§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken upon the American Law of 1848, which confers exclusive privileges upon American vessels engaged in the trade between New York and California, either by Panama or by Cape Horn, and defines such to be a coasting voyage? Whether the exclusion of British and Foreign Ships from any participation in a coasting trade, so defined, is or is not a violation of the Treaties in force between this country and America, which stipulate for a reciprocal liberty of commerce; and, whether there is any objection to produce Copies of all Correspondence that has taken place between the British and American Governments upon this subject?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken generally whether the trade carried on between New York and California could properly be called a coasting trade, and their opinion was that they considered it was a coasting trade. With regard to the question whether the exclusion of British ships from that trade was a violation of the Treaties between this country and America, the American Government said they were prohibited from admitting our ships by the articles of their Constitution. They admitted the Treaties for equality of trade, but they said that by their Constitution, in the way they understood it, they could not grant the coasting trade to Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman would see 1132 that it was hardly possible to dispute with them as to the construction they gave to their own Constitution, but Her Majesty's Government had several times applied to the American Government to give Great Britain the same privileges which were granted to them, and especially that trade in which the cargo was unloaded, carried across the Isthmus of Panama, and shipped on board another vessel. It did not appear to the British Government that in any sense of the word that could be properly called a coasting trade. Lord Lyons had very recently brought the subject under the notice of the American Minister for Foreign Affairs, who replied that he would take the opinion of the Treasury about it. The hon. Gentleman would see that, as the correspondence was going on, it was impossible to give it at present. He had carefully considered the question as to whether it was a violation of treaties, and although it might not be a violation of treaties, at the same time it was a great disappointment after what the hon. Gentleman would recollect were the professions of the American Minister in this country in 1849, when we proposed to repeal the Navigation laws. Mr. Bancroft, who was then the American Minister, stated to Mr. Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade, "If you are liberal, we shall be liberal; if you give much, we shall give much; if you give all, we shall give all." It was only just to say that the American Government did give equivalent advantages on passing the Navigation Act; but, although in 1854 we threw open the coasting trade, what had been done by them in that respect was still very unsatisfactory.