. 1. At the expiration of three years, to be reckoned from the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty, it shall not be lawful for the subjects of the Emperor of Brazil to be concerned in the carrying on of the African Slave-trade, under any pretext or in any manner whatever, and the carrying on of such trade after that period, by any person subject of his Imperial Majesty, shall be deemed and treated as piracy.
Art. 2. His majesty the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and his majesty the emperor of Brazil, deeming it necessary to declare the engagements by which they hold themselves bound to provide for the regulation of the said trade, till the time of its final abolition, they hereby mutually agree to adopt and renew, as effectually as if the same were inserted, word for word, in this convention, the several articles and provisions of the treaties concluded between his Britannic majesty and the king of Portugal on this subject, on the 22nd of Ja-
42
nuary, 1815, and on the 28th of July, 1817, and the several explanatory articles which have been added thereto.
Art. 3. The high contracting parties further agree, that all the matters and things contained in those treaties, together with the instructions and regulations, and forms of instruments annexed to the treaty of the 28th of July, 1817, shall be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the said high contracting parties and their subjects, as effectually as if they were recited word for word herein; confirming and approving hereby, all matters and things done by their respective subjects under the said treaties, and in execution thereof.
Art. 4. For the execution of the purposes of this convention the high contracting parties further agree to appoint forthwith mixed commissions, after the form of those already established on the part of his Britannic majesty and the king of Portugal, under the convention of the 28th of July, 1817.
Art. 5. The present convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at London within four months from the date hereof, or sooner if possible.
In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the seals of their arms. Done at Rio de Janeiro, the 23rd day of November, in the year of our Lord 1826.
(L.S.) ROBT. GORDON.(L.S.) ROBT. GORDON.
(L.S.) MARQUEZ DE S. AMARO.(L.S.) MARQUEZ DE S. AMARO.
(L.S.) MARQUEZ DE INHAMBUPE.(L.S.) MARQUEZ DE INHAMBUPE.
AMERICA.—Convention between his Majesty and the United States of America, for the final settlement of certain claims of the United States, arising out of the convention concluded at St. Petersburgh, July 12th, 1822. Signed at London, November 13th, 1826. Presented to both Houses of parliament, by command of his Majesty, 1827.
Difficulties having arisen in the execution of the convention concluded at St. Petersburgh on the 12th day of July, 1822, under the mediation of his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, between Great Britain and the United States of America, for the purpose of carrying into effect the decision of his Imperial Majesty upon the differences which had arisen between Great Britain and the said United States, on the true construction and meaning of the first article of the treaty of

43
peace and amity, concluded at Ghent on the 24th day of December, 1814; his Britannic Majesty and the said United States, being equally desirous to obviate such difficulties, have respectively named plenipotentiaries to treat and agree respecting the same, that is to say:—
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, has appointed the right honourable William Huskisson, a member of his said Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, a member of Parliament, President of the committee of Privy Council for Affairs of Trade and Foreign Plantations, and Treasurer of his said Majesty's Navy; and Henry Unwin Addington, esq., late his Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires to the United States of America:— And the President of the United States, Albert Gallatin, their Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to his Britannic Majesty:—who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles:—
Art. 1. His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland agrees to pay, and the United States of America agree to receive, for the use of the persons entitled to indemnification and compensation by virtue of the said decision and convention, the sum of 1,204,960 dollars current money of the United States, in lieu of, and in full and complete satisfaction for, all sums claimed or claimable from Great Britain, by any person or persons whatsoever, under the said decision and convention.
Art. 2. The object of the said convention being thus fulfilled, that convention is hereby declared to be cancelled and annulled, save and except the second article of the same, which has already been carried into execution by the commissioners appointed under the said convention, and save and except so much of the third article of the same, as relates to the definitive list of claims, and has already likewise been carried into execution by the said commissioners.
Art. 3. The said sum of 1,204,960 dollars shall be paid at Washington to such person or persons as shall be duly authorized, on the part of the United States, to receive the same, in two equal payments as follows:—
The payment of the first half to be made twenty days after official notification shall
44
have been made, by the government of the United States, to his Britannic Majesty's Minister in the said United States, of the ratification of the present convention by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the senate thereof.
And the payment of the second half to be made on the first day of August, 1827.
Art. 4. The above sums being taken as a full and final liquidation of all claims whatsoever arising under the said decision and convention, both the final adjustment of those claims and the distribution of the sums so paid by Great Britain to the United States, shall be made in such manner as the United States alone shall determine: and the government of Great Britain shall have no further concern or liability therein.
Art. 5. It is agreed that, from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention, the joint commission appointed under the said convention of St. Petersburgh, of the 12th of July, 1822, shall be dissolved, and upon the dissolution thereof, all the documents and papers in possession of the said commission, relating to claims under that convention, shall be delivered over to such person or persons as shall be duly authorized, on the part of the United States, to receive the same. And the British commissioner shall make over to such person or persons so authorized, all the documents and papers (or authenticated copies of the same, where the originals cannot conveniently be made over) relating to claims under the said convention, which he may have received from his government for the use of the said commission, conformably to the stipulations contained in the third article of the said convention.
Art. 6. The present convention shall be ratified, and the ratification shall be exchanged in London in six months from this date, or sooner if possible.
In witness whereof the Plenipotentiaries aforesaid, by virtue of their respective full powers, have signed the same, and have affixed thereunto the seals of their arms.
Done at London, this 13th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1826.
(L.S.) WILLIAM HUSKISSON.(L.S.) WILLIAM HUSKISSON.
(L.S.) HENRY UNWIN ADDINGTON.(L.S.) HENRY UNWIN ADDINGTON.
(L.S.) ALBERT GALLATIN.(L.S.) ALBERT GALLATIN.
AMERICA.—Correspondence relative to commercial intercourse between the

45
United States of America and the British West-India Colonies, August, 1826, to January, 1827, presented to both Houses of Parliament, by command of his Majesty, 1827.
No. 4.—Mr. Secretary Canning to Albert Gallatin, Esq. Foreign-office, Nov. 13, 1826.
The Undersigned, &c. would willingly have abstained from offering any observations on the note addressed to him by Mr. Gallatin, &c. on the 22nd of September, in reply to the answer which had been returned by the Undersigned to Mr. Gallatin's note of the 26th of August; the facts of the question agitated between Mr. Gallatin and the Undersigned admitting of no dispute, and their previous correspondence having exhausted all the arguments, on each side, of which the matter in discussion is susceptible.
But, upon reperusal of Mr. Gallatin's note, after an interval of a few weeks, there appear to the undersigned to be two or three points much relied upon by Mr. Gallatin, which it would be improper to leave unnoticed.
The first of these points, and that which affects, more or less, the whole of Mr. Gallatin's reasoning, is the question of right—the right of a mother country to monopolize the trade of its colonies. Mr. Gallatin discusses this question much at length, and attaches himself in that discussion, rather, perhaps, to the terms, than to the substance, of the proposition intended to be put forward by the undersigned.
The proposition of the undersigned is simply, that there is a right in a mother country, universally admitted among nations, to interdict to foreign nations a trade with her colonies.
It may be true (as stated by Mr. Gallatin) that every country has the same "right" to interdict with foreign nations a trade with itself. But be the abstract "right" what it may, this, at least, cannot be denied, that the exercise of that "right" has been so usual in one case, and so unusual in the other, that the difference of usage (if it be no more) amounts almost to a difference of principle.
Foreign nations might justly complain of the one interdiction, that of trade with the mother country, as an innovation, but they have no just ground of complaint (and no other nation than the United States has ever complained) of the interdiction
46
of trade to the colonies; because, in all ages, all nations having colonies have maintained such an interdiction.
Mr. Gallatin,after having objected, in the beginning of his note, to the use of the word "right" as applied by the undersigned to the colonial trade of Great Britain, applies the same word himself (inadvertently, perhaps,) in a subsequent part of his note, to the interdiction by the United States of a trade in British ships between the United States and the British West-India colonies.
That trade Mr. Gallatin describes as a trade which had been carried on merely by "permission" "a permission which (says Mr. Gallatin) the United States had a right to grant or to withhold."
Now, as according to Mr. Gallatin's doctrine, the United States have, in strictness, a "right" to exclude British trade altogether from their ports, the undersigned cannot presume to contend that they have not the same "right" to prohibit a trade between those ports and the Bristish colonies.
But the undersigned ventures to affirm, that the right which they have exercised in the latter prohibition has no peculiar and separate character growing out of long and general usage, to distinguish it in principle from a prohibition of all trade whatever with the United States.
Up to the year 1818, Mr. Gallatin admits that the trade, since prohibited by the United States, was enjoyed by British vessels, in common with those of all other countries. The interdiction, therefore, is not of ancient usage, and so far is it from being generally applied by the United States to foreign vessels, that it operates against Great Britain alone.
Is it not at least singular that Mr. Gallatin should reserve for a practice thus novel and thus partial, the character of "right" which he denies to an usage as old as the establishment of colonies, and universal among all nations to which colonies have belonged?
Is it not singular, also, that while Mr. Gallatin denies any claim on the part of Great Britain to the continued enjoyment of a trade in the United States, which she is admitted by Mr. Gallatin to have enjoyed uninterruptedly up to the year 1818, Mr. Gallatin puts forward a claim on the part of the United States to trade with the West-India colonies of Great Britain, on the ground of usage and practice?

