Relations with Great Britain. The points consist of all such as have been given on the 22d and 23d of August, but could not, in charge to us, and which have been heretofore owing to our instructions not having arrived, mentioned in my despatches, including impress-discuss with him the questions of the fisheries ment, and other maritime questions incident to a state of war. I content myself at present with stating thus generally, for the President's information, that the negotiation has opened. What relates to its progress will, I presume, no longer be expected from me singly, but in joint communications with Mr. Gallatin. I ought not to omit to mention that the point of impressment was brought forward by Lord Castlereagh, at the first interview held at his house, on the 22d. The next meeting takes place to-morrow. There are some of the points which must stand still until we are in possession of our further instructions. Extract of a letter from Mr. Rush to the Secretary of LONDON, October 19, 1818. I hasten to communicate to you, for the information of the President, that, at a conference we have this day had with the British Plenipotentiaries, from which I have just returned, it has been agreed to conclude a treaty, comprehending an arrangement of the following points: and of the West India intercourse. He left London on the 1st of September. The official conferences had begun on the 27th of August, and, for the progress of the negotiation, we beg leave to refer to the enclosed copies of the protocol, and documents annexed to it, and of two unofficial notes sent by us to the British Plenipotentiaries. We will add some observations on the several objects embraced by the convention. 1. Fisheries. We succeeded in securing, besides the right of taking and curing fish within the limits designated by our instructions as a sine qua non, the liberty of fishing on the coasts of the Magdalen islands, and on the western coast of Newfoundland, and the privilege of entering for shelter, Wood, and water, in all the British harbors of North America. Both were suggested as important to our fishermen, in the communications on that subject which were transmitted to us with our instructions. To the exception of the exclusive rights of the Hudson's Bay Company we did not object, as it was virtually implied in the treaty of 1783, and we had never, any more than the British subjects, enjoyed any right there-the charter of that company having been granted in the year 1670. The exception applies only to the coasts and their harbors, and does not affect the right of fishing in Hudson's Bay beyond three miles from the shores, a right which could not exclusively belong to, or be granted by, any nation. The most difficult part of the negotiation related to the permanence of the right. To obtain the insertion in the body of the convention of a provision declaring expressly that that right should not be abrogated by war, was impracticable. All that could be done was to express the article in such manner as would not render the right liable to be thus abrogated. The words 1st. The fisheries; 2d. The northwestern bound-"for ever" were inserted for that purpose, and we ary line; 3d. That about Columbia river; 4th. The question of slaves; and 5th. A renewal for ten years of the present commercial convention. The treaty will probably be reduced to form, and signed to-morrow. Extracts of a letter from Messrs. Gallatin and Rush to the Secretary of State, dated LONDON, October 20, 1818. We have the honor to transmit a convention which we concluded this day with the British Plenipotentiaries. Lord Castlereagh having expressed a wish that the negotiations might be opened before his departure for Aix-la-Chapelle, Mr. Gallatin left París as soon as he had received our full powers, and arrived here on the 16th of August. Our joint instructions contained in your despatch of the 28th of July did not, however, reach us till the 3d of September. We had long conversations with Lord Castlereagh at his country seat, also made the declaration annexed to the protocol of the third conference, the principal object of which was to provide in any event for the revival of all our prior rights. The insertion of the words "for ever" was strenuously resisted. The British Plenipotentiaries urged that, in case ted, or of the article being considered as abroof war, the only effect of those words being omitgated, would be the necessity of inserting in the treaty of peace a new article renewing the present one; and that, after all that had passed, it would certainly be deemed expedient to do it, in whatever manner the condition was now expressed. We declared that we would not agree to any article on the subject, unless the words were preserved, or in case they should enter on the protocol a declaration impairing their effect. It will also be perceived that we insisted on the clause by which the United States renounce their right to the fisheries relinquished by the convention, that clause having been omitted in the first British counter-projet. We insisted on it with Relations with Great Britain. the view, 1st. Of preventing any implication that the fisheries secured to us were a new grant, and of placing the permanence of the rights secured and of those renounced precisely on the same footing. 2d. Of its being expressly stated that our renunciation extended only to the distance of three miles from the coasts. This last point was the more important, as, with the exception of the fishery in open boats within certain harbors, it appeared, from the communications abovementioned, that the fishing ground, on the whole coast of Nova Scotia, is more than three miles from the shores; whilst, on the contrary, it is almost universally close to the shore on the coasts of Labrador. It is in that point of view that the privilege of entering the ports for shelter is useful, and it is hoped that, with that provision, a considerable portion of the actual fisheries on that coast (of Nova Scotia) will, notwithstanding the renunciation, be preserved. 