IS UNIVERSITY 1IHRABV

3 9002 06019 8356

***&&'

r<f3»

IMi

l'mZ§± ' •¦'' '
„¦-- - : , • ¦.

YALE TWIVEKSITY LIBEAKY

FORMED BY
James Abraham Hillhouse, B.A. 1749
James Hillhouse, B.A. 1773
James Abraham Hillhouse, B.A. 1808
James Hillhouse, B.A. 1875
Removed 1942 from the
Manor Bouse in Sachem's Wood
GIFT OF
GEORGE DUDLEY SEYMOUR

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy ofthe book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

A RESIDENCE

THE COURT Of LONDON.

VOL. II.

A RESIDENCE

THE COURT OF LONDON,
COMPRISING
INCIDENTS, OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL,
FROM 1819 TO 1825 :
AMONGST THE FORMER,
NEGOTIATIONS ON THE OREGON TERRITORY,
AND OTHER UNSETTLED QUESTIONS
BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN.

By RICHARD RUSH,
ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY FROM THE
UNITED STATES, DURING THE ABOVE YEARS.

SECOND SERIES.
VOL. II.

LONDON:
RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW BURLINGTON STREET,
$u»lt£Sl)«r tn <3Mmvv to 3!er Piajt^tg.
1845.

LONDON :
Printed by S. & J. Bektley, Wilson, and Pley,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

CONTENTS

SECOND VOLUME.

CHAPTER XXI.
Death of the Marquis of Londonderry. — The Foreign Ambassa
dors and Ministers attend his Funeral. — Mr. Canning becomes
Foreign Secretary of England. — Instructions for opening an exten
sive Negotiation with England. — Interview with Mr. Canning on
that subject. — Conversation with him on the Plans of France, and
the European Alliance, respecting Spanish America. — Relationship
of the United States to this subject. — Dinner at Mr. Planta's. —
Game of Twenty Questions ..... Page 1
CHAPTER XXII.
Two Communications from Mr. Canning, on Spanish-American
Affairs. — Steps taken under them. — Further Instructions on the
Proposed Negotiation. — Third Communication from Mr. Canning
on Spanish- American Affairs . . . . . .24
CHAPTER XXIII.
Full Interview with Mr. Canning, on Spanish-American Affairs,
and report of what passed. — Further Interview on the same subject ;
and on that of the Negotiation, to the Opening of which England
Accedes. — Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Stratford Canning to be the
British Negotiators. — Renewed Interview with Mr. Canning, on the
Affairs of Spanish America, and Report of what passed . .41

V] CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XXIV.
Course of the United States in regard to Spanish America. — De
clarations of President Monroe in his Message to Congress, Decem
ber, 1833. — Their effect in Europe. — Remarks on the subject. —
Dinner at the Duke of Sussex's; at Mr. Canning's. — Interviews
with Mr. Canning on the Negotiation. — North-west Coast of Ame
rica, the Prominent Topic. — England objects to the Principle of
Non-colonization on the American Continents, taken by President
Monroe. — Interview with Mr. Canning preparatory to opening the
Negotiation ... ... Page 70

CHAPTER XXV.
The General Negotiation opens. — Subject of the Slave-trade first
taken up. — Dinner at the Duke of Sussex's ; at Mr. Stratford Can
ning's — Renewed interview with Mr. Secretary Canning on Spa
nish-American Affairs. — Second Meeting of the Plenipotentiaries on
the Business of the Negotiation. — Interview with the Deputies from
Greece. — Third Meeting of the Plenipotentiaries. — West India and
Colonial Trade. — Navigation of the St. Lawrence. — Dinner at
Prince Polignac's, French Ambassador. — Fourth Meeting of the
Plenipotentiaries. — Dinner at the Marquis of Lansdowne's ; at the
Duke of Wellington's ; at Mr. Peel's. — Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh
Meetings of the Plenipotentiaries. — Convention relative to the
Slave-trade Agreed upon and Signed. — Circumstances which led to
its Defeat  91

CHAPTER XXVL
The General Negotiation proceeds under its other Heads. — Cha
racteristics of these, including Unsettled Maritime Questions. — Im
pressment, Privateering, and the Oregon Question. — Final Report
to the Government of the United States, of the Progress and Ter
mination of the whole Negotiation. — Oregon Question then, for the
first time, discussed at large between the two Nations. — Views of
each stated . . . . . . . . .119

CONTENTS.

Vll

PROTOCOLS :
Of the Third Conference, February 5th, 1824
Of the Eighth Conference, 18th of March, 1824 .
Of the Ninth Conference, 25th of March, 1824
Of the Tenth Conference, 29th of March, 1824
Of the Eleventh Conference, 1st of April, 1824
Gf the Twelfth Conference, 2nd of April, 1824 .
Of the Thirteenth Conference, 5th of April, 1824 .
Of the Fourteenth Conference, 13th of April, 1824
Of the Fifteenth Conference, 4th of June, 1824. .
Of the Sixteenth Conference, 8th of June, 1824
Of the Seventeenth Conference, 15th of June, 1824
Of the Eighteenth Conference, 19 th of June, 1824
Of the Nineteenth Conference, 26th of June, 1824
Of the Twentieth Conference, 29th of June, 1824 .
Of the Twenty-first Conference, 3rd of July, 1824
Of the Twenty-second Conference, 9th of July, 1824
Of the Twenty-third Conference, 13th of July, 1824
Of the Twenty- fourth Conference, 19th of July, 1824
Of the Twenty-fifth Conference, 22d of July, 1824.
Of the Twenty-sixth Conference, 28th of July, 1824

Page 281
. 282
. 283
. 286
. 287
. 288
. 289
. 292
. 295
. 297
. 298
. 301
. 304
. 307
. 311
. 314
. 316
. 319
. 321
. 322

CHAPTER XXVII.
Levee at Carlton Palace. — Inform Mr. Canning of my Recall, and
ask an Interview with the King, a time for which is appointed. —
The Mission closes with an Audience of Leave of the King - 324

A RESIDENCE AT
THE COURT OF LONDON.

CHAPTER XXI.
DEATH OF THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY.  THE FOREIGN
AMBASSADORS AND MINISTERS ATTEND HIS FUNERAL. 
MR. CANNING BECOMES FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ENG
LAND. — INSTRUCTIONS FOR OPENING AN EXTENSIVE
NEGOTIATION WITH ENGLAND.  INTERVIEW WITH MR.
CANNING ON THAT SUBJECT. — CONVERSATION WITH HIM
ON THE PLANS OF FRANCE, AND THE EUROPEAN ALLI
ANCE, RESPECTING SPANISH AMERICA.  RELATIONSHIP
OF THE UNITED STATES TO THIS SUBJECT. — -DINNER
AT MR. PLANTA'S.  GAME OF TWENTY QUESTIONS.
July, 1823. The last preceding memorandum
in this irregular narrative of a public mission,
was in July, 1821. I cannot resume its thread,
here broken by a chasm of two years, without
alluding to the death of the Marquis of Lon
donderry, which happened in August, 1822.
He died by his own hand at North Cray, his
country home, in Kent. The event proceeded
from temporary aberration of mind, caused, in
NEW SERIES. — VOL. III. B

2 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
all probability, by his laborious exertions as
ministerial leader in the House of Commons,
during the session of parliament which had just
closed ; added to toils and solicitudes of scarcely
inferior burden upon him, as first minister of
the crown for foreign affairs. His death created
a great shock. As a statesman moving largely
in English and European affairs, during the
momentous transactions which preceded and
followed the overthrow of Napoleon, and influ
encing decidedly some of them, history has
already passed upon his character ; and it is no
part of my purpose in these humble and fugi
tive pages, to discuss it in those relations. But
in relation to that portion of English states
manship which has to deal with American affairs,
and it is no unimportant portion, I must appeal
to the preceding pages, to attest the candid and
liberal spirit in which he was ever disposed to
regard them. Let those who would doubt it,
consult the archives of the two nations since
the end of our revolutionary war, and point out
the British statesman, of any class or party,
who, up to the period of his death, made more
advances, or did more in fact, towards placing
their relations upon an amicable footing. I
even hazarded the opinion in chapter XX. of
the volume of this work published twelve years
ago, that, had he not left England to attend

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 3
the congress at Aix la Chapelle in 1818, he
would have settled with the United States, in
the negotiation then pending, the question of
impressment; and, as an opinion, I still hold
it, on grounds then intimated. His sentiments
were all of a lofty kind. His private life was
pure, and all who knew him in those relations
loved him. In society he was attractive in the
highest degree ; the firmness and courage of
his nature, being riot more remarkable than the
gentleness and suavity of his manners. He
was buried in Westminster Abbey, between
the graves of Pitt and Fox. The diplomatic
corps all went to his funeral ; and not one
among them could gaze upon his pall, without
having his memory filled with recollections of
kindnesses received from him. If anything
intrinsically unpleasant ever arose in the trans
action of international business with them, he
threw around it every mitigation which bland-
ness of manner could impart; whilst to announce
or promote what was agreeable, seemed always
to give him pleasure. His personal attentions
to them, were shown in ways which appeared
to put out of view their coming from an official
source, by the impression they made on the
heart. Might not each individual of the large
assemblage of ambassadors and ministers who
were of the funeral train, naturally have felt
b 2

4 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
grief at the death of such a foreign secretary ?
struck down, as he also was, so suddenly, and
in so melancholy a way, in the midst of his
high employments, and with apparently so
strong a hold upon life and its honours ? Nor
did I ever see manly sorrow more depicted in
any countenance than that of the Duke of Wel
lington, as he too took a last look at the coffin
when lowered down into the vault.
Upon the death of Lord Londonderry, the
office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in
England, passed to the hands of Mr. Canning
— a name also known to fame. He was a
statesman and an orator; filling each sphere
with powers highly disciplined, whether their
exercise was felt on great occasions, or only
dazzled on lighter ones. He was the ornament
also of private life, in a society refined by age,
by education, and by wealth ; ascendant in the
highest literary circles, and adding dignity to
those of rank. His rural residence was at
Gloucester Lodge ; and his classic dinners at
that abode, as the hospitalities of Lord Lon
donderry at North Cray and St. James's Square,
will long be remembered by the diplomatic
corps at the English court in the time of
George IV., as reliefs along the often anxious
path of international business. He too, soon
passed away. Raised by his genius to the