47
The United States, says Mr. Gallatin, found "their reclamation to participate in that commerce" (the trade with the British West-India colonies) on this ground:—
"That trade has been allowed by Great Britain, it may be said, from the beginning, and at all times, and has become thereby so far assimilated to that with the European dominions of Great Britain, that the United Sates did think that they had the same claim to a participation in both." "As early as the year 1783, the government of Great Britain, deviating from that principle of colonial system, according to which her colonies were prohibited from trading directly with any other country, allowed her West-India colonies to trade directly with the United States of America in British vessels."
It may be observed as to these facts, as stated by Mr. Gallatin himself, that no two things can be much more different than a permission (on the one hand) given by Great Britain to British vessels to trade directly between a British colony and another country (the vessels of that other country remaining by law, and, in fact, excluded from the ports of the colony) and that "participation," on the other hand, which implies a trade between the United States and the West-India colonies in vessels of the United States.
The relaxation to which Mr. Gallatin refers, in fact, did nothing more than permit British vessels to bring certain articles into the colonial ports directly from the place of their production, instead of bringing the like articles circuitously through the United Kingdom. The question, whether these articles should be imported circuitously through the United Kingdom, or directly from the place of their growth, was a mere municipal concern, which did not vary the exclusive character of the colonial system, so long as that importation was confined to British ships.
Undoubtedly the United States might then, if they thought proper, have interdicted the trade to British vessels between their ports and the British West-India colonies, unless American vessels were allowed to participate in it, but they did not.
The history of the usage, therefore, is, that up to a certain period, a trade between the ports of the United States, and the British West-India colonies in British ships, went on unquestioned, while, as Mr. Gallatin, is aware, no American ves-
48
sel could enter the ports of the British West-India colonies, except under occasional and temporary suspensions of the colonial law. And yet it is upon this usage that Mr. Gallatin founds,
First.—A right in the United States to prohibit British vessels from clearing out from the ports of the United States to the British West India colonies;
Secondly.—A claim on the part of the United States to participate in the colonial trade of Great Britain.
The things may be right or wrong in themselves; but usage surely points exactly the contrary way to that in which Mr. Gallatin applies it.
Mr. Gallatinhas yet another ground on which to rest this claim of the United States to a participation in the colonial trade of Great Britain:—
"During the European war, Great Britain found it convenient occasionally, but repeatedly, to open her West-India ports to American vessels; at the same time that she was asserting the principle uniformly denied by the United States, that a neutral was not authorized by the law of nations to carry on in time of war a trade with a colony, in which he was not permitted to participate in time of peace."
First.—If the ports were occasionally opened, the very terms of the proposition show that they were generally shut. It would be difficult to imagine either a more complete proof of the acknowledged right to admit or exclude foreign trade from the colonies, as the governing authority might think fit, or a more perfect refutation of the plea of usage in favour of a permanently open trade.
Secondly.—The rule of 1756 appears to have little application to the point in dispute. It might to be sure be, in all such cases, a question with the neutral, whether he would be tempted by the open ports of one belligerent, to run the risk of capture by the other. But the point in dispute is, whether by occasionally opening her colonial ports, Great Britain virtually abandoned the right of closing them again when she thought proper: and on this point, the merits of the rule of 1756 have not, so far as the undersigned can make out, the most distant bearing.
Thirdly.—As it is intended to prove that the United States have a claim to participate in the colonial trade for ever, because the ports of the colonies were occasionally opened during the war, Mr. Gal-

49
latin describes the ports as having been opened to American vessels. True, but not to American vessels only, or specifically. The ports were open to the vessels of all friendly powers. The argument therefore, as to the special claim of the United States, falls to the ground.
The truth, however, is, that under the words "right" and "claim," so frequently recurring in this discussion, lies the real and fundamental difference of opinion between Great Britain and the United States, which has frustrated all attempts to settle the disputed question of colonial intercourse upon common principles, by conventional arrangement.
When it is contended that the "right" by which Great Britain prohibits foreign countries from trading with her colonies, is the same "right" with that by which she might (if she thought fit) prohibit them from trading with herself, this argument (which is employed by the United States alone) implies, that the special prohibition is a grievance to the United States, if not of the same amount, of the same kind, as the general prohibition would be.
This is a doctrine which Great Britain explicitly denies.
It seems to be admitted, indeed, that there was a time when the distinction between colonial trade and the trade of the mother country was tenable. But it has been assumed, in no obscure terms on the part of the United States, that the colonial system is now virtually at an end.
Great Britain denies this assumption.
Whatever relaxation Great Britain may think fit to introduce for her own sake, and for that of her colonies themselves, into her colonial system, she holds her "right" to maintain that system, as with respect to foreign nations, to be unaltered and entire. Great Britain, therefore, cannot consent to any diplomatic arrangement by which such "right" may appear to be relinquished, or by which her assertion of it can be understood to be in any degree qualified or controlled.
Hence the impracticability (already so repeatedly proved) of any treaty upon this subject between Great Britain and the United States.
Hence the necessity for Great Britain of doing whatever she means to do in the way of relaxation of her colonial monopoly, by acts of her own legislation.
This deduction brings the undersigned to the last point in Mr. Gallatin's note,
50
and that on which he is most anxious that there should be no misconception between them.
Mr. Gallatinspeaks of a "permanent exclusion of the United States by Great Britain, from a trade open to the rest of the world," as a measure different in character from a general exclusion of all foreign nations.
But is this a just description of the effect of the act of 1825?
Considerations (of which Great Britain alone is the judge) have induced her to open her colonial trade to other nations. She opened it to them not as a matter of special favour, or of special "claim" to any one, but on specified conditions, common to all nations who might think fit to subscribe to them, and to the United States among the rest.
If some of the nations of the world have taken advantage of the opening thus offered to them, by accepting the conditions annexed to it, and others have omitted to do so, and if the United States are, by their own choice, in the latter class, surely it is not a correct description of the consequence of this, their own voluntary omission, to say that the United States are "excluded" by Great Britain from a trade, which, on the contrary, Great Britain invited them to share.
Exclusion of foreigners from the colonial trade is the general principle of colonial policy; admission to that trade is the exception—an exception, which, in this instance, Great Britain was willing to grant to all those who were ready to purchase it on terms tendered equally to all.
The United States cannot mean to put forward the pretension, that what is granted to others on terms, should be granted to them unconditionally. If not, it seems difficult to imagine how they can feel it to be unjust or unkind (it certainly is not so felt, or intended, on the part of this country), that the United States having, upon a free, and (as is known from the public proceedings of their legislature) deliberate consideration, declined to subscribe to the terms on which exception from colonial prohibition was tendered impartially to all nations, they should find themselves, in common with such of those nations as have decided like themselves, liable to that exclusion, which is and always has been, the general principle of colonial trade. The undersigned avails himself, &c. GEORGE CANNING.