2. Boundary line. indisputable. It had derived its name from that of the American ship commanded by Captain Gray, who had first discovered and entered its mouth. It was first explored, from its sources to the ocean, by Lewis and Clark, and before the British traders from Canada had reached any of its waters; for it was now ascertained that the river Tacoutche Tesse, discovered by McKenzie, and which he had mistaken for the Columbia, was not a branch of this river, but fell into the sound called the "Gulf of Georgia." The settlement at the place called Astoria was also the first permanent establishment made in that quarter. The British Plenipotentiaries asserted that former voyages, and principally that of Captain Cook, gave to Great Britain the rights derived from discovery; and they alluded to purchases from the natives south of the river Columbia, which they alleged to have been made prior to the American Revolution. They did not make any formal proposition for a boundary, but intiThis being definitively fixed at the forty-ninth mated that the river itself was the most convenidegree of north latitude, from the Lake of the ent that could be adopted, and that they would Woods to the Stony mountains, it is unnecessary bor at the mouth of the river, in common with not agree to any that did not give them the harto repeat the arguments which were urged on that subject. The attempt was again made to the United States. We stated that we could not connect with it an article, securing to the British agree to this, but expressed our readiness and our access to the Mississippi, and the right to its nav-similar to what had been proposed on former ocwish to insert, in the boundary article, a proviso igation. We declared, and entered the declaration in the protocol, that we could not agree to the article, nor to any that would bring the British in contact with that river. The British Plenipotentiaries having, by the protocol of the seventh conference, agreed to the omission of the article, that point is also definitively settled. And it may be observed, with reference to the treaty of 1783, that, if the United States have not secured to themselves the whole of the fisheries heretofore enjoyed within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, they have obtained the liberty of curing fish on a part of the southern coast of Newfoundland, and the abandonment of an inconvenient privilege within their own territory. 3. Columbia River. casions, and which would leave that subject open for arrangement hereafter. To this they would not consent, and offered the article annexed to the protocol of the fifth conference. We declared that we preferred not signing any article for the boundary line eastward of the Stony mountains know with precision what value our Governto acquiescing in that arrangement. We did not ment set on the country to the westward of those mountains, but we were not authorized to enter into any agreement which would be tantamount to an abandonment of the claim to it. It was at last agreed, but, as we thought, with some reluctance on the part of the British Plenipotentiaries, that the country on the northwest coast, claimed by either party, should, without prejudice to the claims of either, and for a limited time, be opened, for the purpose of trade, to the inhabitants of both countries. The importance which seems to have been attached to that subject by Great Britain induces a belief that it will again be brought forward, at some future occasion, with a view to a definitive arrangement. 4. Slaves. This subject was, during the whole negotiation, connected by the British Plenipotentiaries with that of the boundary line. They appeared altogether unwilling to agree to this in any shape, unless some arrangement was made with respect to the country westward of the Stony mountains. This induced us to propose an extension of the boundary line, due west, to the Pacific ocean. We did not assert that the United States had a perfect right to that country, but insisted that After having referred to what had already their claim was at least good against Great Brit-passed on that subject, we insisted that Lord Casain. The forty-ninth degree of north latitude had, in pursuance of the Treaty of Utrecht, been fixed, indefinitely, as the line between the northern British possessions and those of France, including Louisiana, now a part of our territories. There was no reason why, if the two countries extended their claims westward, the same line should not be continued to the Pacific ocean. So far as discovery gave a claim, ours to the whole country on the waters of the Columbia river was tlereagh, having, in his letter to Mr. Adams, of April 10, 1816, declared that "the British Government would not resist the claim of the United States to indemnification for slaves, or private property belonging to their citizens, which could be proved to have been in places directed to be restored by the Treaty of Ghent at the date of the ratifications, and to have been afterwards removed;" and it being in proof, by the correspondence of Captain Clavelle and of Admiral Relations with Great Britain. from the British West Indies into the United States, and to export from the United States to the British West Indies, only such articles of the produce of the said West Indies and of