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 5
Premiership, the proud dream, it may be, of his
life, he died almost immediately after ascending
that pinnacle ; the victim, in his turn, of official
labours and solicitudes too intense, superadded
to those of that stormy ocean where his sway
was great — the House of Commons. Britain
entombed him also, side by side with those of
her distinguished men whose lives were devoted
to her service, or her renown.
During the interval of two years and more,
which I have passed over, for I have omitted
almost entirely also, the first six months of
1821, much of public business passed through
my hands, and had its completion. It was
much intermingled also with social scenes, some
of which might bear to be told ; for I believe
that every American minister in England, is apt
to find the circle of English hospitality increase
around him the longer he stays ; but the half
of it, past or to come, in my case, cannot be
told, though it cannot be forgotten. I am
about to enter upon some account of further
negotiations which I conducted with the British
government on subjects, some of which still
remain unsettled, and have a deep present in
terest. It has been for the purpose of reaching
the point of time when I was first instructed to
open these negotiations, as well as to speak of
other international things passing between the

6 RESIDENCE AT TFIE 1823.
foreign secretary of England and myself, in
connexion with them, that I have passed over
the intervals mentioned; lest I should extend
to undue limits a work, which may already be
too long for the reader's patience. Mr. Can
ning continued at the head of foreign affairs
during the full remaining term of my mission.
July 29. To-day I received from Mr. Adams,
Secretary of State, five several despatches, num
bered from 64 to 68, inclusive ; each one on a
subject in regard to which I am directed to
open a negotiation with this Government.
The first bears date the 23rd of June, 1823,
and relates to the commercial intercourse be
tween the United States and all the British
Colonies in America ; England having opened
her West India trade to us by Act of Parlia
ment last year, though in a manner which has
not proved satisfactory in its practical effects.
The second is dated on the 24th of June,
and relates to the suppression of the slave
trade. The third, on the 25th of June; and relates
to the unsettled boundary line between the
United States and Great Britain, as mentioned
in the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent.
The fourth, on the 26th of June; and relates
to the admission of consuls of the United States
in the colonial ports of Great Britain.

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 7
The fifth, on the 27th of June ; and relates
to the fishery on the western coast of New
foundland. Instructions are given to me under each of
the foregoing heads, with Mr. Adams's accus
tomed ability. Documents of various kinds are
added ; and the first despatch, No. 64, enclosed
a full power to me, from the President, to
conclude and sign, on behalf of the United
States, any treaty or treaties, convention or
conventions, to which the negotiation might
give rise.
A sixth despatch, numbered 69, came at the
same time, dated on the same day with the
¦fifth, which exhibits under one view all the
foregoing subjects ; and informs me that I am
yet to receive instructions on two other sub
jects, to be included in the full negotiation
contemplated ; viz. on the Russian Ukase of
September, 1821, relating to the north-west
coast of America, and on the debateable points
of maritime law.
August 1 . I acknowledge the receipt of all
the foregoing instructions and documents, and
say to the Secretary of State, that whilst I am
sensible to the confidence which the being
charged with the discussion and settlement of
so many and such important subjects manifests
in me, I feel the heavy responsibility which it
creates.

8 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
August 16. On the 4th instant, I addressed
a note to Mr. Canning, asking an interview on
the subject of the negotiations to be proposed
to his Majesty's Government, and he appointed
Monday, the 11th, to receive me. When that
day arrived, I had not been able, through
various interruptions, to give to the whole of
my instructions the careful consideration ne
cessary to make me ready in conversation on
whatever points might happen to be touched,
even on first broaching the subjects to Mr.
Canning. I therefore asked a postponement
of the interview, and it accordingly went off
until to-day, when it was held at the Foreign
Office. I proceeded to mention to him the various
subjects in their order ; and further told him
that I was in expectation of receiving, at an
early day, instructions upon two other subjects,
that of the Russian Ukase, relative to the
north-west coast of America ; and also on cer
tain points of maritime law, which it was
deemed desirable for the two nations to discuss
and settle at the same time with all the other
questions. Of the five subjects which I first enume
rated, that of the boundary line, under the
fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, and that of
the Newfoundland Fishery, were the only ones

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 9 ,
upon which we entered into any conversation.
He spoke of them as those with which he had
been least familiar hitherto, and asked an out
line of them from me, which I gave him ; and
in the end I informed him, that I would get
ready, on my part, to go into all or any of the
subjects, whenever it would suit the conve
nience of His Majesty's Government to enter
upon them, if deciding to entertain the nego
tiation as proposed.
He replied, that the number and importance
of the subjects, added to the novelty of some
of them, to him at first blush, would render
some, interval necessary before the time and
manner of taking them all up, could be deter
mined upon ; but that I should hear from him
again, as soon as he was able to give due
reflection to the whole matter of my commu
nication. He mentioned also, that he was
thinking of a short excursion into the country
in a few days, and, perhaps, another in Sep
tember, as his share of relaxation for the
season, after his late parliamentary and other
fatigues. I put into his hands an informal
memorandum of the different subjects, and
reported to my Government what passed at
this first interview.
The proper object of it over, I transiently
asked him whether, notwithstanding the late

10 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
news from Spain, we might not still hope that
the Spaniards would get the better of their
difficulties. I here had allusion to the defec
tion of Ballasteros in Andalusia, an event seem
ing to threaten with new dangers the constitu
tional cause in Spain. His reply was general,
importing nothing more than his opinion of the
increased danger with which, undoubtedly, the
event I alluded to, was calculated to surround
the Spanish cause. Pursuing the topic I said,
that should France ultimately effect her pur
pose of overthrowing the constitutional Govern
ment in Spain, there was, at least, the conso
lation left, that Great Britain would not allow
her to go farther, and stop the progress of
emancipation in the colonies. By this remark,
I meant to recall the sentiments promulgated
in Mr. Canning's note to the British ambas
sador, at Paris, of the 31st of March ; a note
which had immediately preceded the invasion
of Spain by the French army, under the Duke
d'Angouleme. The purport of this note was,
that England considered the course of events
as having substantially decided the question of
the separation of the Colonies from Spain,
although the formal recognition of their indepen
dence by his Majesty's Government might be
hastened or retarded by -external causes, as
well as by the internal condition ofthe Colonies

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 11
themselves; and that as England disclaimed
all intention of appropriating to herself the
smallest portion of the late Spanish possessions
in America, she also felt satisfied that no
attempt would be made by France to bring
any of them under her dominion, either by
conquest, or by cession from Spain. I consi
dered this note as sufficiently distinct in its
import, that England would not remain passive
under any such attempt by France ; and, on
my intimating this sentiment, Mr. Canning
asked me what I thought my Government
would say to going hand in hand with England
in such a policy ? He did not think that con
cert of action would become necessary, fully
believing that the simple fact of our two coun
tries being known to hold the same opinions,
would, by its moral effect, put down the inten
tion on the part of France, if she entertained it.
This belief was founded, he said, upon the large
share of the maritime power of the world which
Great Britain and the United States shared
between them, and the consequent influence
which the knowledge of their common policy
on a question involving such important mari
time interests, present and future, could not
fail to produce upon the rest of the world.
I replied, that in what manner my Govern
ment would look upon such a suggestion, I

12 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
was unable to say ; it was one surrounded by
important considerations, and I would com
municate it to my Government in the same
informal manner in which he had thrown it
before me. I remarked, however, that I could
hardly do this to full advantage, unless he
would at the same time enlighten me as to
the precise situation in which England stood
in relation to those new communities, and
especially on the material point of acknowledg
ing their independence.
He replied, that Great Britain certainly
never again intended to lend her instrumen
tality or aid, whether by mediation or other
wise, towards making up the dispute between
Spain and her Colonies ; but that if this result
could still be brought about, she would not in
terfere to prevent it. Upon my here intimating
that I had supposed all idea of Spain ever re
covering her authority over the Colonies, had
gone by, he explained by saying, that he did
not mean to controvert that opinion ; for he
too believed that the day had arrived when all
America might be considered as lost to Europe,
so far as the tie of political dependence was
concerned; all that he meant was, that if
Spain and the Colonies should be able, agree
ing among themselves to bring the dispute,
which was not yet quite over, to a close upon

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 13
terms satisfactory to both sides, and which
would at the same time secure to Spain, as
the parent state, commercial advantages not
extended to other nations, that Great Britain
would not object to a compromise in this spirit
of preference to Spain. Upon my again allud
ing to the extreme improbability of the dispute
ever settling down at this late day on such a
basis, he said that it was not his intention to
gainsay that position, having expressed himself
as above rather for the purpose of indicating
the feeling which this cabinet still had towards
Spain, than of predicting results.
Wishing to be still more specifically enlight
ened, I asked if England was, at the present
time, taking any steps, or contemplating any,
which had reference to the recognition of these
new communities ; that being the point, on
which the United States would naturally feel
most interest.
He replied, that she had taken none what
ever as yet, but was on the eve of taking one
of a preparatory nature ; which, however, would
still leave her at large to recognize or not,
according to the position of events at a future
period. The measure contemplated was, to
send out one or more individuals under autho
rity from this Government, not regularly diplo
matic, but clothed with powers in the nature of

14 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
a commission of inquiry, which he described as
analogous to those exercised by our commis
sioners sent out to South America in 1817, in
the persons of Mr. Rodney, Mr. Graham, and
Mr. Bland; and that upon the result of this com
mission, much might depend as to the subse
quent course of England. I asked whether it
would comprehend all the new communities;
to which he replied that it would be confined,
for the present, to Mexico.
Reverting to his first idea, he again said, that
he hoped France would not, even should events
be favourable to her arms in the Peninsula,
extend her views to Spanish America, for the
purpose of reducing the Colonies, nominally
indeed for Spain, but in reality to subserve ends
of her own ; but that if, unhappily, she did
meditate such a course, he was satisfied that
the knowledge that the United States would
be opposed to it as well as England, could not
fail to have its decisive influence in checking it.
In this way good might be clone, and peaceful
prospects made more sure all round. As to the
form in which such knowledge might be made
to reach France and the other Powers of Eu
rope, he said, in conclusion, that he thought it
might probably be arranged in a manner that
would be free from objection.
I again told him that I would not fail to

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 15
convey his suggestions to my Government, and
impart to him whatever answer I might receive.
In the course of our conversation, I expressed
no opinion in favour of them, yet abstained
as carefully from saying anything against them ;
and on this footing the conversation ended ; all
which was promptly reported to my Govern
ment. July 20. On the death of Lord London
derry, Mr. Planta, who had long enjoyed his
confidence and esteem, continued his connexion
with the Foreign Office, as one of the Under-
Secretaries of State ; Mr. Hamilton, afterwards
British Minister at Naples ; Lord Clanwilliam,
afterwards Minister at Berlin ; and Lord Fran
cis Conyngham, having successively acted with
him as co-associates in that sphere. Under the
present date, I go back a few days in the month
in which I re-commence my too-often disjointed
narrative, for the sake of speaking of a dinner
at Mr. Planta's, recollected with pleasure, pro
bably, by others as well as myself. It was in
dining with him to-day (July 20, 1823), that we
had Count Lieven, the Russian Ambassador;
Count Martin D'Aglie, the Sardinian Envoy;
Mr. Canning, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Robinson,
Chancellor of the Exchequer,* Lord Granville,
Lord George Bentinck, Lord Francis Conyng-
* The present Earl of Ripon.