51
No. 5.—Albert Gallatin, Esq. to Mr. Secretary Canning. Upper Seymour Street, Dec. 28, 1826.
The undersigned, &c. did not fail to transmit to his government the note which Mr. Canning, &c. did him the honour to address to him, on the 13th of November, in reply to the answer which had been returned by the undersigned to Mr. Canning's note of the 11th of September. But, unwilling to continue a discussion which did not seem likely to lead to any practical result, he abstained from making any further observations on the subject, until he should have received special instructions from his government, in reference to a state of things which was altogether unexpected at Washington at the time of his departure.
Having now received a despatch from the Secretary of State of the United States, the substance of which he is instructed to communicate to Mr. Canning, the undersigned, in performing that duty, will, on those points to which he had already alluded in his former note, have but some explanatory remarks to add.
The right of Great Britain, which is that of every nation, to prohibit or allow foreign commerce with any part of her dominions, is unquestionable. That right, in reference to her colonies, has never been denied by the United States, any more than with respect to any other part of her possessions, and it is also admitted, that she may, within her own jurisdiction, prescribe the conditions on which such commerce shall be tolerated, and, at her will, again interdict altogether the intercourse thus permitted.
On the other hand, the United States, unless restricted by treaty, which in this case they are not, have precisely the same right to prohibit, to allow, and, within their own jurisdiction, to regulate foreign commerce with their dominions, whether that commerce be with the foreign country itself, or with its colonies or possessions abroad. It was not inadvertently that the undersigned used the word "right," as applied to the United States: he did not object to the use of the word, as applied to Great Britain. What he attempted to show was, that this right, which was admitted, and although it might at any time be exercised, had no bearing on the questions which had been the subject of discussion between the two countries.
52
What has been contended for is, that since to any commerce there must always be two parties, the mutual consent of both is always necessary, in order that such commerce may at all exist; that whatever its nature may be, whether of ancient or modern date, whether with colonies or with possessions of a different description, from the moment it does exist, it becomes a fit subject for negotiation: and that there is no reason why an agreement should not on that, as on any other species of trade, be founded on terms of just reciprocity, though relating to colonies, from an intercourse with which foreigners had formerly been, and might again be, excluded.
The various relaxations of the colonial system of Great Britain, as they never were, nor could have been intended for the benefit of the United States, and as they were always accompanied with restrictions exclusively favourable to her, could not be viewed as a boon to them, and never were accepted as such. The extent to which the commerce, when not laid under too severe restrictions, was carried on between the United States and the British colonies, is an irrefragable proof that it was equally advantageous to both parties. If equally advantageous, there had been no favour conferred on either side, there was no ground for a pretension by either party that the intercourse should be regulated by unequal conditions.
No such pretension had in fact been advanced. The proposals made by both parties, during the negotiations of the year 1824, were avowedly founded in a fair reciprocity, and brought the parties very near together. Unable still to agree on some points, it was concluded to suspend the negotiation, with a distinct understanding that it should be again renewed at some convenient day.
Mr. Kingwas, in 1825, empowered to treat on all the subjects of the previous negotiation. He was instructed, in the first instance, as being a subject of more pressing urgency, to call on the British government to remove the impediments which prevented the execution of the St. Petersburgh convention. If his instructions on other subjects were not forwarded to him, it was because he was engaged in discussions respecting that convention, and it was believed that the state of his health did not admit of his entering at that time upon the more arduous

53
duty of resuming the suspended negotiation.
Of this his majesty's government appears to have been fully aware. On the 22nd of March, 1826, Mr. Vaughan addressed an official note to the Secretary of State of the United States, in which he says—
"I have received instructions from his Majesty's Government to acquaint you, that it is preparing to proceed in the important negotiations between that country and the United States, now placed in the hands of the American minister in London. Mr. Huskisson has been already introduced to Mr. R. King, as his Majesty's Plenipotentiary, and the Minister of State, having the department of Foreign Affairs, has received his Majesty's commands to associate Mr. Addington, late his Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in America, with Mr. Huskisson, as joint Plenipotentiary, on the part of Great Britain. The negotiations will, therefore, be forthwith resumed; and it will be for the government of the United States to judge whether, considering the state of health of Mr. R. King, which Mr Canning laments to say has been, since his arrival in England, far from satisfactory, they will join any other negotiator in the commission with him."
The President did deliberate on that friendly suggestion; and the nomination of a person to be associated with Mr. King was contemplated, when a letter from him, dated the 21st day of March, desiring permission to return, was received; upon which, the duty of renewing those important negotiations, devolved, to his great regret, on the undersigned alone.
His instructions were of a character authorizing the hope that their result would be satifactory: his departure was hastened: on his arrival in England, the Order in Council of July last had already been enacted. Indeed, it appears that the determination not to renew the negotiations on the Colonial intercourse, and to regulate it exclusively by acts of parliament, had been taken before July, 1825, when the acts to that effect were passed. Had Mr. King been provided with the same instructions, which the undersigned received they would have been equally unavailing.
Of that determination, the government of the United States had not the least notice. On the contrary, although Mr. Vaughan's communication offered the op-
54
portunity of making known the intentions of his majesty's government, positive assurance was given of its being prepared to proceed in the important negotiations, and that the negotiations would be forthwith resumed, without any suggestion that the colonial intercourse would form an exception.
The acts of parliament of the year 1825, in which that intention was to be discovered, never were officially communicated. That of the 27th of June, passed only a few days before that of the 5th of July, and not specially repealed by it, was not calculated to elucidate the object in view; and several causes concurred to induce a belief, that this last act was not intended to affect the trade between the British colonies and the United States, as carried on under the act of June, 1822.
This belief, and the reasons for it, were distinctly expressed in a letter from the Department of State to a member of congress of the 25th of December, 1825, a copy of which is enclosed. That letter was published in the American newspapers; a copy was furnished to Mr. Vaughan; and he is understood to have transmitted it to his government.
That opinion was corroborated by the construction ultimately put on the act by the British authorities. It was thereby provided that certain privileges granted to foreign ships should be limitted to the ships of those countries which should comply with the conditions therein stated, unless his majesty, by his order in council, should in any case grant such privileges, although the conditions had not been performed. And the act was declared to come in full force and operation from the 5th of January, 1826. It had at first been determined at Halifax, that the port should accordingly be shut against American vessels after that day. This decision was afterwards revoked, although the condition had not been performed, and although no order in council had granted the privileges in question.
It now appears that the act of the 5th of July, 1825, (6th Geo. 4th, cap. 114), which contains no repealing clause of former acts, refers, under the name of the law of navigation, to another act of the same date (6th Geo. 4th, cap. 109); that this, although it contains also no repealing clause, is understood and construed as having superseded all former acts on the same subject; and that the actual repeal