the United States, respectively, as American vessels should be permitted to export from and to import into the British West Indies. Cockburn, that slaves had been removed from we understood this basis to embrace the followTangier Island and from Cumberland Island sub-ing objects: sequent to the ratifications, the claim for indem- 1. British vessels to be permitted to import nification, to that extent, had thus been already fully admitted by the British Government. With respect to slaves removed on ship-board previous to the ratifications, and for which Lord Castlereagh denied that our claim to indemnity could with justice extend, we urged that such of our harbors and waters as were in the possession of the British at the date of the ratifications were strictly within the meaning of places to be restored; that they were accordingly actually restored; and it necessarily followed that, accord 3. The duties on the importation of American ing to Lord Castlereagh's construction, the Brit-produce into the British West Indies not to be ish were bound not to have carried away any higher when the produce was imported directly slaves who were then on board British vessels from the United States than when imported in lying within any such harbors or waters. a circuitous manner; with a reciprocal condition for the importation of West India produce into the United States. The British Plenipotentiaries offered as a substitute to the article we had proposed one to refer the subject to a friendly sovereign. This we could not reject, as the proposal had originated with the United States, and was now unconnected with the questions respecting the boundary line and the Columbia river. We proposed that the Emperor of Russia should be designated in the article as the umpire. This was rejected, on the ground that, if he should refuse to act, the agreement would become null; and that it would be inexpedient, if at all practicable, to provide by the article for that contingency, so as to secure the object in view. It was added that the sovereign could be fixed upon at a future day by the two Governments, through Mr. Rush and Lord Castlereagh. 5. Commercial Intercourse. 2. The duties on the vessels and on the cargoes to be reciprocally the same, whether the vessels were American or British. 4. The intercourse in British vessels to be allowed only with such West India ports as would be opened to the American vessels. 5. The British vessels allowed to carry on that trade to be only of the same description with the American vessels admitted in the British West Indies. To that basis, as thus stated, the British Plenipotentiaries acceded. But when the further details of the proposed arrangement were taken into consideration, several important points occurred which had not been contemplated in our instructions, and on which we were not sufficiently acquainted with the intentions of our Government. The basis of reciprocity once established, was it proper to agree to a direct intercourse, limited, on both sides, to certain articles of the produce either of the United States or of the West Indies? And if such limitation was admissible, to what extent? And what articles might we consent to except? The subject of the intercourse with the West Indies was fully discussed, and, not thinking ourselves authorized to accede to the last proposals of the British Plenipotentiaries, which are an nexed to the protocol of the eighth conference, an entry was made that we had taken them ad referendum to our Government. The negotiation being kept open, in that respect, we agreed, in conformity with our instructions, to an article, continuing in force for ten years the commercial convention of 1815. It was fully understood, on both sides, that if no agreement should be ulti-exported in a direct manner? mately concluded with respect to the colonial intercourse, no ground of complaint would arise on account of any restrictive measures whatever that the United States might adopt on that subject; and we stated, expressly, that such meas. ures would, in all probability, be extended to the intercourse with Bermuda and with the British northern colonies; that, if the direct trade with the West Indies was not allowed, the United States would not be disposed to suffer it to be carried on through any other intermediate British If the direct intercourse was thus limited to certain articles, would an indirect intercourse be admissible, between the United States and Bermuda, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, embracing articles of West India produce, or of the produce of the United States, destined for the West Indies, other than were admitted to be imported or port. It appeared evident to us, both from our instructions and from the act of Congress, that a perfect reciprocity and equality must be the basis, as well as a sine qua non, of any arrangement of the intercourse with the West Indies. And As the British Government would retain the power of laying duties on the produce of the United States imported into the West Indies, and would not lay any on similar articles imported therein from any part of the British dominions, ought we to assent, without any condition or exception, to the clause annexed to the first article, formerly proposed by that Government, and by which no higher duties should be laid respectively, on the produce of either country, than on similar articles imported from any other foreign country? We thought it safer to err on our own side of the question, and to ask for more than perhaps under all circumstances we expected to obtain, rather than to limit our demands to less than might be intended by our Government. The articles which we