16 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
ham, Mr. Charles Ellis, of the House of Com
mons, and Lord Howard de Walden.
It would not have been easy to assemble a
company better fitted to make a dinner party
agreeable, or to have brought them together at
a better moment. Parliament having just risen,
Mr. Canning, and his two colleagues of the
cabinet, Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Robinson,
seemed like birds let out of a cage. There
was much small talk, some of it very sprightly.
Ten o'clock arriving, with little disposition to
rise from table, Mr. Canning proposed that we
should play "Twenty Questions." This was
new to me and the other members of the
diplomatic corps present, though we had all
been a good while in England. The game
consisted in endeavours to find out your
thoughts by asking twenty questions. The
questions were to be put plainly, though in the
alternative if desired ; the answers to be also
plain and direct. The object of your thoughts
not to be an abstract idea, or any thing so
occult, or scientific, or technical, as not to be
supposed to enter into the knowledge of the
company; but something well known to the
present day, or to general history. It might
be any name of renown, ancient or modern,
man or woman ; or any work or memorial of
art well known, but not a mere event, as a

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 17
battle, for instance. These were mentioned as
among the general rules of the game, serving
to denote its character. It was agreed that
Mr. Canning, assisted by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who sat next to him, should put the
questions ; and that I, assisted by Lord Gran
ville, who sat next to me, should give the
answers. Lord Granville and myself were,
consequently, to have the thought or secret in
common ; and it was well understood, that the
discovery of it, if made, was to be the fair
result of mental inference from the questions
and answers, not of signs passing, or hocus
pocus of any description. With these as the
preliminaries, and the parties sitting face to
face, on opposite sides of the table, we began
the battle.
First question (by Mr. Canning). — Does what
you have thought of belong to the animal or
vegetable kingdom ?
Answer. — To the vegetable.
Second question. — Is it manufactured, or
unmanufactured ?
Manufactured.Third. — Is it a solid or a liquid ?
A solid.
[How could it be a liquid, said one of the
company, slyly, unless vegetable soup !]
NEW SERIES.  VOL. IIT. C

18 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
Fourth. — Is it a thing entire in itself, or in
parts ?
Entire. Fifth. — Is it for private use or public ?
Public.Sixth.— Does it exist in England, or out of
it? In England.
Seventh. — Is it single, or are there others of
the same kind ?
Single.
Eighth. — Is it historical, or only existent at
present ?
Both.
Ninth. — For ornament or use ?
Both. Tenth. — Has it any connexion with the
person of the King ?
No. Eleventh. — Is it carried, or does it support
itself? The former.
Twelfth. — Does it pass by succession ?
[Neither Lord Granville nor myself being
quite certain on this point, the question was
not answered ; but, as it was thought that the
very hesitation to answer might serve to shed
light upon the secret, it was agreed that the

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 19
question should be counted as one, in the pro
gress of the game.]
Thirteenth. — Was it used at the coronation?
Yes.
Fourteenth. — In the Hall or Abbey ?
Probably in both : certainly in the Hall.
Fifteenth. — Does it belong specially to the
ceremony of the coronation, or is it used at
other times ?
It is used at other times.
Sixteenth. — Is it exclusively of a vegetable
nature, or is it not, in some parts, a compound
of a vegetable and a mineral ?
Exclusively of a vegetable nature.
Seventeenth. — What is its shape ?
[This question was objected to as too par
ticular; and the company inclining to think
so, it was withdrawn ; but Mr. Canning saying
it would be hard upon him to count it, as it
was withdrawn ; the decision was in his favour
on that point, and it was not counted.]
Seventeenth (repeated). — Is it decorated, or
simple ?
[We made a stand against this question also,
as too particular ; but the company not inclining
to sustain us this time, I had to answer it, and
said that it was simple.]
Eighteenth. Is it used in the ordinary
c 2

20

RESIDENCE AT THE 1823'

ceremonial of the House of Commons, or
House of Lords ?
No.
Nineteenth. Is it ever used by either House?
No. Twentieth. Is it generally stationary or
movable ?
Movable. The whole number of questions being now
exhausted, there was a dead pause. The in
terest had gone on increasing as the game
advanced, until, coming to the last question, it
grew to be like neck-and-neck at the close of
a race. Mr. Canning was evidently under con
cern lest he should be foiled, as by the law of
the game he would have been, if he had not
now solved the enigma. He sat silent for a
minute or two ; then, rolling his rich eye about,
and with a countenance a little anxious, and in
an accent by no means over-confident, he ex
claimed, " I think it must be the wand of the
Lord High-Steward !" And it was — even so.
This wand is a long, plain, white staff, not
much thicker than your middle finger, and, as
such, justifies all the answers given.
In answering the ninth question, Lord
Granville and I, who conferred together in a
whisper as to all answers not at once obvious,

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 21
remembered that some quaint old English
writers say that the Lord High-Steward carried
his staff to beat off intruders from his Majesty's
treasury ! When at the twelfth, Mr. Canning
illustrated the nature of his question by re
ferring to the rod of the Lord Chamberlain,
which he said did not pass by succession, each
new incumbent procuring, as he supposed, a
new one for himself, I said that it was not
the Lord Chamberlain's rod; but the very
mention of this was " burning," as children
say when they play hide-and-seek ; and in
answering that it was not, I had to take care
of my emphasis.
The questions were not put in the rapid
manner in which they will be read ; but some
times after considerable intervals, not of silence
— for they were enlivened by occasional re
marks thrown in by the company, all of whom
grew intent upon the pastime as it advanced,
though Mr. Canning alone put the questions,
and I alone gave out the answers. It lasted
upwards of an hour, the wine ceasing to go
round. On Mr. Canning's success, for it was
touch-and-go with him, there was a burst of
approbation, we of the diplomatic corps saying,
that we must be very careful not to let him ask
us too many questions at the Foreign Office,
lest he should find out every secret that we had !

22 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
The number of the questions and latitude
allowed in putting them, added to the restric
tions imposed upon the selection of the secret,
leave to the person putting them a less difficult
task than might, at first, be imagined ; and
accordingly, such of the company as had wit
nessed the pastime before, said, that the dis
covery took place, for the most part, by the time
the questions were half gone through — some
times sooner ; and that they had never known
it protracted to the twentieth until this occa
sion. It is obvious that each successive ques
tion, with its answer, goes on narrowing the
ground of defence, until at last the assailant
drives his antagonist into a corner, almost
forcing a surrender of the secret. Nevertheless,
this presupposes skill in putting the questions ;
and he who consents to take that part in the
game, must know what he can do. It was not
until twelve o'clock that we all rose from table,
and went up stairs to coffee. So it is that
these Ministers of State relax; and it was a
spectacle not without interest to see such men
as Canning, Huskisson, and Robinson, giving
themselves up to this kind of recreation as a
contrast in the first, to his anxious labours
in the whole field of foreign affairs ; in the
second, to his speeches on the sugar question,
the warehousing system, and on alterations in

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 23
the tariff ; and in the third, to his endless mass
of financial questions, during a long and toil
some session of Parliament just ended.*
Dining at the Marquis of Stafford's at a sub
sequent day, this pastime was spoken of; and
it was mentioned that Mr. Pitt and Mr. Wind
ham were both fond of it. Lord Stafford said,
that the former had once succeeded in it, when
the secret was the stone upon which Walworth,
Lord Mayor of London, stood when he struck
down Wat Tyler, in Richard the Second's
time ; and his impression was, that Mr. Pitt had
triumphed at an early stage of his questions.
* An account of this game appeared in print in 1 840.

24

RESIDENCE AT THE l82^-

CHAPTER XXII.
TWO COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. CANNING, ON SPANISH-
AMERICAN AFFAIRS.  STEPS TAKEN UNDER THEM. —
FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS ON THE PROPOSED NEGOTIA
TION.  THIRD COMMUNICATION FROM MR. CANNING, ON
SPANISH-AMERICAN AFFAIRS.
August 22. This day brought me an important
note from Mr. Canning, dated the twentieth
instant, Foreign Offrce. He informs me, that
before leaving town he is desirous of bringing
before me in a more distinct, but still in an
unofficial and confidential shape, the question
opened and shortly discussed between us on
the sixteenth instant.
He asks if the moment has not arrived when
our two Governments might understand each
other as to the Spanish- American Colonies;
and if so, whether it would not be expedient
for ourselves, and beneficial for all the world,
that our principles in regard to them should be
clearly settled and avowed. That as to Eng
land she hadno disguise on the subject.