55
of the act of 1822 (3rd Geo. 4th, cap. 44, sec. 3, 4), is to be found in another act, also of the 5th of July, 1825 (6th Geo. 4th, cap. 105), entitled, "An act to repeal the several laws relating to the customs."
The intricacy of those several acts, and the difficulty of understanding their precise meaning, of ascertaining what parts of former acts were actually repealed, and what still in force, a difficulty which, in the case of the Jubilee, seems to have led into error one of the highest tribunals of Great Britain, may well account for the construction put upon those acts in the United States; affording, at the same time, a sufficient reason for having preferred a renewal of the negotiations to a pure acceptance of the conditions contemplated by the act of the 5th of July, 1825, (6th Geo. 4th cap. 114), had it been only for the purpose of ascertaining the true intent and meaning of the act.
Even so late as October last, Mr. Vaughan, as appears by his correspondence with Mr. Clay, was not provided with instructions that enabled him to give a satisfactory answer to the inquiries, whether, according to the British interpretation, American vessels might trade between the British colonies and foreign countries, and whether discriminating duties of every species had been abolished.
The proposition made during the last session of congress, and to which Mr. Canning has alluded, affords an additional proof of the imperfect understanding, owing to the complexness of the several acts of parliament which at that time prevailed, respecting their true object and intention. That proposition was only for a repeal of the discriminating duties, and if adopted, would have been unavailing, since, not embracing a repeal of the restrictions on the circuitous intercourse, it is now understood that it would not have been accepted by the British government, as a compliance with the condition required by the act of the 5th of July, 1825.
It is not intended, by these facts and observations, to convey any reproaches against his majesty's government on account of the unexpected resolution which it has taken. But they satisfactorily show, that the United States could have entertained no doubt of the continued disposition of Great Britain to settle the colonial intercourse by an amicable arrangement, and that there were per-
56
emptory reasons for preferring that mode rather than to legislate on the subject.
Supposing even that the determination of the British government not to renew the negotiation on that point had been communicated or known, the specific condition on which American vessels might be allowed to participate in the intercourse between the United States and the British colonies was so expressed in the act of parliament as to have required explanations before it could be complied with.
The condition required from countries having colonies was both distinct and reciprocal. Nothing more was asked than that they should grant to British ships the like privileges of trading with their colonial possessions, which were granted to their ships of trading with the British possessions abroad. No regard was paid to the importance of such colonial possessions. Sweden, by permitting British vessels to trade with the island of St. Bartholomew, was allowed privileges which were offered to the United States on very different terms. And, with the exception of some of the German states, those terms applied to no other maritime power than the United States. All this Great Britain had a right to do; no complaint is preferred on that account; it was the condition which was required from them which they had to consider.
That condition was, that the United States should place the commerce and navigation of this country (Great Britain), and of its possessions abroad, upon the footing of the most favoured nation.
Had the condition been limited to the commerce and navigation of the British colonies; had it been so intended and expressed, as that the United States might have satisfied it, by placing the intercourse between their dominions and the British colonies on the same footing in every respect, as the intercourse between the United States, and the colonies of the most favoured nation; the condition, though not altogether free of objection, would at least have been apparently reciprocal. To require besides, that it should be extended to the commerce and navigation of Great Britain generally, that it should embrace that intercourse between her and the United States which is regulated by a special convention, that they should grant any privilege in that intercourse to British vessels, not stipulated by that convention,

57
as the price for the permission of trading with the British colonies, was a total departure from the principles of a just reciprocity.
But it appeared also extremely difficult, if at all possible, to understand what was meant—by placing that commerce and navigation on the footing of the most favoured nation.
If Great Britain only asked to be placed on that footing, on giving the same equivalent which any other foreign nation may have given to the United States, in order to have privileges which she does not enjoy, the navigation law of the United States has already made provision in that respect. There is no privilege enjoyed in the United States, by the commerce and navigation of any foreign nation, which great Britain may not obtain, by allowing to them the same reciprocal advantages which they enjoy in the ports of such foreign nation, and on which such privilege depends. To comply with the condition thus understood, the United States would have had no new act to perform. This could hardly be presumed to have been the intention of the act of parliament.
But if, by that act, it was intended to require, as the condition for allowing to American vessels the privilege of trading with the British colonies, that the commerce and navigation of Great Britain and of her possessions abroad, should, without any other equivalent, be generally placed on the same footing with the commerce and navigation of any other foreign nation, which, by reason of recipròcal advantages allowed to American vessels, may, now or hereafter, be entitled to greater privileges than Great Britain now enjoys, the condition was inadmissible.
British vessels, and those of several other nations, may now, by virtue of treaty, stipulations, or of other reciprocal regulations, import into the United States, articles of the produce or manufacture of the countries to which such vessels respectively belong, on the same terms, and on the payment of the same duties of tonnage, and on the cargo, as if imported in American vessels. In every instance the privilege is reciprocal, and will cease with respect to any of those countries, whenever vessels of the United States laden with produce of the United States may cease to be admitted into the ports of such country on the same terms as its own vessels.
58
In conformity with the navigation law of the United States, the prohibition to import, in foreign vessels, merchandise not the produce of the country to which such vessels respectively belong, extends only to the vessels of such nations as have adopted a similar regulation. Great Britain is accordingly one of the few nations to which the prohibition applies.
In pursuance of the treaty concluded in December, 1825, between the United States and central America, whatever may be imported into or exported from either country in its own vessels, to or from any foreign place whatever, may, in like manner, and on payment of the same duties, be imported or exported in the vessels of the other country.
If, therefore, it was meant by the condition required, that the commerce and navigation of Great Britain, and of her possessions abroad, should be gratuitously and generally placed on the footing of the most favoured nations, the United States, in order to comply with it, and, as the price for the permission to trade with the British colonies, would have been obliged—1. to admit the importation of British merchandise in British vessels, on the same terms, and on payment of the duties, as if imported in American vessels, although the convention of 1815 should have expired, and the corresponding privilege was no longer allowed to American vessels in British ports; 2. to admit the importation, in British vessels, of the produce of every foreign country, although the importation into British ports, of the like produce in American vessels, should still be prohibited; 3. if the condition was intended to apply to privileges granted subsequent to the date of the act of parliament, to admit the importation of such foreign produce in British vessels, even without being charged with any discriminating duties, and generally to allow to British vessels, without reciprocity, all the reciprocal advantages to which the vessels of Central America are entitled.
If this was not the intention of the act of parliament, if the words "commerce and navigation of this country," were meant only to include the circuitous intercourse, the expressions used to convey that meaning must be admitted to have been much too general. This last interpretation has been suggested only by the observations that have occurred in the course of Mr. Canning's correspondence

59
with the undersigned. If such, or any other admissible construction was intended, the most obvious way of preventing both an erroneous interpretation of the condition, and any unfounded expectations, in reference to a renewal of the negotiations, would have been an official communication of the act of parliament, accompanied with a full and free explanation of the condition required, and of the intentions of his Majesty's government on the whole subject.
The government of the United States is animated by the most sincere desire to maintain with that of Great Britain not merely the forms of courtesy and amity, but to cultivate a cordial and lasting friendship, to settle every controverted question between them upon principles of justice and reciprocity, and by an enlarged liberality in their mutual intercourse, to advance the real prosperity of both.
Entertaining this desire, it has learnt with regret the resolution of his majesty's government to close the door against those friendly explanations, and that free and mutual exposition of the wishes and views of the parties, so essential between two nations whose interests and happiness are so interwoven as those of Great Britain and the United States, and which can be but partially and imperfectly interchanged, if mutual legislation is substituted to negotiation and to the ordinary mode of treating.
As the only alternative which this course has left, it was the President's intention to lay the whole correspondence which has passed between the two governments on that subject, including the instructions given to the several American ministers near his Britannic Majesty, before Congress at their present session. It will remain with that body to decide, whether the Colonial intercourse shall be altogether closed, whether that portion of it left open by the Order in Council shall continue so, or on what conditions compatible with the interests of the United States that trade may be placed.
The Undersigned has been further instructed to give at the same time to his Majesty's government, the assurance, that, notwithstanding its late decision, that of the United States will be ready, at Washington or at London, to treat of the Colonial intercourse, whenever it may be the desire or inclination of Great Britain to negociate on that subject.—The Undersigned, &c.
(Signed) ALBERT GALLATIN.(Signed) ALBERT GALLATIN.
(Enclosure in No. 5.)—The hon. H. Clay to the hon. C. C. Cambreling, H. R. Department of State, December 25, 1825.
Sir.—I have perused the letter which you left with me, and which is herewith returned, respecting the construction put, at Halifax, upon the late British act of Parliament, opening the trade and intercourse between the British American colonies, and foreign countries. And I have also examined the acts of Parliament of the 4th and 5th George 4th, referred to in the 5th section of the above-mentioned act. The result is a belief, that the Halifax construction is not that which was intended by the British government, or, if it be, that it was designed by an Order in Council to except the trade and intercourse with the United States from the operation of the act, when so interpreted. I should strongly incline to think, but for the opposite view entertained at Halifax, 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 colonies and the United States, but meant to leave that trade on the footing which it was put by the aforesaid act of the 4th George 4th, and the subsequent act of indemnity of the 5th George 4th.
That the British government did not look forward to such an operation of the act of Parliament as is about to be enforced at Halifax, I think clear from the following considerations:—
First. It would be inconsistent with professions made by that government to this, and with negotiations between the two governments, contemplated, if not yet resumed.
Second. No notification has been given at Washington 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 intention.
If 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

