the United States than before;-Then 1. The ports of the United States should be opened to British vessels and their cargoes from the colonial ports, free from alien duties; 2. British vessels might import into, and export from the United States any articles, as American vessels; 3. The acts of 1818, 1820 and 1823 should be suspended or repealed; 4. And British vessels, from British North American ports, might be admitted to entry in our ports.

This act was described by Mr. McLane as "a voluntary and leading step, in the conciliating policy of the two nations, taken in disdain of the restraints of form," &c. But, the British ministers would not trust to our pledge, that our ports should be opened, when the British Government should have given the "satisfactory evidence" referred to in our act of Congress; they required that our ports should be actually opened, before their Government took any decided step; But further, they insisted on the actual surrender of the principle of reciprocity, and they obtained both.

288. The American policy, and all our measures conformed to it, contemplated a rule of reciprocity, and, as indispensable, that American and English vessels should sail, from our ports to the West Indies, with perfect equality as to the cargoes they might carry; that is, taking cargoes of American or foreign goods, or mixed, or both. One of the conditions of the act of Congress of 1830, was, "That the vessels of the United States may import into the said colonial possessions, from the United States, any article or articles, which could be imported in British vessels, into the said possessions from the United States." But, in a spirit of unexampled subserviency, our minister agreed, that, the act of Congress should be so construed, despite its manifest import-as to deny to American vessels the right to carry foreign goods or mixed cargoes, and yet to allow that privilege to British vessels. Thus surrendering the principle which had been steadily maintained since 1789, and audaciously nullifying the act of Congress. There was no oversight in this; it was distinctly seen, and an attempt was made to excuse it; Mr. McLane alleging; "the difference cannot be an object of much importance. It will generally be our interest, as it is that of every other nation, to allow the exportation of its surplus foreign produce, in the vessels of any other country." That is, that the carrying trade, the employment of our own ships, and the advantages of assorted cargoes, were of no importance. If

such points as these can be misunderstood, merchants should be our diplomates.

The privilege we have thus obtained does not depend upon treaty, or any species of compact, obligatory on Great Britain. The operation of an Act of Parliament which has been extended to our intercourse with the British Colonies, may be repealed without the violation of good faith, to-morrow. The arrangement was formed by diplomatic letters which were not submitted for the approbation of the Senate.

289. The result has been, that the advantageous trade hitherto enjoyed through the neutral islands has been lost; the tonnage employed in the West India trade from the United States greatly diminished, and the object of Great Britain, to supply her West India Islands by her North American colonies, instead of by the United States, has been, by our folly, promoted. The mode by which this is done, is by imposing on American produce, carried in American vessels

of course by the direct voyage-such duties, as are, in effect, prohibitory; and at the same time permitting such produce, to be carried to the North American colonies, free of duty, or slightly charged, and, thence free, and in British vessels, only, to the West India Islands. Our gain, from this arrangement, would seem to be, the principle of direct intercourse with the British West India Islands-in EMPTY SHIPS.

The effect is rendered but too apparent, by the report of Mr. McLane, in March, 1832, upon the call of the Senate; from which it is demonstrable, that during the year 1831, there were in the intercourse of this country with the British, Swedish and Danish islands, and the Northern provinces, entries 156,776 tons of American shipping, and 110,899 of foreign, (nearly all British); and of departures, 166,134 American tons and 110,899 of British or foreign. In the preceding year, 1830, before the arrangement of Mr. Van Buren, the American tonnage, in the same trade, was, of entries, 204,416, and of foreign, but 5,842; of departures, American 199,476, and of foreign, but 16,360-the American tonnage having fallen off nearly 25 per cent. and the British having încreased nearly 2000 per cent.

290. The English press distinctly recognized the advantages the British nation had gained; avowing "that, while the trade with the United States was indirect, the navigation was in the hands of the Americans, and that the British Government in concluding the treaty with that of America have

forced the trade from American hands into those of British ship owners. The British Government appears to have had another object in view,—namely, that, of imposing such additional duties on the direct trade to the West Indies, with certain exceptions, as in effect to be prohibitory. By this means the United States' produce is forced into the North American colonies, whence it is transported in British bottoms, duty free, to the West Indies."

"The most important point," continues the English writer, "secured by this new arrangement, is the carrying trade. British vessels may now proceed from any part of his Majesty's dominions direct to the United States; there load a full cargo, either for the West Indies, or via the provinces, as the nature of the cargo may invite, thus completing the whole voyage, a portion of which only, American vessels would be able to perform. This also embraces the privilege of taking debenture (foreign) goods, which could not take place in American vessels, they being confined to the produce of their States alone."

In confirmation of these statements, which were taken from the St. Christopher Gazette, and a London paper, and sent to New York by an American ship-master, we give his letter.

ST. KITTS, March 15, 1832.