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 25
1. She conceived the recovery of the Colo
nies by Spain, to be hopeless.
2. That the question of their recognition
as independent states, was one of time and
circumstances. 3. That England was not disposed, however,
to throw any impediment in the way of an
arrangement between the Colonies and mother
country, by amicable negotiation.
4. That she aimed at the possession of no
portion of the Colonies for herself.
5. That she could not see the transfer of any
portion of them to any other power, with indif
ference. That if the United States acceded to such
views, a declaration to that effect on their
part concurrently with England, would be the
most effectual, and least offensive mode of
making known their joint disapprobation of
contrary projects; that it would at the same
time put an end to all the jealousies of Spain,
with respect to her remaining colonies ; and to
the agitation prevailing in the Colonies them
selves, by showing that England and the
United States were determined not to profit by
encouraging it. And I am asked, in conclu
sion, whether I consider that the full power
which I had lately received from my Go
vernment, would authorize me to enter into

26 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
negotiation to sign a convention on the above
subject; and if not, if I could exchange with
him, as the organ of the British Government,
ministerial notes in relation to it.
Such was the purport of his communication.
It was framed in a spirit of great cordiality, and
expressed an opinion, that seldom perhaps at
any time among nations, had an opportunity
occurred when so small an effort of two
friendly Governments might produce so une
quivocal a good, and prevent such extensive
calamities. August 23. I replied to Mr. Canning's note
to the following effect : I said, that the Govern
ment of the United States having, in the most
formal manner, acknowledged the indepen
dence of the late Spanish provinces in America,
desired to see it maintained with stability, and
under auspices that might promise happiness
to the new states themselves, as well as ad
vantage to the rest of the world ; and that, as
conducing to those great ends, my Government
had long desired, and still anxiously desired, to
see them received into the family of nations by
the powers of Europe, and especially by Great
Britain. That in other respects, I believed the senti
ments unfolded in his note were shared by the
United States ; because, first, we considered

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 27
the recovery of the Colonies by Spain to be
entirely hopeless. 2. We would throw no im
pediment in the way of an arrangement between
them and the mother country by amicable nego^
tiation, supposing an arrangement of such a
nature to be possible. 3. We did not aim at
the possession of any of those communities for
ourselves. 4th, and last, we should regard as
highly unjust, and fruitful of disastrous conse
quences, any attempt on the part of any
European Power, to take possession of them
by conquest, by cession, or on any other ground
or pretext.
But I added, that in what manner my
Government might deem it most expedient
to avow these principles, or express its dis
approbation of the exceptionable projects
alluded to, were points on which all my
instructions were silent, as well as the power
I had lately received to enter upon nego
tiations with His Majesty's Government; but
that I would promptly make known to the
President the opinions and views of which
he had made me the depositary, and that I
was of nothing more sure than that he would
fully appreciate their importance, and not less
the frank and friendly feelings towards the
United States which their communication to
me bespoke.

28 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
I immediately transmitted to my Govern
ment a copy of the foregoing correspondence
in the following despatch to the Secretary of
State; preparing it in quadruplicate, with a
request to the Consul at Liverpool to send
them off by the earliest ships for New York,
or other ports of the United States.
" London, August 23, 1823.
" Sir, — I yesterday received from Mr. Can
ning, a note headed ' private and confidential,'
setting before me in a more distinct form, the
proposition respecting South American affairs
which he communicated to me in conversation
on the 16th instant, as already reported in my
despatch, number 323. I lose no time in trans
mitting a copy of his note, as well as a copy of
my answer, written and sent to-day.
" In framing the answer on my own judg
ment alone, I feel that I have had a task of
some embarrassment, and shall be happy if it
receive the President's approbation.
" I believe that this Government has the
subject of Mr. Canning's proposition much at
heart, and certainly his note bears upon the
face of it a character of earnestness, as well
as cordiality, towards the Government of the
United States, which cannot escape notice.
" I have therefore thought it proper to meet

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 29
this spirit, as far as I could consistently with
other and paramount considerations.
" These I conceived to be chiefly twofold :
first, the danger of pledging my Government
to any measure of foreign policy which might,
in any degree, now or hereafter, implicate it
in the federative system of Europe ; and
secondly, I have felt myself alike without
warrant to take a step which might prove
exceptionable in the eyes of France, with
whom our pacific and friendly relations remain,
I presume, undisturbed, whatever may be our
speculative abhorrence of her attack upon the
right of self-government in Spain.
" In framing my answer, I had also to consider
what was due to Spain herself ; and I hope
that I have not overlooked what was due to
the Colonies.
"The whole subject is novel, and open to
views on which I have deliberated anxiously.
If my answer shall be thought, on the whole,
to bear properly on all the public considerations
which belong most materially to the occasion,
it will be a source of great satisfaction to me.
" The tone of earnestness in Mr. Canning's
note, naturally starts the inference that the
British Cabinet cannot be without its serious
apprehensions, that ambitious enterprises are
meditated against the Independence of the

30 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
new Spanish- American States, whether by
France alone, or in conjunction with the con
tinental powers, I cannot now say on any
authentic grounds.
I have the honour to remain, with very great
respect, your obedient Servant, Richard Rush.
The Honourable John Quincy Adams,
Secretary of State.
August 26. To-day brings me a second
confidential communication from Mr. Canning,
of the following tenor, dated Liverpool, the
23d instant. He says, that since he wrote to
me on the 20th, an additional motive had
occurred for wishing that we might come to
some understanding, promptly, on the Spanish
American question, and be at liberty to announce
it to the world. The motive was, that/England
Tiad received notice, though not such as im
posed the necessity of instant action, that, as
soon as the military objects in Spain were
achieved, which France expected (how justly,
he could not determine) to achieve very speedily,
a proposal would be made for a congress in
Europe, or some other concert and consultation,
specifically on the affairs of Spanish America ;
and he adds, that he need not point out to me
the complications to which such a proposal,
however dealt with by England, might lead.

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 31
August 27. I reply to Mr. Canning's second
communication by saying, that, in my note to
him of the 23d, (not received when his second
was written,) two principal ideas had place.
1. That the United States desired to see the
Independence of the late Spanish Provinces in
America, permanently maintained.
2. That they would view as unjust and im
proper, any attempt on the part of the Powers
of Europe to intrench upon that Independence.
And, in my note of to-day, I said, that my
Government, I was sure, would regard as alike
objectionable, any interference whatever in the
affairs of Spanish America, unsolicited by the
late Provinces themselves, and against their
will ; that it would regard the convening of a
Congress to deliberate upon their affairs, as a
measure uncalled for, and indicative of a policy
highly unfriendly to the tranquillity of the
world ; that it could never look with insen
sibility upon such an exercise of European
jurisdiction over communities now of right
exempt from it, and entitled to regulate their
own concerns unmolested from abroad. I fur
ther said, that if he supposed any of these
sentiments, or those expressed in my first note,
might be moulded by me into a form promising
to accomplish the object he proposed, I would
be happy to receive and take into consideration

32 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
whatever suggestions he would favour me with
to that end, either in writing, or in the full and
unreserved intercourse of conversation, when
he returned to town. Lastly, I said that, could
England see fit to consider the time as now
arrived for fully acknowledging the Indepen
dence of the new communities, I believed, that
not only would it accelerate the steps of my
Government, but that it would naturally place
me in a new position in my further course with
him on the whole subject.
I immediately transmitted copies of these
notes to my Government, in the following
despatch to the Secretary of State, to go with
like promptitude as the former. "London, August 28, 1823.
"Sir, — Since my last despatch, I have re
ceived a second confidential note from Mr. Can
ning, dated at Liverpool, the twenty-third
instant, a copy of which,' and of my answer
dated yesterday, are enclosed. The subject of
our correspondence being, as it appears to me,
of deep interest, I think proper to apprize you
of it from step to step, without waiting for the
further developments to which it may lead.
" Mr. Canning having now distinctly informed
me that he has received notice of measures
being in projection by the Powers of Europe,

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 33
relative to the affairs of Spanish America, as
soon as the French succeed in their military
movements against Spain, which it would seem
from Mr. Canning's note they expect to do
soon, I cannot avoid seeing the subject under
the complications to which he alludes.
" My first object will be, to urge upon this
Government the expediency of an immediate
and unreserved recognition of the independ
ence of the Spanish-American States.
" It will be seen by my note of yesterday to
Mr. Canning, that I have made a beginning in
this work; and should the opportunity be
afforded me, it is my intention to follow it up
zealously. " Should I be asked by Mr. Canning, whether,
in case the recognition be made by Great Bri
tain without more delay, I am, on my part,
prepared to make a declaration in the name of
my Government, that it will not remain inac
tive under an attack upon the independence of
those States by the Holy Alliance, the present
determination of my judgment is, that I will
make such a declaration explicitly, and avow it
before the world.
" I am not unaware of the responsibility
which I should, by such a measure, assume
upon myself; but my reasons would be these : —
" 1. I may thereby aid in achieving an im-
NEW SERIES.  VOL. III. D

34 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
mediate and positive good to those rising States
in our hemisphere ; for such I should conceive
their recognition by Great Britain at this junc
ture to be.
" 2. Such recognition, co-operating with the
declaration which this Government has already
in effect made, that it will not remain passive
if Spanish America is attacked, and followed
up by a similar declaration, from me, that
neither will the United States, would prove at
least a probable means of warding off the
attack. The Foreign Secretary of England, it
appears, is under a strong belief that it would;
and this without the recognition by England
being, as yet, a part of his case.
" 3. Should the issue of things be different,
and events, notwithstanding, arise, threatening
the peace of the United States, or otherwise
seriously to affect their interests in any way, in
consequence of such a declaration by me, it
would still remain for the wisdom of my
Government to disavow my conduct, as it would
manifestly have been without its previous war
rant. I would take to myself all the reproach,
consoled under the desire that had animated
me to render benefits of great magnitude to
the cause of Spanish American independence,
at a point of time, which, if lost, was not to be
recalled.