61
Council, which had not arrived at the date of the last advices from Halifax.
If I am right in that conjecture, the order may yet reach that place before, or a few days after, the day fixed (the 5th of January next) for the commencement of the act. I am, &c.
(Signed) H. CLAY.(Signed) H. CLAY.
The Hon. C. C. Cambreling, &c.The Hon. C. C. Cambreling, &c.
No. 6.—Mr. Secretary Canning to Albert Gallatin, Esq. Foreign-office, Jan. 27, 1827.
The Undersigned, &c., has the honour to acknowledge the note addressed to him on the 28th ultimo, by Mr. Gallatin, &c. in replying to which, the Undersigned will, as far as possible, conform 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 discussion 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 matters rather of fact than of reasoning.
Mr. Gallatincomplains that the act of Parliament of 1825 was not officially communicated to the government 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 communicated either to the King's minister at Washington, or to his Majesty's government by the American minister resident at this Court. 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 obtaining from the American Secretary of State the true construction of the most important clause of that act—the clause in which the United States claimed that their trade to the British West-India colonies should be 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
62
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 communication of the act of Parliament of 1825 from any notion of retaliation 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 courtesy or respect.
But the act of 1825 did not relate specially to the United States. It held out to all nations of the world certain benefits, (or what were believed by the British government 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 communication would have been liable to different misrepresentations; some governments might have considered it as a solicitation to which they were bound in courtesy to give some answer, explaining their reasons for declining, if they did decline, to avail themselves of the provisions of the act: others might, 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 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 advantage 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

63
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 parliament, that the conditions of it were not accepted by the United States.
To one piece of evidence, which proves the perfect understanding 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 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 document), 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 American 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 from 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 distinctness, invited the attention 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 propriety 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 Congress, that it was against the prayer of this petition (but without impeachment of any of its allegations) that
64
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 continuance 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 permitted by the British government 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 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 States, Mr. Vaughan was 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 subject to the American government before the result of the discussion was ascertained. After that result (wholly unexpected 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.

65
Vaughan, immediately after the close of the session of Congress, was instructed to announce 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 act of 1825 were virtually declined.
Mr. Gallatinaccounts for the rejection of the resolution, proposed to the American legislature, by the persuasion which, he says, the government of the United States entertained, that the negotiation on the subject of the commercial intercourse between the United States and the 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 British government to make the trade of 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.
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 was by that difference, rather than by any decided irreconcileableness of interest, that a satisfactory 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 maintain, the established distinction between general and colonial trade.
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 contracting parties should have concurred.
But there was yet another reason for avoiding further negotiations upon the subject.
Hitherto, when the trade with the British West-India colonies had been opened at
66
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 general policy, Great Britain thought it advisable to allow access to her colonies to all foreign powers, without exception, on conditions tendered alike to all.
Such indiscriminate opening could only be effected by some process common to all those who were permitted or invited to take advantage of it; impartiality was thus maintained 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.
The undersigned believes that he has now touched on every topic in the last note addressed to him by Mr. Gallatin, to which he 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 assurances of the friendly disposition of the 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, harmonize together as much as their feelings.
But it has never yet been held a duty of international amity (any more than of friendship in private life) to submit to unequal compacts. Nor has it ever 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, unfortunately, to exist some known subject of incurable difference of opinion. In any 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

67
the British Government may think (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 unfriendly 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 less than with anxiety, to such an arrangement of the remainder, as, effacing all traces of past discussions, and satisfying all fair and reasonable pretensions on both sides, may secure, for a long period of years to come, reciprocal good understanding and good will between two kindred nations. The Undersigned has the honour, &c. (Signed)
GEORGE CANNING.GEORGE CANNING.

FINANCIAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply. On the question, that the Speaker do now leave the chair,
Mr. Maberlysaid, he should not have risen to oppose the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair, had he not felt it to be necessary to call the attention of the House to the state of the finances. He supposed the right hon. gentleman intended, when the House was in a committee of supply, to move for a vote on account. Now, he thought that the House ought to come to a resolution to vote, at the commencement of the session, small sums on account of the several branches of the public service, and to defer the voting of large sums until it was made acquainted with the sources from which the money to make them good was to come. Last year, the right hon. gentleman had told the House, that he had a sinking fund of 5,000,000 l., when in point of fact he had no such thing. He had also told them, that it was necessary to diminish the unfunded debt, and had absolutely been allowed to raise a loan of 8,000,000 l. to do so. Now, he should like the right. hon. gentleman to tell the
68
House what he had done with the sum which he had raised for that purpose? The right hon. gentleman carried, he believed, the act which he obtained into execution; and he was informed that the right hon. gentleman had received 3,500,000 l. in Exchequer-bills, and the remainder in money. Now, that loan was granted for the express purpose of paying off 6,000,000 l. of the 11,000,000 l. due from the government to the Bank. What, he would ask, had the right hon. gentleman done with the proceeds of the loan after he had obtained it? Why, he took the 4,500,000 l.—which he had received in money, and which he had obtained for a specific purpose—and applied them to the ways and means of the year, and to what he was pleased to denominate the sinking-fund. The hon. member then asserted, that no reduction in the amount of the unfunded debt had been effected by the loan which the right hon. gentleman had obtained last year. He had been informed that the right hon. gentleman had appropriated 1,200,000 l. to the service of the sinking-fund for the present quarter. Now, he should like to know where the right hon. gentleman was to get that sum? Not from the revenue, he was quite sure. He must either borrow it from the Bank, or get it from some quarter with which the House was not, though it ought to be, acquainted. He did not blame the right hon. gentleman for not having a revenue equal to his anticipation, but he did think that, in consequence of the defalcation which had taken place in it, the whole subject of our revenue should undergo the investigation of a committee. The consideration of our finances ought not to be deferred till May; it ought to be undertaken immediately. When our finances were in a flourishing state, the right hon. gentleman had brought on the budget early: now that they were in a deranged state, he deferred it to the latest opportunity. He contended that the right hon. gentleman had no sinking-fund of 5,000,000 l. this year; and that he ought therefore to state his ways and means before he asked the House to grant a supply of 20,000,000 l. Without having any wish to embarrass the right hon. gentleman, he felt himself under the necessity of opposing the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. gentleman had declared that

