been so long deferred? The explanation which I that succeeded, introduced, in lieu thereof, a this question requires, cannot be made without some reference to the history of our communications with England since the peace of 1783, as well as to the views and policy of men and parties, that have in succession influenced our public affairs.

new bill, which became a law, vesting in the king and council authority to make such temporary regulations of the American navigation and trade, as should be deemed expedient.

Sundry orders in council were accordingly

States and the English West India colonies, but with a proviso (the principle of which is still maintained against us), whereby American vessels were excluded, and the whole trade confined to English vessels.

As, according to the laws of England, not-made, whereby a trade and intercourse in withstanding the acknowledgment of our inde- American and English vessels, between the pendence, neither trade nor intercourse could United States and Great Britain, were allowed, be carried on between the United States and and, with the exception of fish-oil, and one or her dominions, it became necessary after the two other articles, the produce of the United treaty of peace to pass some act whereby this States, imported into Great Britain, was adtrade and intercourse might be opened ;-a bill mitted free, or subject only to the duties payfor this purpose was therefore introduced into able on the like articles imported in English the House of Commons by the administration vessels from the American colonies. which concluded the treaty of peace with the An intercourse, and a trade, in enumerated United States. The general scope and provis-articles, were also opened, between the United ions of the bill correspond with the liberal principles which were manifested in that treaty, plainly show that the authors of this bill understood that the true basis of trade and intercourse between nations, is reciprocity of benefit; a foundation on which, alone, the friendly inter- After a periodical renewal of these orders, course between men and nations can be perma- for several years, the regulations that they connently established. The preamble of this bill tained were adopted by, and became an act of declares "that it was highly expedient that the Parliament. This act was afterwards modified, intercourse between Great Britain and the and rendered conformable to the provisions of United States should be established on the most Mr. Jay's treaty, the commercial articles of enlarged principles of reciprocal benefit to both | which expired in the year 1803 ;—not long after countries," and as, from the distance between which date England passed a new act of Parthem, it would be a considerable time before a liament concerning the American navigation treaty of commerce placing their trade and in- and trade. This act maintains the exclusion tercourse on a permanent foundation, could be of American vessels from the intercourse beconcluded the bill, for the purpose of a tempo- tween the United States and the English colorary regulation thereof, provided, that Ameri- nies, and confines the same, as former acts and can vessels should be admitted into the ports of orders in council had done, to English vessels; Great Britain, as those of other independent it repeals the settlement of duties pursuant to states, and that their cargo should be liable to Mr. Jay's treaty; and, giving up the policy of the same duties only as the same merchandise the enlarged and liberal system of intercourse would be subject to, if the same were the prop- which had been proposed in Mr. Pitt's bill, it erty of British subjects, and imported in British also repeals such parts of all former acts and orvessels and, further, that the vessels of the ders as admitted the productions of the United United States should be admitted into the Eng-States, either free, or on paying the same duties lish plantations, and colonies, in America, with any articles the growth or manufacture of the United States, and, with liberty to export from such colonies and plantations to the United States any merchandise whatsoever, subject to the same duties only, as if the property of British subjects, and imported or exported in British vessels; allowing, also, the same bounties, drawbacks, and exemptions, on goods exported from Great Britain, to the United States, in American vessels, as on the like exportations in British vessels to the English colonies and plantations. The persons benefited by the Eng-policy concerning the American trade and inlish exclusive system of trade and navigation, became alarmed by the provisions of this bill and earnestly opposed it; and which, after a variety of discussion, was postponed or rejected. About this period, Mr. Pitt, who had supported this bill in the House of Commons, resigned his office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, as his colleagues in Lord Shelburne's administration, had before done. The coalition administration

only as were payable on the like articles imported from the English colonies and plantations; and places all articles, the produce of the United States, imported in American vessels, on the same footing as the like articles imported in foreign ships from other foreign countries. This new footing of our trade with England, the importance whereof is well understood by those who are engaged in supplying her markets with masts, spars, timber, naval stores, and pot and pearl ashes, may be regarded as decisive evidence of a complete change of

tercourse; which, however unsatisfactory, as respected the colonial trade, has become more so, by the provisions of this act of Parliament.