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 35
" 4. My conduct might be disavowed in any
issue of the transaction, and I should still not
be without hope that the President would see
in it proofs of good intention, mixed with zeal
for the advancement of political interests, not
indifferent, ultimately, to the welfare of the
United States themselves.
" The result of my reasoning, in a Word,
then, is, that I find myself placed suddenly in
a situation in which, by deciding and acting
promptly, I may do much public good ; whilst
public mischief may be arrested by the con
trolling hand of my Government, should my
conduct be likely to draw down any mischief.
"I conclude with the usual assurances of
great respect with which I have the honour
to be your obedient servant, " Richard Rush.
" The Honourable John Quincy Adams,
Secretary of State."
August 30. I have received, and this day
acknowledge, the Secretary of State's despatch,
number 70, of the 2d of July, relative to the
North-west coast of America ; his number 71,
of the 28th of July, relative to maritime ques
tions, and principles of maritime and com
mercial neutrality ; and his number 72, of the
29th of July, embracing some general re-
d 2

36 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
flecti ons upon the extent and importance of
the whole negotiation committed to my hands.
I remark, that having now before me all his
instructions, I am fully sensible of the magni
tude of the subjects to be treated of; "of the
complicated character" — here using some of
the Secretary's own words — " of the consider
ations involved in most of them, and of their
momentous bearings, in present and future ages,
upon the interests, the welfare, and the honour
of the United States." I add the expression
anew of the deep sense which I entertain of
the President's confidence in committing to my
hands negotiations so extensive.
The Secretary, in his number 72, also men
tions, that Mr. Stratford Canning, at the period
of its date, was at New York, on the eve of
his return to England; and that whilst exer
cising his mission in Washington, he had shown
in all his official relations with our government
a " very high sense of honour, and connected
with it a quality inestimable in a statesman — a
conscious sense of moral obligation ;" and that
his conduct during his residence had " been in
all the social relations, exemplary." I am re
quested to mention these sentiments to this
Government. September 1. In writing to the Secretary of
State on the importance of the contemplated

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 37
negotiations, and of the labour of investigation
as well as extent of responsibility which it will
devolve upon me, I express a wish that the
President would be pleased to assign me a
colleague. I add, that to associate a colleague
with me, would conform to the past practice of
our Government, which had always been, on
occasions of difficult and complicated nego
tiations, to employ more than one negotiator ;
more especially, when the European Power
employed more than one.
September 7. I receive another communi
cation from Mr. Canning, dated Storrs, West
moreland, the 31st of August. He acknow
ledges the receipt of both my letters in answer
to both of his, and says, that whatever may
be the practical result of the correspondence
between us, it is very satisfactory to him to
find that the spirit in which it began on his
part, had been met so cordially on my part.
He goes on to say, in effect, that but for
my want of specific powers to go forward in
the proposition he made, he would have taken
measures to give it operation on the part of
England ; but that, through the delay which
must intervene before I could receive new powers
from home, events might get before us; and
that therefore he could not justify it to his
duty to. his own Government, and to all the

38 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
other considerations belonging to the subject,
to pledge England to wait for such a con
tingency — for which he assigns his reasons
with frankness. He concludes by saying, that
if I should see enough hope of good in his
proposition to warrant me in asking powers
and instructions in relation to it, in addition
to all the other heads on which I had recently
been empowered and instructed, I must then
consider it not as a proposition already made,
but as evidence of the nature of one which
it would have been his desire to make, had
he found me provided with authority to en
tertain it ; this view of the subject now
becoming necessary, that England may remain
untrammelled in the meantime.
I transmitted this last communication to my
Government on the day following, saying to
the Secretary of State, that although it
appeared from it, that Mr. Canning was not
prepared to pledge this Government to an
immediate recognition of the Independence
of the new States, I should, nevertheless,
renew a proposition to that effect when we
met; but that should he continue to draw
back from it, I should decline acting upon
the overtures contained in his first note, not
feeling at liberty to accede to them in the
name of the United States, but upon the

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 39
basis of an equivalent; and that, as I viewed
the subject, this equivalent could be nothing
less than the immediate and full acknowledg
ment of those states, or some of them, by
Great Britain.
September 10. Take steps to apprise the
deputies of Spanish America in London, of
the hostile views of France and the conti
nental Powers, should the arms of the former
succeed in Spain. I make no mention of
Mr. Canning's name, or any allusion to it, as
the source of my information, which informa
tion, although it may not be new to these
deputies, I impart to put them still more
on their guard.
September 12. Take further steps to warn
the deputies of the plans of France and the
allies, withholding altogether, as before, the
source of my information, but letting it be
understood that the information is not to be
slighted. September 15. Write to President Monroe,
and in continuation of the Spanish American
subject say, that Mr. Canning being still out
of town, I was giving myself up to investi
gations which might the better prepare me
for taking in hand the various subjects which
his confidence had devolved upon me, to
discuss and arrange with this Government ;

40 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
that on Mr. Canning's return, I should expect
to be invited to an interview7, and doubted
not but that the whole topic of Spanish
American affairs would be resumed between
us. That it was still my intention to urge
upon him the immediate recognition of the
new States by Great Britain, as the only
footing upon which I could feel warranted
in acceding to the proposal he had made
to me ; that otherwise our two countries would
not stand upon equal ground in going into
the measure proposed, we having already
acknowledged the new States, but that I
would continue to receive, in the most con
ciliatory manner, new overtures from him,
should he meditate any new ones ; for that
my most careful observation in England
during my residence, had impressed me with
the belief, that the present administration,
with Lord Liverpool still at its head, was as
favourably disposed towards us as any that
could be formed.

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 41

CHAPTER XXIII.
FULL INTERVIEW WITH MR. CANNING, ON SPANISH-AMERI
CAN AFFAIRS, AND REPORT OF WHAT PASSED.'  FURTHER
INTERVIEW ON THE SAME SUBJECT; AND ON THAT OF
THE NEGOTIATION, TO THE OPENING OF WHICH ENG
LAND ACCEDES.  MR. HUSKISSON AND MR. STRATFORD
CANNING, TO BE THE BRITISH NEGOTIATORS.  RENEWED
INTERVIEW WITH MR. CANNING, ON THE AFFAIRS OF
SPANISH AMERICA, AND REPORT OF WHAT PASSED.
September 18. Had a full conference with
Mr. Canning, at the Foreign Office, in which
the subject of Spanish-American affairs was
resumed, and the discussion of it gone into at
large. September 19. I reported in the following
despatch to the Secretary of State, all that
passed in my interview with Mr. Canning, yes
terday ; relying only upon the substantial fide
lity of the report, as it must needs fall short of
what is due to Mr. Canning in language, though
I endeavoured to recall his own words, as far
as I coulid.

42 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
No. 331. " London, September 19, 1823.
" Sir, — Mr. Canning returned to town about
a week ago, and I had an interview with him
at the Foreign Office, yesterday, at his request.
" He entered at once upon the subject of
Spanish America, remarking, that he thought
it claimed precedence over all others between
us, at the present juncture. Military events
in the Peninsula seemed every day to be draw
ing nearer to a crisis in favour of the French
arms, and the political arrangements projected
afterwards, would, there was good reason to
suppose, be immediately directed to the affairs
of the late Colonies. He would therefore not
give up the hope, notwithstanding the footing
upon which this subject appeared to be placed
at the close of our recent correspondence, that
I might yet see my way towards a substantial
acquiescence in his proposals. They were
hourly assuming new importance and urgency,
under aspects to which neither of our Govern
ments could be insensible.
" Having perceived, since we had been last
together, the publication in the newspapers of
the correspondence of a portion of the mer
chants of London, and the Foreign Office,
respecting the appointment of consuls, or com
mercial agents, for the Spanish- American States,
I asked Mr. Canning whether I was to infer that

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 43
this Government was about to adopt such a
measure ; to which he replied in the affirmative,
saying that commercial agents would .certainly
be soon appointed, and sent out to the proper
ports in those new communities.
" As to the proposals he had submitted to
me, I said, that I was sure he would himself
appreciate the delicacy and novelty of the
ground upon which I stood. The United States,
it was true, would view any attempt on the part
of France, and the continental Alliance, to re-
subjugate those new States, as a transcendent
act of national injustice, and indicative of pro
gressive and alarming ambition ; yet, to join
Great Britain in a declaration to this effect,
might lay them open in some respects to con
sequences, upon the character and extent of
which it became my duty to reflect, with great
caution, before making up my mind to meet the
responsibilities of them. The value of my
declaration, it was agreed, would depend upon
its being formally made known to Europe.
Would not such a step wear the appearance of
the United States implicating themselves in the
political connexions of Europe ? Would it not
be acceding, in this instance, at least, to the
policy of one of the Great European Powers,
in opposition to the projects avowed by others
of the first rank ? This, hitherto, had been

44 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
no part of the system of the United States ; the
very reverse of it had been acted upon. Their
foreign policy had been essentially bottomed
on the great maxim of preserving peace and
harmony with all nations, without offending
any, or forming entangling alliances with any.
Upon the institutions, as upon the dissensions,
of the European Powers, the Government and
people of the United States might form, and
even express, their speculative opinions ; but it
had been no part of their past conduct to inter
fere with the one, or, being unmolested them
selves, to become parties to the other. In this
broad principle, laid one of my difficulties under
his proposals.
" He replied, that however just such a policy
might have been formerly, or might continue
to be as a general policy, he apprehended that
powerful and controlling circumstances made it
inapplicable upon the present occasion. The
question was a new and complicated one in
modern affairs. It was also full as much Ame
rican as European, to say no more. It con
cerned the United States under aspects and
interests as immediate and commanding, as it
did or could any of the States of Europe.
They were the first Power established on that
continent, and now confessedly the leading
Power. They were connected with Spanish

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 45
America by their position, as with Europe by
their relations ; and they also stood connected
with these new States by political relations.
Was it possible that they could see with indif
ference their fate decided upon by Europe ?
Could Europe expect this indifference ? Had
not a new epoch arrived in the relative position
¦of the United States towards Europe, which
Europe must acknowledge ? Were the great
political and commercial interests which hung
upon the destinies of the new continent, to
be canvassed and adjusted in this hemisphere,
without the co-operation or even knowledge of
the United States ? Were they to be canvassed
and adjusted, he would even add, without some
proper understanding between the United
States and Great Britain, as the two chief
commercial and maritime States of both worlds ?
He hoped not, he would wish to persuade him
self not. Such was the tenor of his remarks.
" I said that his suggestions were entitled to
great consideration, and that such, and others
of the same nature, would probably not escape
the attention of my Government, as they had
not him. There might, I was aware, be room
for thinking that the late formation of these
new states in our hemisphere would impose
new political duties upon the United States,
not merely as coupled with the great cause of

46 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
national freedom, but as closely connected also
with their own present and future interests,
and even the very existence, finally, of their
own institutions. That for myself, speaking
only as an individual, I could well conceive
that the interposition of an authoritative voice
by the United States in favour of these new
communities, admitting that the powers of
Europe usurped a claim to control their des
tinies, would imply no real departure from the
principles which had hitherto regulated their
foreign intercourse, or pledge them henceforth
to the political connexions of the old world.
If, too, that voice happened to be in unison
with the voice of Great Britain, I admitted
that it might prove but the more auspicious to
the common object which both nations had in
view, without committing either to any syste
matic or ulterior concert ; but, I added, that
as the question of the United States expressing
this voice, and promulgating it under official
authority to the powers of Europe, was one of
entire novelty as well as great magnitude in
their history, it was for my Government and
not me to decide upon its propriety. Con
comitant duties and consequences of a mo
mentous nature might be bound up in such a
step. I was willing to take upon myself all fair
responsibility attaching to the station which I