69
he had no intention to embarrass him; but if he were to be drawn by the hon. gentleman into a premature explanation of his plans for the year, he should not only be greatly embarrassed himself, but should produce much embarrassment, and inflict infinite mischief, upon the public. Now, as he did not wish either to embarrass or to injure the public, he must decline, with all courtesy to the hon. gentleman, to answer any of his questions. Not that, by so doing, he intended to admit that any of the hon. gentleman's statements were correct, or to conceal, or wish to conceal, the financial circumstances of the country from the House, when the proper time came for disclosing them. It would be absurd in any man who filled the situation which he had the honour to fill, to think of mystifying its accounts. He had no such wish: he only wished to avoid being drawn prematurely into a statement, which, if misunderstood, might do much mischief. The hon. gentleman had complained, that he had postponed his annual statement of the finances of the country, because they were not in a flourishing condition. Now, he begged leave to say, that he had done no such thing. He had stated, on a former occasion, why it had been impossible for him to do that which the hon. gentleman seemed to think he ought to have done long since. He found that, at the close of last year, circumstances affecting the foreign relations of the country had occurred, which made the sending out an armament to assist its ancient ally, the king of Portugal, a matter of indispensable necessity. That armament could not be sent without causing an expense which was not anticipated; and, although the expense of maintaining it was to be repaid hereafter by the Portuguese government, still it was necessary to provide funds for it in the interim. Until the effects of that armament were seen, until the time of its stay was calculated, until the extent of the operations in which it was to be engaged was fully ascertained—it would have been absolute madness in any minister to have attempted to inform the House that the finances of the country would only be affected to a given amount, in consequence of that armament. When his majesty sent down to the House his message, informing it of his intention to support his ancient ally the king of Portugal, the House, by an immense majority,
70
determined to support his majesty in the policy which he had adopted. Therefore, if parliament, when it met, had postponed giving effect to that policy, it would have adopted a course which would have been most prejudicial to the success of the measures, in behalf of which it had previously voted. That was the reason why he had said, that it would be impossible for him—without reference to any considerations immediately personal to himself, which he allowed that he could not call upon the House to notice—to bring forward at an early period of the session the general finance of the country. He reminded the House of the course which he had hitherto pursued with regard to the budget, and desired them to infer therefrom, that he had no desire to postpone the consideration of the financial state of the country, because it appeared to some gentlemen not to be in the most flourishing condition. In January 1823, he was appointed to the office which he now had the honour to fulfil. It was a department entirely new to him, and he had, he confessed, his lesson to learn; but, notwithstanding all the difficulties of his situation, he had brought forward his financial statement on the 21st of February. In 1824, he had brought it forward on the 23rd of February. He at that time stated his decided opinion as to the principle on which he meant to act. He thought, and he then made the declaration, that it was indispensable, in time of peace, that the statement of the finances of the country should be laid before the House at the earliest possible period. In 1825, the budget was submitted to the House on the 28th of February. Last year it was not introduced until the 15th of March. That, however, was not his fault. The statement was prepared and ready at a much earlier day; but the House must recollect how much parliament was at that time occupied with the important question of the currency. And he could assure the House, that it was sorely against his desire, that his financial statement was put off from day to day. He thought he had now shown, pretty clearly, that he harboured no wish to put off the business unnecessarily; and though he would not do so foolish a thing as to promise, that, under every possible circumstance, he would bring forward, at a particular time, his financial statement—still he thought the House would not sup-

71
pose, because it was impossible for him to introduce the statement this year so early as gentlemen wished, that he felt any disinclination to do so at a proper season. He had already shown what his sense of duty was. He conceived the course he had adopted, in the outset, was a right one. So far as the government was concerned, the putting off to a late period the financial statement was the most inconvenient course that could be pursued: and, but for the circumstances he had stated, it would have been in readiness long before. Now, he would ask of the House, whether, in fairness, he could, with any view to the public advantage, enter into a partial discussion of this subject— which would, he must say, be wholly unintelligible? He had, the other day, asked for the means of defraying the army and navy estimates, agreeably to the pledge given by the House, in answer to the king's message: and he had then observed, that the vote for civil contingencies, with respect to some of the items of which a dispute might arise, should not be called for, until the account was perfectly ready. His motion, this evening, would only be for a certain sum, on account. He had not done any thing unreasonable in taking this course; and, whatever might be the opinion of the hon. member, he thought it his positive duty to seal his lips on this subject, until he was ready with the whole statement.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he wished an estimate of the supply and of the ways and means to be laid on the table.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, that 20,000,000 l. had already been voted for the army, navy, and ordnance, without sufficient attention having been paid to so large an appropriation of the public money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that only 16,000,000 l. had been voted.
Sir J. Wrottesleywas of opinion, that not much less than 20,000,000 l. had been voted; and it was high time that the House should endeavour to lessen so enormous an expenditure. There might, he was convinced, be a very great reform effected in all the establishments of the country; and he warned the right hon. gentleman, if he came forward to lay any more burthens on the country, that he would, if he stood alone, oppose such a proposition, and call for some reform in the expenditure of the state. The question, relative to an issue of Exchequer bills,
72
which was put to the Bank directors a few days since, had not been satisfactorily answered by the hon. governor, or by the right hon. gentleman; and he now entreated him to consider the inconvenience which the country would experience, if there were a fresh issue of Exchequer-bills. They had now Exchequer-bills outstanding to the amount of 25,000,000 l.; and the Bank had 21,000,000 l. of notes in circulation, which it was not in the nature of things that they would be called on to pay. But if any unfavourable circumstance arose in the foreign policy of the country, the right hon. gentleman might be called on to pay those 25,000,000 l. of Exchequer-bills, without a shilling in the treasury to meet the demand. Was that a situation in which the country ought to be placed? He knew that the Exchequer-bills carried a very low rate of interest; but, in what a situation were they placed a twelvemonth ago, when they were obliged to cancel a part of those Exchequer-bills! If the sinking fund had been made use of on that occasion, they would have received 100 l. for 100 l.; but, instead of doing that, they employed it in purchasing three per cents at 95 l. and 96 l.; and when they wished to contract the amount, of Exchequer-bills, they funded in the four percents at 107. If what happened last November should occur again, Exchequer-bills would, undoubtedly, be at a discount. He warned the right hon. gentleman to pause before he increased the quantity of Exchequer-bills. If, in future, there should be a fair surplus revenue, he trusted that the right hon. gentleman would get rid of the delusion of a Sinking-fund, and employ that surplus in relieving the country from a portion of its burthens. If, in that case adverse circumstances should occur, the government would be enabled to defend the country with effect, or to assist the merchants, should they be in distress.
Mr. Humeprotested, on the part of the public, against the procrastination of business of so important a nature. He had heard nothing from the right hon. gentleman, but that particular circumstances had prevented him from bringing forward his annual statement. But what those circumstances were, he did not know. It was pretty evident, however, that if there was no government, as was in some degree the case at present, no business of importance could be brought before the House. The hon. member for Callington