The policy that manifested itself in the treaty of our independence, and which is seen in the bill to regulate the trade and intercourse between England and the United States, prepared by the administration that made the treaty of peace, was, by the establishment of trade and

This unequal footing of our foreign commerce, and the language made use of by England at this juncture, served still more to increase the public discontent; especially as it was plainly avowed that England ought to render the trade with us as exclusively advantagethe old confederation would enable her to do. Congress having no authority, under the confederation, to impose countervailing and other corrective regulations of trade, the States separately attempted to establish regulations upon this subject. But, as a part only of the States joined in this measure, and as the laws passed for this purpose differed from each other, the experiment completely failed.

intercourse on the solid basis of reciprocal bene- | many sailors and as much shipping as posfit, to unite in a firm bond of friendship, a peo- sible.* ple politically separate, living under different governments, but having a common origin, a common language, a common law, and kindred blood; circumstances so peculiar as not to be found between any other nations. Instead of this policy, one of a different sort is preferred; one, however, that England has a right to pre-ous to herself, as her power and the defects of fer; and, against the many evils of which, ve must protect ourselves as well as we are able to do. The intricate, countervailing, and perplexing code of commercial intercourse, founded in jealousy, and the rival establishments and pursuits of the powers of Europe bordering upon, and constantly interfering with, each other, has been adopted and applied to the United States a people agricultural more than manufacturing or commercial; placed in another quarter of the globe; cultivating, and proposing to others an open system of trade and intercourse; and herein, as in many other important discriminations, differing from the nations of Europe, and therefore not fit subjects for these restrictive and jealous regulations. Our policy is, and ever has been, a different one. We desire peace with all nations; and the wars of maritime Europe have taught us, that a free system of trade and intercourse would be the best means of preserving it.

With these principles as our guide, at the negotiation of the treaty of peace, in 1783, our ministers were authorized to conclude a treaty of commerce with England on this basis; but no treaty was concluded. Afterwards, and when a temporary trade and intercourse were opened by England, looking, as we supposed, to a treaty of commerce, Congress instructed Messrs. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, to renew the overture of a treaty of commerce, which was done by them through the English ambassador at Paris, in the year 1784; but no correspondent disposition being shown by England, this second overture failed.

The interest and prejudice of those who were benefited by the monopolies, and the exclusive system of England, were opposed to any treaty with this country, on the principle of reciprocal advantage. The political writers of that day, under the influence of these partial views, or not sufficiently appreciating the true theory of commerce, contended that it would be folly to enter into engagements by which England might not wish to be bound in future; that such engagements would be gratuitous, as, according to their interpretation, Congress possessed no power, under the confederation, to enforce any stipulation into which they might enter; that no treaty that could be made would suit all the States; that if any were necessary, they should be made with the States separately; but that none was necessary; and those who | talked of liberality and reciprocity in commercial affairs, were either without argument or knowledge; that the object of England was, not reciprocity and liberality, but to raise as

In this condition of our navigation and trade, subject to foreign restrictions and exclusion, without a power at home to countervail and check the same, Congress resolved to make another effort to conclude a commercial treaty with England. For this purpose Mr. Adams, since President of the United States, was appointed, and went to England in 1785, where he resided for several years; but found and left the government unchanged, and equally as before disinclined to make with us a treaty of commerce, although, during his residence, England concluded her famous commercial treaty with France.

This further disappointment, with the depreciating condition of our navigation and trade, joined to the embarrassment of the public finances, produced what no inferior pressure could have done; it produced the general convention of 1787, that formed the constitution of the United States. Had England entered into a liberal treaty of commerce with the United States, this convention would not, perhaps, have been assembled. Without so intending it, the adherence of England to her unequal and exclusive system of trade and navigation, gave to this country a constitution; and the countervailing and equalizing bill now before the Senate, arising from the same cause, may assist us in establishing and extending those great branches of national wealth and power, which we have such constant and urgent motives to encourage.

The establishment of the constitution of the United States was coeval with the commencement of the French revolution. The sessions of the General Convention at Philadelphia, and the sessions of the Assembly of Notables at Paris, were held in the same year.

Laws were passed by the first Congress assembled under the new constitution, partially to correct the inequality of our navigation and trade with foreign nations; and a small discrimination in duties of impost and of tonnage was made for this purpose. Afterwards, in the year 1794, a number of resolutions on the sub

Sheffield, Charmers, and Knox.

safety and even liberties of the country were concerned in the adoption of this course, the treaty proved a welcome auxiliary.