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 47
held; but here was a conjuncture wholly new.
It presented a case not seeming to fall within
the range of any of the contingent or discre
tionary duties which could have been in contem
plation when I was clothed with my commission
as minister to this court. For meeting a case
thus extraordinary, if I could do so at all, I
ought to have some justification beyond any
that had yet been laid before me. Such was
my opinion ; such the conclusion to which I
had been forced to come on full deliberation.
" He said, that the case being new might serve
to account for my not being in possession of
previous or specific powers bearing upon it,
but that its very nature precluded delay. He
had the strongest reasons for believing that
the co-operation of the United States with
England, through my instrumentality, afforded
with promptitude, would ward off altogether
the meditated jurisdiction of the European
powers over the new world. Could higher
motives exist to co-operation, and immediately ?
Let it be delayed until I could receive specific
powers, and the day might go by ; the progress
of events was rapid; the public evil might
happen. A portion 'of it might, and probably
would, be consummated; and even admitting
that Great Britain could, by herself, afterwards
arrest it, as he believed she could, preventive

48 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
measures among nations were always pre
ferable, whether on the score of humanity or
policy, to those that were remedial. Why then
should the United States, whose institutions
resembled those of Great Britain more than
they did those of the other powers in Europe,
and whose policy upon this occasion was closely
approximated to hers, hesitate to act with her
to promote a common object approved alike by
both, and achieve a common good estimated
alike by both ? Such was the drift of his
remarks, which he amplified and enforced with
his wonted ability. He finished by saying,
that his station and duties, as the organ of
this Government, would oblige him to call
upon me in another way, if I continued to feel
unable to assent to his past proposals ; " for,"
said he, "if a congress be, in fact, assembled
on the affairs of Spanish America, I shall ask
that you, as the representative of the United
States at this Court, be invited to attend it;
and if you should not be invited, I shall re
serve to myself the option of determining
whether or not Great Britain will send a
representative to it." After a moment's pause,
he added, " Should you be invited, and refuse
to go, I shall still reserve to myself the same
option ; so you see how essential it is, in the
opinion of Great Britain, that the United

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 49
States should not be left out of view, if Europe
should determine to take cognizance of the
subject." Words so remarkable could not fail
to make a distinct impression upon me, and I
give them as they fell from him, as nearly as I
can. " The complication of the subject," said I,
" may be cured at once, and by Great Britain.
Let Great Britain immediately and unequivo
cally acknowledge the independence ofthe new
States. This will put an end to all difficulty ;
the moment is auspicious ; every thing invites
to the measure ; justice, expediency, humanity,
the repose of the world, the cause of national
independence, the prosperity and happiness of
both hemispheres; let Britain but adopt this
measure, so just in itself, so recommended by
the point of time before us, and the cause of
all Spanish America triumphs ; the European
Congress might meet afterwards, if it chose to
take so harmless a step."
He said, that such a measure was open to
objection ; but asked if he was to understand
that it would make any difference in my powers
or conduct ?
I replied, the greatest difference. I had
frankly informed him that I had no powers to
consent to his proposals in the shape in which
they had first been presented to me in his
SECOND SERIES. — II. E

50 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
note, and I would as frankly say, that I had no
specific powers to consent to them, coupled
with the fact of this Government acknowledging
the independence of the new States ; but that
great step being taken, I would stand upon
my general powers as Minister Plenipotentiary.
Into these, other nations would have no claim
to look. I would be the interpreter of them
myself. I had no hesitation in saying, that,
under this general warrant, I would put forth,
with Great Britain, the declaration to which
he had invited me ; that I would do so in the
name of my Government, and consent to its
formal promulgation to the world under all the
sanctions, and with all the present validity, that
I could impart to it. I had examined all my in
structions for years past, bearing, either directly
or remotely, on the great cause of these new
States ; I saw in them all so steady and strong
a desire for the firm establishment of their
freedom and independence ; I saw too, some
times in their letter, and always in their spirit,
so concurrent a desire to see their indepen
dence acknowledged by Great Britain, as I
had often made known to Lord Castlereagh,
that I would not scruple, on seeing that im
portant event come about, to lend my official
name to the course proposed, and count upon
my Government stamping with its subsequent

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 51,
approval the part which I had acted. No
other authority would be likely in the mean time
to draw into question what I did; and if I
could thus be instrumental in any degree to
wards accelerating the acknowledgment of
Spanish- American independence, I should feel
that I had achieved a positive and great good.
Upon British recognition hung, not indeed the
final, but perhaps in an eminent degree the
present tranquillity and happiness of those
States. Their final safety was not, as I be
lieved, at the mercy of European dictation ;
but we could not disguise from ourselves, that
it might prolong their sufferings, and cast fresh
clouds over their prospects. It was in this
manner that I expressed myself; imparting to
him with entire candour, my feelings and deter
minations ; as well as the precise ground upon
which the step I was called upon to take,
ought to rest, and would place me.
He said that among the objections to recog
nizing, at present, was still that of the uncertain
condition, internally, of these new States ; or
at any rate of some of them. He had, for
example, sent an agent in January last to
Mexico, supposing that Iturbide was at ' the
head of affairs ; but by the time he had arrived,
a fresh revolution had set up other representa
tives of the executive authority. The same
e2

52 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
internal vicissitudes were, to be remarked in
other of these communities, more to the South.
Another objection he said was started by
the circumstances of the Colombian loan,
which had created uneasiness in portions of
the stock-market of London for a twelve
month past. It was true, that, as this subject
actually stood, the British Government owed
no obligation to those British subjects who
had embarked their money in an adventure,
of the safety of which they had themselves
chosen to be the judges. But suppose the re
cognition to have been made by Great Britain
some time ago, as was wished, and the loan to
have followed, would not the duty of counte
nance and protection have attached, and might
not this serve to pourtray the hazards of coming
too hastily into political relations with new and
distant States, whose credit, or whose resources,
in their transactions with the subjects of other
nations did not as yet appear to rest on any
stable or adequate foundation ?
As regarded the latter topic I replied, that
it was beyond my competence to disentangle
all its details. All that I could say was, that
the Government of Colombia, as far as I was
informed, had fallen into no departure from
good faith in the transaction, and it yet re
mained to be known, whether that Government

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 53
would not, in the end, give satisfaction to all
the parties concerned. But, far from an ob
stacle to recognition, it appeared to me that
the incident in question fairly led to opposite
conclusions ; for, if Colombia, at the period of
contracting the loan, had been admitted to
regular relations with this Government, it is
to be presumed that the powers of her diplo
matic agents would have been open to other
examinations than they appear to have received,
and the whole transaction thus have been freed
from the subsequent embarrassments which
surrounded it.
As to internal vicissitudes I remarked, that
the dilemma thence arising, was not greater
than had been witnessed in France during a
period of more than twenty years, while her
revolution was in progress ; than had been seen
in Naples more recently, or than was experi
enced, at the present time, by Great Britain in
her diplomatic intercourse with both Portugal
and Spain. Had we not seen revolutions and
counter-revolutions, royal governments, consti
tutional governments, and regency governments,
succeeding each other, almost day by day, in
the oldest countries of Europe ? Why then be
surprised at changes in the new world ? These
very changes would be likely to be largely, if
not entirely, checked, by the fact of the new

54 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
States being recognized by Britain. It would
tend to give stability to their institutions ; and,
by breaking down the hopes ofthe discontented
and factious among themselves, become gua
rantees for their greater internal tranquillity.
They had given ample proofs both of military
power and political wisdom. Look at Buenos
Ayres, which as long back as 1807, could repulse
the well appointed legions of even Britain her
self. Look at Colombia, who was now laying
the groundwork of a confederacy for all Spanish
America, and at the same time marching her
auxiliary forces into Peru, to uphold the cause
of emancipation upon that shore. Everything
attested the stability of that cause. Spain might
go on with her languid efforts, and protract
the miseries of war; but over Spanish- Ame
rican independence, she had no longer any
control. Europe had no control over it. It
was a question for ever settled. It would soon
be seen by Britain that the United States, in
their proposals for adjusting with Russia, and
with Britain, the respective pretensions of the
three Powers on the coast of the Pacific, were
forced to take for granted the independence of
all the late colonies of Spain on that continent,
as the inevitable basis of all just and practical
negotiation. Their independence was, in fine,
the new political element of modern times, and

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 55
must henceforth pervade the political arrange
ments of both worlds. Why then should Britain
longer forbear to acknowledge this independ
ence ? She had already done so in effect, and
why should she not in form ? She had already,
by her solemn statutes, made her trade with
those new States lawful ; she had stood ready
to support it with her squadrons ; she was on
the eve of sending out commercial agents to
reside in some or all of them, as the guardians
of British interests — all this she had done and
more. She had declared in her state papers,
that the question of their independence was
substantially decided, though the formal re
cognition of it might be retarded, or hastened,
by external circumstances. What external cir
cumstances could be imagined more imperious
for hastening this formal recognition, than those
now existing ; when Spain was seen to be wholly
incapacitated from regaining dominion over
them, and continental Europe meditating such
unwarrantable designs upon them ?
" It was thus that I endeavoured to unfold
what I suppose to be the views and convictions
of the President upon this important subject.
Our conversation was a prolonged one, and
characterized by the freedom with which I have
reported it ; in doing which I have sedulously
aimed at faithfully presenting all its material

56 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
points. I do not flatter myself with any san
guine belief that this Government will be pre
pared to yield to my appeals in favour of imme
diate recognition ; but I am to have another
interview with Mr. Canning on a day that he is
yet to name, and I can only say that I will be
prepared to renew and extend them as oppor
tunities may be afforded me.
" Not knowing what other topics might rise
up during our interview, I had carried several
of my papers with me, and amongst them a copy
of your despatch, No. 71. I was glad that I
did so ; for, thinking that the sentiments which
it so forcibly expresses on the value of the exist
ing and prospective concord between our two
countries would be acceptable ; I did not scru
ple, in unison with the spirit of our conversation,
to read to him, before we separated, its in
troductory pages. He was struck with their
applicability, and I hope that so opportune an
exhibition to him of such sentiments recently
coming to me from the high source of my
Government, may not be without its value.
" Should a Congress be assembled to crush
Spanish-American independence, and I receive
an invitation to attend it, I shall not go ; though
the time for me to say so here, will not arrive
until the invitation comes. First, I should have
no warrant from the President to attend it ; and