proposed at the third conference Relations with Great Britain. were drawn with that view; and the British Plenipotentiaries immediately stated that they were inadmissible, and amounted to a much greater departure from the colonial policy of Great Britain than she was prepared to allow. They did not enter into any abstract defence of that policy, but they strongly urged the impossibility of breaking down, at once, a system still favored by public opinion, and supported by various interests which could not be disregarded. The fish and lumber of the northern colonies, the salted provisions, and even the flour of Ireland, the shipping interest, and that of non-residing West India planters, were all alluded to. Having once admitted the basis of perfect reciprocity with respect to the direct intercourse, they thought that the United States ought, for the present, to be satisfied with an arrangement which would admit a considerable number of articles to be carried directly; that they should not insist on the exclusion, in the intercourse with Halifax, St. John's, and Bermuda, of those articles which might not be included in the list of those admitted in the direct intercourse with the West Indies; and that we ought not to object to the natural right of Great Britain to lay protecting duties in favor of the produce of her own possessions. We admitted that the last principle, as an abstract proposition, was unexceptionable, but observed, that the practical effect of the condition on which they insisted was altogether partial. Since they persevered in making a distinction between the intercourse with England and that with her colonies, and even between that with her northern American colonies and that with the West Indies, the United States must, in a commercial view, consider them as so many distinct countries. As no other foreign country could supply the West Indies with the articles which were the produce of the United States, a condition which would prevent Great Britain from laying higher duties on that produce than on similar articles the produce of other foreign countries, was nugatory, and to us perfectly useless. There was, in that respect, no competition but with the produce of the British possessions. We found, in that condition, no compensation for the restriction which it would impose on the United States to lay no higher duties on the colonial produce of the British possessions than on that of other countries. The propriety of limiting the number of articles to be carried directly, would in a great measure depend on the list which might be proposed. To extend it to other articles, in the circuitous intercourse through Halifax and Bermuda, would give to the British the exclusive carriage of those articles from those ports to the West Indies, and vice versa, and be inconsistent with the avowed object of the United States-that of an equal participation in the navigation necessary for the transportation of the articles of which their trade with the West Indies, as allowed by Great Britain, actually consisted. Yet we were disposed to pay due regard to the various considerations which had been presented by Great Britain, and to listen to any specific proposals she might be prepared to make. No part of the articles we had offered was, with the exception of the basis of perfect reciprocity, to be considered as an ultimatum. We would, however, say that we could not assent to any article which did not admit, on the one hand, naval stores and the whole of our lumber, and, on the other, salt, molasses, and, besides rum, a limited quantity of sugar and coffee, amongst the articles of the direct trade. With respect to duties, after having suggested without success that a maximum of those intended for the protection of the produce of the British dominions might be agreed on, we stated that there were at least two provisions which could not be objected to, viz., that the United States should remain at liberty to lay higher duties on the colonial produce of the British possessions than on that of those countries where we were or might be received on better terms than in the British West Indies; and that the condition which would preclude generally such higher duties being laid should not apply to the West India articles not admitted to be exported directly therefrom in American vessels to the United States. The result of several free conversations was, that, as it was altogether improbable that we could, at this time, come to a definitive arrangement, the British Plenipotentiaries should offer an article with the intention of its being referred to our Government. It will be perceived by this, that they admit the principle of reciprocity; that they make no exception with respect to the description of vessels; that, giving up the article formerly proposed for Turk's Island, they also admit that vessels employed in the trade may touch from one port to another, and that to the list of articles formerly proposed are added naval stores, shingles, and staves, and a more general description of provisions. They continue to except altogether, on the one hand, sugar and coffee, and, on the other, salted fish and provisions, and every other species of lumber but shingles and staves. The only essential difference between this list of articles and that proposed for the intercourse with Bermuda and the northern colonies consists, as far as relates to the produce of the United States, in the lumber not admitted in the direct intercourse; for salted fish and provisions are equally excluded from both; but it is proposed that not only sugar and coffee, but also all articles of the produce or manufacture of any of the British dominions, should be