73
had, on a former night, very justly observed, that he did not know of whom the administration consisted, or who were the responsible parties. This was a very serious evil, and ought to be rectified as soon as possible. The right hon. gentleman said, it would be madness for him at the present moment, to state any thing about the financial situation of the country: but, it was greater madness to adopt the conduct of an inconsiderate spendthrift, and to plunge into expense, without knowing what they had to meet it. The reasons adduced by the right hon. gentleman for delay were quite insufficient. Why not lay on the table of the House the items of expenditure, to show why the expense in particular departments this year, went beyond that of other years? The rule which the right hon. gentleman had laid down on entering office was, to produce the accounts as early as possible, and he had done so for four years; but he now said, "I cannot lay my statement before you, because I do not know what the expense on account of Portugal may be." This was the worst possible reason that could be devised. Having been hurried, by a species of madness, to meddle with other people's affairs, instead of minding their own, they were now told that no estimate could be formed of the probable expense that would attend their interference. Much had been said about entering into this dispute, for the purpose of upholding the honour of the country; but, in his opinion, it would redound more to the honour of the country if they maintained their credit, by paying their debts, instead of creating fresh ones.
The House having resolved itself into the committee,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the estimate of the civil contingencies for 1827 was 290,000 l. This was lower than the estimate of last year, and what he now proposed was, to ask for 200,000 l. on account. That was the only vote he meant to submit to the committee.
Mr. Humesaid, he always had, and always would, object to this mode of voting money; and he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to one or two items in the accounts of civil contingencies. Some gentlemen in this new parliament were not, perhaps, aware of the expense of the diplomatic service. They ought to know, that 226,000 l. were voted for it in
74
the civil list. Under the head of "contingencies," there were in addition to that, 200,000 l.; and there were 88,000 l. extraordinaries, in addition to the 226,000 l. of the civil list. Last year, the minister to the court of France (for it seemed to be considered necessary that this country should vie with the Autocrat of Russia, in having the most splendid palace for the representative of his majesty) caused 11,000 l. to be laid out in the purchase of a superb building. This sum was taken from the civil list. There was besides a charge of between 16,000 l. and 17,000 l. for the extraordinary expenses of his suite; and 12,586 l., in addition to the sum taken from the civil list. Thus a sum of between 23,000 l. and 24,000 l. was laid out for one individual as the representative of Great Britain at the court of France. The diplomatic expenses, including plate, for the last year, amounted to 364,000 l. This, however, was exclusive of a large grant for consuls and missions to South America. So that there was nearly 500,000 l. a-year expended on the diplomatic service. This scale of remuneration was far beyond what the country could bear; and therefore he objected to voting the present sum. The expense of the diplomatic department in nine years, ordinary and extraordinary, had been 3,000,000 l. sterling. Now, he put it to the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, whether this expenditure ought to be tolerated, when they saw their table covered with such appalling statements of distress? When their countrymen were in rags, and absolutely wanting food, was it fair to support a few individuals in such splendor? It kept up an appearance, on the part of England, which she was not able to support. The people on the continent imagined, on account of this system of extravagance, that England was overflowing with wealth; when in fact the country was a patch-work of pauperism and wretchedness. The expense of this department ought to be cut down to 150,000 l. per annum; and then it would be twice as much as it was in 1795. He observed, that there was likely to be another addition to the public expense; as it had been announced, that the marquis of Hertford was about to be despatchedot the court of Russia, in compliment to that monarch. Let them look to the situation in which they were placing themselves, by this act, with reference to that

75
power. It would make the emperor more haughty and imperious than ever. He would suppose that this country was humbling herself to conciliate his good graces. Last year, the duke of Wellington was sent on a special mission to Russia, which cost the country 6,536 l. The duke of Devonshire had also been sent on a special mission to that court, on occasion of his imperial majesty's coronation; for which a charge of 10,000 l. was made. Now, they had been told, that the duke of Devonshire would defray all the expense himself. [It was here intimated, that it was the duke of Northumberland who had expressed his intention of bearing all the expense, when he attended the coronation of the king of France.] He certainly never understood that the duke of Devonshire, who was a particular acquaintance of the emperor Nicholas, was to be repaid. At that very time, too, we had an ambassador to Russia who was costing the country 16,000 l. or 17,000 l. a year; for in these matters there were no small sums, and tens of thousands were the only figures employed in connection with ambassadors and royalty. Yet, after this expenditure on diplomatic ceremony and court etiquette, another mission was about to be fitted out to the same prince. Neither was extravagance of this kind limited to the old world; the republics of the new were to be initiated into the mystery of spending money without limit or object. Sir C. Stuart had been sent to the Brazils at an expense of 12,000 l., to which was to be added a fresh charge for his secretary, lord M. Hill. Besides all this, there was a sum of 25,000 l. for presents of snuff-boxes to foreign ministers. Was it fair to ask, if our own ministers received 25,000 l. in the same way? He hoped they did, in order to keep up the reciprocity of the transaction. In India if the same amount as was given in a present, was not returned in the same way, it was considered an insult. But to come to these items. The first was a present, to the amount of 1,000 l., from his majesty to the French Chancery, on the exchange of the ratifications of a commercial convention. The next was a sum of 500 l. to the Swedish Chancery, on the exchange of the ratifications of a convention. Then there was to the chevalier de Los Rios, late envoy extraordinary from the king of Spain, upon the termination of his mission, 400 l.; so that an ambassador, on his coming, received a present, and when he was going
76
away, he got another. The next item was 500 l. to colonel Hamilton, for having brought from Bogota the treaty with Colombia. A sum of 23,532 l. then followed, which was paid to Messrs. Rundell and Bridge, for gold snuff-boxes, as presents from his majesty to foreign ministers on different occasions. Among these were, to count Ozarowsky, charged with a special mission to his majesty from the emperor of Russia, 788 l. 10 s. The next item was for boxes to the Swedish minister, the Russian minister, and to the minister of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, 3,333 l. Then, to the Colombian ministers, on the exchange of the ratifications of a treaty, there was 1,963 l. 10 s. Now, he objected to this as setting a bad example to republics, and as being an attempt on our part to corrupt these honest, unsophisticated states. The hon. member then alluded to presents to the amount of 836 l. 15 s. to the minister of the Hanse Towns; 1,086 l.15 s. to prince Polignac; 4,556 l. 12 s. to the ministers of the Ottoman Porte; and to his grace the duke of Northumberland, a diamond hilted sword, value 10,812 l. Considering such items as these in the light of an extravagant waste of the public money, he felt every disposition to oppose the present vote.
Mr. Secretary Canning(who spoke in an exceedingly low tone) was understood to say, that the vote which the hon. member opposed, and all the items which he had submitted to so minute an examination, had already received the approbation of the House; inasmuch as they were included in the estimates, not of the present, but of the preceding year. Under these circumstances, it might not have been necessary more particularly to notice the hon. member's objections, had not names been alluded to in the course of his speech, which every one in that House must know were entitled to the utmost respect. The hon. gentleman had said, in reference to the mission of a noble duke to a foreign court, that he had been informed that the embassy had been intrusted to that noble person, on the condition, and with the understanding, that its prosecution should be attended with no expense to the country; and further, the hon. member appeared to suppose, that some such arrangement, expressed or implied, had been, on a former occasion, alluded to in that House. Now he was at

77
issue with the hon. member on that fact. So far from any such assurance having been given, the direct contrary was distinctly understood. With respect to the dukes of Northumberland and Devonshire, he was clearly of opinion that no man, however exalted his station, or affluent his private fortune might be, should be allowed to represent and support the dignity of this country, in the eyes of foreigners, at his own expense. If the duke of Northumberland had made a considerable advance of money out of his own private funds, to sustain, in a becoming manner, the character of this country, for liberality and hospitality, at the court of France, it was quite right that he should receive some testimonial, if not a remuneration, for his services. With regard to the duke of Devonshire, who went to the court of St. Petersburgh, on a special embassy to the emperor of Russia, on the occasion of his coronation, he could assure the hon. member, on his word of honour, that the 10,000 l. which had been granted, was a sum which nothing like defrayed the expense incurred by that nobleman in his mission. In fact, it did not cover one third of the expense of the noble duke on that occasion. He repeated, that it was against his judgment and wish, that individuals, however exalted, should be placed in such situations, and permitted to bear any part of the cost. However, he should probably gratify the hon. gentleman, by assuring him, that the noble marquis, to whom he had alluded, was going out at his own expense.—This was contrary to his wish; but, on the present occasion, he had been obliged to give way to the noble marquis, although he did not approve of allowing private individuals to take a high office, and sustain its dignity from their own private resources, and without expense to the country.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Secretary had taken no notice of the repairs of the English Ambassador's palace at Paris.
Mr. Canningsaid, it was really useless to give explanations to the hon. member, for he went on repeating his objections, as if nothing had ever been said to enlighten him. He had, on a former occasion, told the hon. member, that he had no more to do with the purchase of the palace in question, than the hon. member had. Two years ago a question arose as to whether it would be better to sell the palace or re-
78
pair it. Surveyors were sent from England to report on the subject. They reported in favour of repairing it; which was accordingly done. It was most unfair in the hon. member to add the accidental expense occasioned by repairing the palace to the salary of the Ambassador, for the purpose of making it appear that the annual charge was enormous. It was not lord Granville who decided upon the repairing of the palace, but the Treasury.
The motion was agreed to.