“Gentlemen—I send you the enclosed, to show that our commerce with the British Islands will soon dwindle to nothing as regards our shipping; the carrying trade is lost to them. I have been to all the windward Islands with a cargo of flour, pork, beef, candles, soap, &c. and could not sell one single article of my cargo. Wherever I have come, I haye had British vessels beforehand, importing the same articles, duty free, and my cargo I shall have to land at St. Barts or St. Thomas."

291. Of the disposition of Mr. Van Buren, as an executive officer, to dispense with, to disobey the laws, we may cite his letter of the 5th Oct. 1830, to Mr. McLane, relative to this subject. He assures the minister, that the construction of Lord Aberdeen and himself, by which the reciprocity in the export of foreign goods required by our act of 1830 was abandoned," was adopted without reserve;" and adds; "The President has derived great satisfaction from the candour and liberality which has characterized his majesty's ministers throughout the negotiation, and particularly in not suffering

the INADVERTENCIES of our legislation, attributable to the haste and confusion of the closing scenes of the session, to defeat or delay the adjustment."

292. Let us forget, for one moment, if it be possible, this arrogant dispensation of the law of the land, by the Executive, on the ground, that one of its most important and plainest provisions was an inadvertency-a construction which if given by the Supreme Court, would have filled the country with just and unbounded indignation, and let us ask, what was, in truth, the fact? This very provision so annulled, was in the bill of 1827 which passed the House of Representatives, is the same as Mr. Madison's proposition in 1790, and Mr. Clay's instruction of 1826-was contained in the act of 1830, as originally reported by Mr. Cambreling-and which Mr. Van Buren, in communicating it to Mr. McLane, in June 1830, characterized, "as a solemn public movement on our part."-Yet he afterwards lays the same at the foot of the British throne, thanking his Majesty for concurring in a disregard of its enactment, and offering in excuse for its inadvertencies the "haste and confusion" of the National Legislature. What language is this, for an American Statesman, and what a picture is here to be exhibited to the eye of British royalty of the dignity and deliberation of a republican-an American, Congress!

293. The pretensions of the American Government, as Mr. Van Buren, factiously, and in the spirit of an English partisan, called them, were, that the produce of the United States should be admitted, into the British West Indies on the same terms as similar produce of the British American contiuental possessions, without which equality our produce could not maintain, in those islands, a fair competition with the produce of Canada, but would flow from the western parts of New York, and the northern parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio into Canada; aggrandizing Montreal and Quebec and giving employment to British shipping to the prejudice of the canals of New York, the port of New York and American shipping. And the evils which were foreseen have been realized. Our produce passes into Canada, enriches her capitals and nourishes British navigation. Our own wheat is transported from the western parts of New York, into Canada, there manufactured and thence transported in British ships, in the form of Canadian flour, thus depriving us of the privilege of manufacturing our own grain. And when the produce of the United States, shipped from

the Atlantic ports, arrives at the British West Indies, it is unable, in consequence of the heavy duties with which most of it is burdened, to sustain a competition with British produce freely admitted. The policy of the British Government to obtain possession of our West India trade, by discriminating duties, was developed, within a month after the arrangement made with Mr. McLane. And we have the mortification to behold that gentleman remonstrating against the passage of an act of Parliament designed to promote it. His remonstrance was vain-for the right to remonstrate was abandoned by the arrangement.

294. Burdened with a deep offence against the dignity of his country, Mr. Van Buren counted highly, too highly, upon the effect of party discipline, when he ventured to solicit the approbation of the Senate of the United States, to his appointment as minister to any foreign power, and particularly, to that, at whose feet he had abased the nation, and whose favour to party interest he had attempted to gain. Our his tory abounds with instances of high minded men who have surrendered much of propriety to the exactions of party spirit. But we knew not a single case, before the present, in which, partisans have sought the countenance of foreign nations. How then could Mr. Van Buren expect, that, the Senate of the United States, the special guardian of the national honour, in our foreign relations, should become a party to his humiliating deeds? And yet, it would seem that his estimate of the influence of that selfishness on which his party was founded, was not loosely made; since that body was almost equally divided on the confirmation of his nomination. To the weight of party he added another bias to the discretion of the Senate; leaving the country before the session, and imposing upon it the responsibility of recalling a minister, at the cost, to the state, of his outfit. This step was purely one of party tactics. It was not called for by any reason of state policy. No negotiation was pending which required the presence of a minister with full powers at the English court. England was represented here, by a Chargé d'affaires. We had a diplomatic agent there, of equal grade, and the relations between the two nations might have remained in this equal condition, until the annual meeting of Congress, when the advice of the Senate could have been asked before the public chest had been opened for the outfit, and salary of a minister. But he should have considered the effect of this motive as very doubtful. Many members of Senate