admitted through that indirect channel into the United States. We stated, when we received the article, that it ought to embrace only American products, and that the proposal was certainly inadmissible so far as related to East India articles. With respect to the ports they offer in the West Indies, they are the same with those proposed by us, with the exception of St. Christopher's, St. Lucia, Demarara, Esequibo, and Berbice. The three last had been at first intended to be included, but were ultimately omitted by Relations with Great Britain. the British Plenipotentiaries, for reasons connected, as they said, with their engagements with Holland. We cannot state what may be considered as an ultimatum in that proposal. We are, however, duced to believe that they will persevere in excluding sugar and some species of lumber from the direct, and salted fish and provisions from both the direct and indirect intercourse; that they will insist on having some articles admitted in that indirect, which shall be excluded from the direct intercourse; and that they will be tenacious on being placed on the footing of the most favored nation. They will also certainly insist that vessels from Great Britain may touch at any port in the United States, and take cargoes for the West Indies of such articles as may be admitted in the direct trade. Without such provision (which would be made reciprocal, although only nominally so,) it is supposed here, that, considering our proximity, to admit our vessels to a participation on an equal footing in the trade between the United States and the West Indies, would, in fact, give the latter the whole navigation connected with that trade. It must, at the same time, be observed, that the proposal being intended for reference, and not for immediate discussion, the British Plenipotentiaries may have been cautious not to go too far. Upon the whole, we hope that, if our negotiation does not pave the way for a definitive arrangement, it will at least have served to make our Government better acquainted with the dispositions of this, and may afford some assistance with respect to the further proceedings which may be thought expedient. It having been ascertained that the British Government would not assent to any article on the subject of the intercourse by land and inland navigation with Canada, which would substantially differ from that already twice rejected, and that they would not even agree to a provision securing to us the right of taking our produce in our own boats or vessels down the St. Lawrence -as far as Montreal, and down the river Chambly as far as the river St. Lawrence, we thought it altogether unnecessary to make any proposal on that subject, on which, indeed, we were not particularly instructed. No. 1. Protocol of the first conference between the American and British Plenipotentiaries, held at Whitehall, on the 27th of August, 1818. Present: Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Rush, American; and Mr. Robinson and Mr. Goulburn, British. The Plenipotentiaries presented and exchanged their respective full powers. It was agreed that the discussions should be carried on by conference and protocol, with the insertion in the protocol of such written documents as either party might deem necessary, for the purpose of recording their sentiments in detail. The British Plenipotentiaries stated that they were ready to proceed at once to the signature of a treaty, renewing the commercial convention of 1815 as it stands; or, that if the American Plenipotentiaries should prefer to delay the signature of such a treaty of renewal till more progress should have been made in the discussion of the other topics which it is the object of the two Governments to arrange, no objection would be made to the adoption of that course. But it was explicitly stated by the British Plenipotentiaries, that, with respect to all those other topics of discussion, whether purely commercial, or partaking more of a political character, they were instructed not to consent to any partial or separate consideration of them, nor to select any one in particular, as an appendage to a renewal of the existing commercial convention. The American Plenipotentiaries acquiesced in the division of the subject, represented by the British Plenipotentiaries to be essential, but stated it to be their desire not to sign the treaty of renewal for the present. It was, however, agreed that the eventual signature of that instrument should not be made contingent upon a settlement of the other points, and both parties declined bringing forward any proposed modification of it. It was agreed to meet again on Saturday at two o'clock. ALBERT GALLATIN, RICHARD RUSH, FREDERICK JOHN ROBINSON, The Plenipotentiaries agreed upon and signed the protocol of the preceding conference. Some general conversation then ensued upon some of the different topics of discussion. The American Plenipotentiaries stated that, whenever the British Plenipotentiaries were prepared to submit their project on the impressment question, they (the American Plenipotentiaries) would bring forward their proposition respecting the other maritime points; but that they did not at all, unless the impressment of seamen was to intend to bring those topics before the conferences be discussed on the part of Great Britain. It was agreed that the next conference should take place on September 4th. ALBERT GALLATIN, FREDERICK JOHN ROBINSON, No. 3. Protocol of the third conference held between the American and British Plenipotentiaries, at Whitehall, on the 17th day of September, 1818. Present: Mr. Gallatin, Mr. Rush, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Goulburn. |