CORN LAWS.
The House having resolved into a committee to consider further of the Corn Trade acts, the report was recommitted.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, that in compliance with the wish expressed by the House on a former night, he had altered the resolutions, in order to accommodate them to the imperial measure. It was not necessary to state the grounds on which he had made his calculation, but would only state the result at which he had arrived. The duty proposed to be payable upon wheat per quarter Winchester measure was 20 s. when the price should be 60 s. The corresponding price of the imperial measure would be 61 s. 10½d., and the corresponding duty would be 20 s. 7½d.. He had taken the price at 62 s., and the duty at 20 s. 8d. The duty would then go on rising and descending as before proposed, without any alteration of the resolutions. As the resolutions at present stood, the duty upon barley, when the price should be 32 s. Winchester measure, was fixed at 12 s. He now proposed that the duty should be 12 s. 4d., when the price should be 33 s. imperial measure. The duty on oats was 9s. when the price was 24 s. Winchester measure: he proposed that the duty should be 9s. 3d. when the price should be 25 s. imperial measure. The duty upon rye, peas, and beans, was fixed at 15 s. when the price was 36 s. per quarter. The corresponding price and duty per imperial measure would be 36 s. and 15 s. 6d. With respect to oatmeal, it was extremely difficult to calculate how much could be produced from a given quantity of oats. He had calculated the produce at 196lb. per quarter, but he had received representations, that no such quantity could be produced. He had, therefore, thought it right to refer to the act of 1791, in which it was fixed at 176lb. per quarter. According to this standard, the corres-

79
ponding quantity per imperial measure would be 181½lb., the duty upon which would be the same as that on a quarter of oats.
The resolutions, thus altered, were then read by the chairman.
Lord Althorpwished to call the attention of the House to one point; namely, whether the duties ought to be taken according to the average prices of one week, or from the averages of several weeks together. He knew there were many advantages in favour of the former system, but he thought the disadvantages were greater, seeing that it would enable persons of large capital to affect the duty to a very material extent. He preferred that the duty should be taken according to the estimate of six weeks instead of one.
Mr. Irvingbelieved that the House was mistaken, with respect to the power of the corn merchants. In former times, there were a few individuals who, possessing large capitals, were able to control the market; but now it was quite otherwise. The inducements to men of great capital to continue in the corn trade had long ceased; and in that, as in many other trades, the capitals of the middle-men had been lost. There was, therefore, little reason to fear any combination that could materially raise prices; more especially when the House considered, that it was absolutely necessary, in purchasing up the corn in the home market, that the money should all be laid down.
Mr. Alderman C. Smithsaid, that such a combination might take place, and therefore, it would be well for the House to guard against it. The safer course would be to take the average of six weeks, instead of one.
Colonel Woodalso thought it desirable that this course should be pursued, to guard against the possibility of danger, arising, not only from speculation, but, from bad seasons. The House would recollect, that in 1817, in consequence of severe rains, and the apprehension of a bad harvest, wheat, within the space of ten days, had risen to 100 s. per quarter: and this might happen again.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that although it was true that the price of corn had risen as high as had been stated by the hon. member, yet, the circumstances referred to by him, had no connection with fraud; and did not, therefore, bear upon the argument. His own
80
impression was, that such an alteration as that proposed would be neither useful nor necessary. The hon. member for Bramber had stated, that the country would have a better security against fraud, if the estimates were taken weekly; and reasoning à priori, he had come to the same conclusion.
Mr. Baringadmitted, that the authority of the hon. member for Bramber was very strong in favour of the weekly average; but he could not help thinking, that some period longer than a single week would give more security against the dangerous effects of speculation. It might be quite true, that no one great House could command the corn trade; but the House should recollect, that they were legislating not for a particular year, but for a series of years. He confessed he was apprehensive that the corn merchants might meet and combine at little expense to raise the price for a week. He was not, however, for adopting the period of six weeks. He thought that if the averages were taken every four weeks, the possibility of mischievous combinations would be prevented.
Mr. Littletonargued, that if the period were limited to three weeks or a month, the security would be greater.
Mr. Whitmoresaid, he had consulted some authorities to which he attached great importance, and they concurred in assuring him, that the weekly average was decidedly better than the quarterly. From the same sources, he had learnt also, that the practice of fictitious sales had never prevailed to any considerable extent. If it had been possible, undoubtedly it would have been extremely dangerous; as the Corn-market would, at any moment, have been liable to a sudden rise.
Sir J. Newportexpressed his surprise at the hon. gentleman's statement. No man could doubt that fictitious sales were made continually. The same wheat was notoriously sold over and over again, on the same day, in Mark-lane. The public, he thought, therefore, would have no security against combinations, unless the term of the averages was at least four weeks.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, that whatever the right hon. baronet might think, there was a great diversity of opinion with regard to the extent and effect of fictitious sales. He believed that the practice prevailed equally on both sides of the question;

81
and therein consisted the security of the public. He was rather afraid, that if the parties engaged in a combination to raise prices had three or four weeks before them for their operations, they would be in a more favourable condition for the accomplishment of their purpose. It was possible, however, to throw further safeguards round the public. The receiver of the Corn returns might be armed with a power to reject any bargain of unusual magnitude and suspicious appearance. Another suggestion he would throw out was, that the London returns should be combined at once in striking the average with the returns from the country, instead of waiting for them as at present.
Mr. Baringreminded the House that they could not fairly judge what would take place under the new law, from what had taken place under the existing law. Under the system of weekly averages, the struggles of speculators would be much more frequent. Now there was a bustle, only when the averages approached the opening price.
Mr. Curteissuggested that one precaution might be, that the same corn should not enter into the average, if sold a second or third time the same day. He had known it sold ten times over; and he was sure there were constant frauds practised in the corn-market.
Sir J. Wrottesleywas adverse to the period of four weeks for taking the averages. Fraudulent speculations would thereby be greatly assisted, as the price might be raised considerably every week. He was favourable to the shortest period possible beyond a single week; say two, or at the utmost, three weeks.
Mr. Irvingsaid, that combinations to raise the price of grain were already a misdemeanour at common law. His right hon. friend might introduce some additional penalties into the bill, which would effectually suppress the practice, if it really existed.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that much of the irregularity and uncertainty in the taking of the averages, originated in the system of selling by samples, in the country, by which, neither the farmer nor the purchaser being bound, those sales were frequently not carried into effect, yet were always taken into account, as actual sales. The practice in London, of selling by tickets, by which both parties were bound, ought to be made universal.
Sir E. Knatchbulldenied that combination or fictitious selling took place among the agriculturists. They had no opportunity for such acts; nor were they people of a character or inclination to commit them.
Mr. N. Calvertput no particular faith in the character or inclination of the agriculturists; but he thought it pretty nearly impossible for them to combine.
Mr. Whitmorebelieved it was already the custom of the receivers of averages in country towns to leave out any contracts which bore very decided marks of fraud.
Mr. Charles Barclaywould not deny the claims of the farmers to the character for probity which the hon. baronet had given them; but he would remind the committee, that since the year 1815, the importation of foreign oats had been prevented by some combination or other, which was effected, he believed at Boston. Precaution was therefore necessary.
The resolutions were agreed to.