1823, COURT OF LONDON. 57
next, I infer from what Mr. Canning said on this
point, that England may, perhaps, not incline
to send a representative to it, should the United
States have none. I should in this manner do
more good by my absence, than my presence
could effect. Mr. Canning, as it appeared, was
not entirely aware, until yesterday, that I was
prepared to come fully into his views, if this
Government would immediately acknowledge
the new States. I had intended that the con
cluding sentence of my note to him of the 27th
of August, already transmitted to you, should
start the idea to his mind ; though I abstained
from putting it forth more openly at that period
of our correspondence.
" I have the honour to remain, with very great
respect, your obedient Servant, " Richard Rush.
" The Honourable John Quincy Adams,
Secretary of State."
September 26. Had another interview with
Mr. Canning at Gloucester Lodge, at his re
quest. The subject of our discussions on the
18th instant, was renewed. He informed me
of a despatch he had received from Sir Charles
Stuart, British Ambassador at Paris, which had
a bearing upon them. It mentioned a conver
sation he had held with Mr. Sheldon, Charge
d' Affaires of the United States at Paris, the

58 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
purport of which was, that Sir Charles having
mentioned to Mr. Sheldon the projects of France
and the Continental Alliance, against Spanish
America, the latter replied, that the Govern
ment of the United States was aware of them,
and disapproved of them. Mr. Canning, infer
ring that this reply of our Charge d' Affaires in
Paris, probably rested upon some new instruc
tions to him from Washington, also inferred,
that, if so, it might probably lend its aid to
wards my consent to his proposals to me of the
20th of August. He was the rather induced to
give way to this hope, he said, as the despatch
of Sir Charles Stuart was written altogether on
his own motion, without any previous commu
nication received from him, Mr. Canning, upon
the subject.
I replied that I could not undertake to say,
with any confidence, what instructions might
have been sent to the United States Legation
at Paris on this subject ; but that I scarcely be
lieved that any could have reached it, not com
mon to me; and that I was still without any,
beyond the general instructions I had unfolded
to him in our interview on the 18th; but that
upon their basis, I was still willing to go forward
with him in his proposals, upon the terms I had
made known.
He now declared that England felt great em-

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 59
barrassment as regarded the immediate recog
nition of these new States; embarrassments
which, he admitted, had not existed in the case
of the United States when they adopted the
measure of acknowledging them; and then he
asked, whether I could not give my assent to
his proposals on a promise by England oi future
acknowledgment. I replied, that under the peculiar importance
of the whole subject, and considering the rela
tion in which I stood to it, I could not feel at
liberty to take the step upon any other footing
than that of immediate acknowledgment by
England. Further conversation passed, though
only of a desultory nature, and the interview
ended. In reporting to my government what passed
at it, I remarked, that although Mr. Canning
naturally sought ends for England in his pro
posals to me, yet as they were at the same time
auspicious to Spanish-American independence,
and went hand-in-hand with our policy, I could
not do otherwise than approve of them ; and
would therefore continue my willingness to give
them effect, if he would come to the ground
I had proposed to him as an equivalent; a
ground, however, which it would seem, from
what last passed between us, he will not be
willing to accede to at present.

6Q RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
October 8. Had an interview with Mr. Can
ning at the Foreign Office at his request, on
the business of the general negotiation.
From the memorandum which I had left
with him on the 16th of August, he proceeded
to read over in their order the subjects pro
posed to be brought into the negotiation, and
after making a few remarks upon each, he pro
fessed it to be his desire to take them all up,
except, perhaps, the subject of maritime rights.
Questions under this head, it was rather the
present desire of his Majesty's Government to
leave untouched, though he did not mean as
yet to give a decided opinion to that effect.
For conducting the negotiation on the side
of Great Britain, he informed me, that Mr.
Huskisson, and Mr. Stratford Canning, would
be appointed, the latter having got back to
England from his mission to Washington ; and
that all the subjects would be committed to
their hands, except that of the slave-trade.
This, he intimated it to be his wish to take in
hand himself, and thus keep it detached from
the general negotiation. I replied, that I
understood it to be rather the desire of my
own Government that all the subjects should,
if possible, be discussed and settled together ;
but as he continued to intimate a wish to
separate this one subject from the rest, I did'

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 61
not deem it expedient or proper to object, as
the result, if we accomplished any thing, would
be substantially the same.
He then said that the negotiation might
commence the latter end of next month, if
I would be ready by that time ; remarking,
that the great variety of the subjects to be
considered, added to other calls upon his own
time as well as Mr. Huskisson's, prevented the
assignment of an earlier day for its commence
ment. I replied, that I would be ready on my
part at that time, though would prefer wait
ing for a colleague, if I had any certainty that
my Government wquld send one out to me.
He said he would willingly wait for that object,
if I wished it.
When we spoke of taking up the question of
the slave-trade, I thought it best to intimate at
this early stage, that unless this Government
was prepared to say, that it would cause an act
of Parliament to pass, declaring the trade by
British subjects to be piracy, and rendering it
punishable as such, in manner as had been
done by an act of Congress of the United
States, I was not authorized to enter into any
negotiation upon the subject. He said in
reply, that he was glad to think, speaking from
his iirst impressions, that there would be no
insurmountable obstacle on that score.

62 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
Nothing passed between us on this occasion
on the topic of Spanish-American affairs, be
yond the information which he gave me of his
intention to send off consuls to the new States
very soon ; perhaps in the course of the month.
I asked him whether consuls, or commercial
agents ? He said, that they might as well be
called by the former name perhaps, as they
would be charged with the duties, and invested
with the powers, belonging to the consular
office. I asked whether they would be received
in that capacity by governments, between which
and Great Britain no political or diplomatic
relations yet existed ? He replied, that he
could not speak with absolute certainty, but
his anticipitations were that they would be
received. The foregoing information was forthwith
transmitted to my Government.
November 25. Had a full and final interview
yesterday with Mr. Canning at the Foreign
Office, on the affairs of Spanish America.
November 26. Report what passed, in the
following despatch to the Secretary of State.
" London, November 26, 1823.
" Sir, — I had an interview with Mr. Canning
on the 24th instant at the Foreign Office,
when he afforded me important information on

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 63
Spanish-American affairs, which I now proceed
to lay before you.
" He began by saying, that our conversation
on this subject at Gloucester Lodge, on the
26th of September, having led him to conclude
that nothing could be accomplished between
us, owing to the ground which I had felt it
necessary to take respecting the immediate
recognition of the late Colonies by Great
Britain, he had deemed it indispensable, as no
more time was to be lost, that Great Britain
should herself, without any concert with the
United States, come to an explanation with
France. He had, accordingly, seen the Prince
de Polignac, (French ambassador in London),
and stated to him that, as it was fit that the
two Courts should understand each other dis
tinctly, on the Spanish-American question, it
was his intention to unfold the views of
Great Britain in an official note to him, the
Prince; or to Sir Charles Stuart, the British
ambassador at Paris, to be communicated to
the French Court ; or in the form of an oral
conference with the Prince himself, whichever
of these modes the latter might indicate as
preferable. The Prince, after taking some
time to decide, finally agreed to adopt the
mode of oral conference, with the precaution
of making a minute of the conversation, so that

64 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
each government might have in its possession
a record of what passed.
" In pursuance of this course, Mr. Canning
held several conferences with Prince Polignac
in the early part of October, in which each
party unfolded the views of their respective
governments, and agreed upon the written
memorandum or paper which was to embody
them. " This paper, Mr. Canning said, was of a
nature which did not leave him at liberty to
offer me a copy of it ; but he had invited me
to the Foreign Office for the purpose of reading
it to me, having only since his return from the
country last week, exhibited it to the Ministers
of the other Powers, and not yet to all of
them. " He accordingly read the paper to me.
When he had closed I said to him, that its
whole matter was so interwoven with our past
discussions, written and verbal, on the whole
subject, that I could not avoid thinking that
my Government would naturally expect a copy,
as the regular termination of a subject, the
previous stages of which it had been my special
duty to make known to my Government. To
this remark he replied, that he would willingly
furnish me with a copy of that part which
.embodied the views of England ; but that

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 65
where those of France were at stake, he did
not feel that he had the same discretion.*
" I am therefore relieved from the task of
recapitulating to you the contents of that por
tion of this paper, of which I may expect to
receive a copy. The points which chiefly
arrested my attention as new to me, and to
which I will advert without waiting for the
paper itself, were, first, that England declares
that she will recognise the Independence of
the Colonies, in case France should employ
force in aid of Iheir re-subjugation : secondly,
in case Spain herself, reverting to her ancient
colonial system, should attempt to put a stop
to the trade of Britain with those Colonies ;
but it is not said what Britain will do beyond
recognising their Independence, her ulterior
conduct being left to be shaped, as we may
infer, by ulterior events. She claims a right
to trade with the Colonies, under a promise
by Spain herself, given as long back as 1810,
as an equivalent for British mediation offered
at that day, between the parent State and the
Colonies. As regards the form of government
most desirable for the Colonies, considered as
Independent States, a preference is expressed
for monarchy, could it be practicable.
* In the end, I was furnished with a copy of the whole paper.
SECOND SERIES. — II. F

66 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
" With the exception of the foregoing points,
I recollect nothing material in the paper as
regards the policy or intentions of Great Britain,
not heretofore made known in my own com
munications upon this subject, beginning with
that of the 19th of August. The letter of
Mr. Canning to Sir Charles Stuart, of the 31st
of March, 1823, is still assumed as the basis
of the policy of England.*
" To report with the requisite accuracy the
views of France from this paper, read over but
once to me, I might find a task the more diffi
cult from having had less acquaintance with
them beforehand. I will therefore not attempt
to do so in any detail, from a fear that I might
err ; and because I have also the hope that an
entire copy of it, although not given to me,
will get to your hands through some other
channel. I am not able, for my own share,
to discern the adequate motives for wrapping
it up in such secrecy, and have little doubt but
* This is the State paper, which, besides giving the general views
of Britain as regards the Colonies, contains also the full avowal of
her opinions on the then approaching war between France and Spain,
stating her uniform endeavours with the European Powers to induce
them to abstain from interfering in the internal affairs of Spain ; and
declaring, that so long as the struggles and disturbances of Spain
should be confined within the circle of her own territory, they could
not be admitted by the British Government to afford any plea for
foreign interference.