It suspended the further agitation of difficult and angry topics of controversy with England; it enabled the government to persist in, and to maintain, the system of neutrality which had been recommended by the father of his country;-a policy, the correctness and benefits of which, whatever may have been the disagreement of opinion among the public men of those times, will now scarcely be doubted by any one.

ject of navigation and trade, were moved in the House of Representatives, by a distinguished member of that body. These resolutions had a special reference to the refusal of England to enter into an equal commercial treaty with us, and aimed at countervailing her exclusive system. Other and more direct resolutions, bearing on England, were also proposed by other members, and referred to the inexecution of the treaty of peace, and to the recent captures of American vessels by English cruisers, in the American seas. The policy of these resolutions, in the actual circumstances of the times, was denied; were therefore strenuously opposed, and the mission of Mr. Jay, as envoy extraordinary to England, suspended their further discussion. The French revolution had by this time become the object of universal attention. War had broken out between France and Eng-mercial articles of this treaty expired in 1803, land: The avowed policy of our own government to avoid war, and to adhere to a strict system of neutrality, was much questioned; and for a time it was matter of great uncertainty whether the country would support the neutrality recommended by the President.

During the continuance of this treaty, further, though ineffectual, attempts were made to establish a satisfactory intercourse with the English colonies in the West Indies, and, likewise, to place the subject of impressment on a mutually safe and equitable footing. The com

no proposals having been made to renew them. A subsequent negotiation took place in 1806, and a treaty was made, but not ratified by the United States. The peace of Amiens was of short duration. Another war took place between France and England; no maritime treaty then existed between the United States and the latter; and the manner in which she exercised her power on the ocean; the great interruption of the navigation and trade of neutral nations; the numerous captures of their ships and cargoes under the retaliatory. decrees and orders of these two powers, with other vexatious occurrences, revived the former angry feelings towards England, and greatly contributed to the late war with that nation. This war was

The universal dissatisfaction on account of the commercial system of England; the inexecution on her part of the articles of peace; the numerous captures, by orders of the English government, of our vessels, employed in a trade strictly neutral, combined with our friendly recollections of the services of France, and our good wishes in favor of the effort she professed to be making to establish a free constitution, constituted a crisis most difficult and important. It was in these circumstances, that President Wash-closed by the treaty of Ghent, not long after ington nominated Mr. Jay as envoy to England. England seems never to have duly appreciated the true character and importance of this extraordinary measure. France well understood and resented it. Mr. Jay was received with civility, and concluded a treaty with England on the chief points of his instructions. When published, the treaty met with great opposition. The article respecting the West India trade, having been excluded by the Senate, on account of the inadmissible condition or proviso that was coupled with it;with this exception, it was finally ratified by the President.

Although the treaty did not come up to the expectation of all, yet, in addition to satisfactory arrangements concerning English debts, the unlawful capture and condemnation of our vessels, and the delivery of the posts, points of very great importance, it contained articles regulating the trade, navigation, and maritime rights of the two countries. No treaty which could at that time have been made with England, would, in the highly excited temper of the people, have satisfied the country. But, to those whose object it was to prevent the United States from taking part in the war between France and England, and to prevail upon them to adhere to a system of impartial neutrality; and who, moreover, believed, that the

the conclusion of the general peace in Europe, and was followed by a meagre commercial convention, made at London, and limited, in its duration, to a few years only. Neither the spirit of the negotiation, nor the scope of the articles of this convention, afford any evidence that England is inclined to treat with this country on the only principle on which a commercial treaty with her can be desirable. Her decision on this point can hardly be doubted; as our latest communications inform us, that her ancient system will not be changed; and in case we are dissatisfied with its operation, that England has no objection to our taking any such measures concerning the same, as we may deem expedient—an intimation that seems to put an end to further overtures on our part.

Such is the explanation why the measure now proposed has been so long deferred. During the confederation, Congress were without power to adopt it.

The treaty concluded by Mr. Jay, in 1794, and the relaxation of the navigation and colonial laws, during the war between France and England, rendered the measure inexpedient during this period:

And the expectation entertained, that a more enlarged and equal treaty of commerce and navigation, applicable, in its provisions, to peace as well as war, would be substituted in place of

the present commercial convention, has hitherto | eries,* and their settlement can, in no manner, suspended the interference of Congress. This be affected by the passing of this act. expectation, we fear, must be given up. England has apprised us of her determination to adhere to her ancient and exclusive system of trade and navigation, and the only alternative before us is, to submit to her regulation of our own navigation, or to interpose the authority of the constitution to counteract the same. There can be no hesitation in our choice.

THE MISSOURI BILL.

The following is the substance of two speeches | Union." As this power is conferred without delivered by Mr. King, in the Senate of the United States, when the Missouri Bill was under its consideration.*