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 67
that even the public journals of Europe will,
before very long, enlighten us with sufficient
precision on its whole contents. The London
journals of the present week have made some
beginning towards it.
"Having said thus much, I will proceed in
my endeavours to state. the main points of this
paper, where it was illustrative of the policy of
France. " It declares that France, like England, con
siders the recovery of the Colonies by Spain as
hopeless. " It expresses the determination (I think this
was the word) of France not to assist Spain in
attempting their reconquest.
" It expresses the desire of France to see the
dispute made up by amicable arrangements be
tween the mother country and the Colonies.
" It disclaims for France all idea of exclusive
commercial advantages from the Colonies, saying
that, like Britain, she only asks to be placed
upon the same footing with the most favoured
nation after Spain.
" It knows not what there is to be recognised
in the Colonies, as independent; France regard
ing all government there as a mockery.
" It labours to show the necessity of assem
bling a Congress to which England should be a
party, (which she declines,) to bring about the
f2

68 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
benevolent end of reclaiming those remote re
gions from their past errors, and making up the
dispute between them and the parent State on
terms satisfactory to both, as the policy worthy
of both.
"These were the material points of the
paper as I recollected them after listening to a
single perusal of it. I am sensible that I state
some of them in a way to start further questions
as to their true meaning ; questions which I
could myself raise without being able at this
moment to solve. The apprehensions of
Britain, however, seem to be fully allayed, at
least for the present ; and it is certain that she
does not now anticipate any speedy interruption
of the peace of Europe from this cause. The
language which France now holds to Britain
is obviously at variance with that which her
manifestoes breathed when her troops entered
Spain in the spring.
" In the course of the paper on the British
side, there is a notice taken of the interest
which the United States have in the question.
This is met on the part of France by a declara
tion that she does not profess to be acquainted
with our views on the subject. The notice of
the United States is in that part of the British
paper which relates to the assembling of a Con
gress in Europe. I might probably have made

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 69
myself more accurately master of the whole
paper, by recurring in conversation to some of
the passages after Mr. Canning had finished
reading it ; but I was precluded the opportu
nity by the near approach of another appoint
ment impending over him.
" Notwithstanding the tranquillizing profes
sions of France, it would seem, that the senti
ments of Russia, if we may draw inferences from
Pozzo di Borgo's address to the King of Spain,
which has just come before the world, still are,
that the Holy Alliance is bound to keep a
superintending eye upon the affairs of Spain
throughout all her dominions.
" I have the honour to remain, with very
great respect, your obedient Servant,
" Richard Rush.
" Honourable John Quincy Adams,
Secretary of State."

70 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.

CHAPTER XXIV.
COURSE OF THE UNITED STATES IN REGARD TO SPANISH
AMERICA.  DECLARATIONS OF PRESIDENT MONROE IN
HIS MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, DECEMBER, 1823. — THEIR
EFFECT IN EUROPE.  REMARKS ON THE SUBJECT.  DIN
NER AT THE DUKE OF SUSSEX'S ; AT MR. CANNING'S. 
INTERVIEWS WITH MR. CANNING ON THE NEGOTIATION.
 NORTH-WEST COAST OF AMERICA, THE PROMINENT
TOPIC.  ENGLAND OBJECTS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-
COLONIZATION ON THE AMERICAN CONTINENTS, TAKEN
BY PRESIDENT MONROE.  INTERVIEW WITH MR. CAN
NING PREPARATORY TO OPENING THE NEGOTIATION.
The despatch with which the preceding
chapter closed, substantially terminated the
correspondence and conferences I had held with
Mr. Canning on the topic, so interesting at
that juncture both to Europe and America, of
Spanish-American affairs. I had further con
ferences with him ; but none necessary to be
recounted, as they made no change in the course
of England.
The plans of France, as regards the new
States, which were understood to be fully the

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 71
plans of her continental allies also, had certainly
changed from those which her manifestoes
implied when her army, reputed at 100,000
men, entered Spain under the Duke d'An-
gouleme, in April, 1823, on its destination to
Cadiz ; which destination it reached, over all
opposition. The object of that invasion was
the overthrow of the constitutional government
in Spain, on the alleged ground, among others,
of liberating the King from the trammels of
the Cortes.
That this change in France and her allies
was produced by the knowledge, that England
would oppose, at all hazards, hostile plans upon
Spanish America, may be inferred with little
danger of error. The certainty of it is, indeed,
part of European history at that epoch.
And now I am to speak of the course of the
United States. By the early transmission of
the proposals made to me by Mr. Canning, in
his notes of the latter end of August, the copies
of them, as well as of my reports of our con
ferences on the whole subject, arrived at Wash
ington in time to engage the deliberations of
President Monroe and his cabinet, before the
meeting of Congress in December. The cabinet
was still composed of the names given in
Chapter IV. of the former volume ; and it was
very satisfactory to me to learn that the part I

72 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
had acted was approved. Although, in the
end, no concerted movements took place be
tween the two Governments, the communi
cations to me, from the Secretary of State, in
responding to the overtures of Mr. Canning,
were in a high degree conciliatory towards
England; and framed with every just sensi
bility to the frank and friendly spirit of those
overtures. This I duly made known to Mr.
Canning. But, although no joint movement took place,
my despatches had distinctly put before our
Government the intentions of England ; with
which, in the main, our policy harmonized ; and
President Monroe, in his opening message to
Congress, which followed almost immediately
afterwards in December, 1823, put forth the
two following declarations : —
1. That it was impossible for the Allied
Powers to extend their political system to any
part of America, without endangering our
peace and happiness ; and " equally impossible
therefore, that we should behold such inter
position with indifference."
2. Whilst alluding to discussions between
the United States and Russia, then commenced
with a view to arranging the respective claims
of the two nations on the north-west coast of
America, the President also declared, that

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 73
" the occasion had been judged proper for
asserting, as a principle in which the rights and
interests of the United States were involved,
that the American continents, by the free and
independent condition which they had assumed
and maintained, were henceforth not to be
considered as subjects for future colonization
by any European power."
The first of these declarations was probably
expected by England, and was well received.
Every body saw, at once, that it referred to the
hostile plans of the Allied Powers against the
late Spanish Provinces.
The second declaration was unexpected, and
not acquiesced in ; as accounts I am. yet to give
of negotiations with the British Government
wrill make known.
When the message arrived in London, the
whole document excited great attention ;
Spanish-American securities rose in the stock
market, and the safety of the new States
from all European coercion, was considered
as no longer doubtful.
It may be inferred that my despatches, re
porting all that had transpired with Mr. Can
ning, had an influence upon the declarations in
President Monroe's message ; and it may also
be inferred, that the moral certainty which
England derived through my correspondence

74 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
and conferences with her Foreign Secretary,
that the United States would, in the end, go
hand in hand with her in shielding those new
States from European domination, even had the
certainty of it not been otherwise deducible,
must have had "its natural influence upon her
counsels when she explicitly laid down that
policy for the admonition of the continental
Allies. As it is now for the first time that I make
this subject public, I will give the reasons ; if,
indeed, any can be necessary at this late day.
For, first, we are at a point of time nearly
twenty-three years removed from the events ;
and an entire change has come over the feel
ings, obligations, and circumstances, creating
motives for silence. While the events were at
all fresh, and long after, I carefully abstained
from giving them publicity in either hemi
sphere ; but they have passed into history, and
silence has lost its power over them. I do not
publish Mr. Canning's notes, which have never
been out of my own possession, but have given
the essential points laid down in them ; leaving
the copies of them on the archives of our Go
vernment, to which, with his knowledge, I first
transmitted them. 2. Being on those archives
during so many years, they have, unavoidably,
been inspected for public use ; and accordingly,

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 75
their main contents, and those of my reports on
the subject, have been proclaimed in Congress,
and found their way into newspapers of the
United States long ago ; and, it may be, into
English newspapers also. 3. In Mr. Stapleton's
" Political Life of Mr. Canning," published in
London in 1831, the essential matter of these
notes to me has already been published, Vol. II.
p. 23, and the subject explained on the side of
England. What is now published, does nothing
more, therefore, than follow up what was fully
opened in that interesting work more than ten
years ago, by those who had the just fame of
Mr. Canning in charge; and seems necessary, in
order to make known the share which the Minis
ter ofthe United States had in the international
movement in question; a movement of like
concern, as far as it proceeded, to both nations.
It cannot be necessary that I should say
more on this head; and thus I close the sub
ject, having given the foregoing general expla
nations. November 28. Passed last evening at Count
Munster's, Grosvenor Place, where we had most
of the diplomatic corps, and other company.
My wife says, that Count D'Aglie, the Sicilian
Minister, told her, that the late King, George
III., in talking once to the Dutch Ambassador,
Called Holland an aquatic Power. The King

76 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
used the term in good-humour ; but the Count
added, that the Ambassador did not like it.
November 30. Dined at the Duke of Sus
sex's, Kensington Palace. Prince Cimitilli,
Mr. Roscoe, (author of Lorenzo de Medici),
Sir James Macintosh, Dr. Lushington, of the
civil law courts ; Mr. Denman, Mr. Jekeyll, and
others, made the party.
His Royal Highness the Duke uttered senti
ments favourable to constitutional liberty with
his accustomed frankness and fervour, Mr.
Roscoe seconding everything of this kind.
The former asked if we had any Tories left
in the United States. I said, a few, probably,
in their abstract notions of government. Mr.
Roscoe asked if they wished re-union with
England. I replied that I did not believe
there was a single individual in our country
who entertained such a wish ; we had grown
too strong in ourselves. The voluminous and
complicated state of the English law became a
topic. Dr. Lushington remarked that no man
could comprehend it all, and that it called
loudly for revision and arrangement. He
alluded to the numerous and increasing sub
divisions in the profession of the law, as a con
sequence of the confusion and entanglements
of the law itself, and thought it operated un
favourably upon the profession, by tending to

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 77
cramp the minds of its members, by limiting
the range of their professional knowledge.
Cards being spoken of, his Royal Highness
said, that the division and numbers of the pack
were supposed to have had a connexion among
the Egyptians (he gave cards that antiquity)
with astronomical science. First, the fifty-two
composing the pack, answered to the weeks of
the year ; next, thirteen of a kind agreed with
the fourth part of the year, divided into weeks ;
then again, four different kinds, answered to
the four seasons ; and, lastly, by counting up
from the ace to ten, then counting the knave
as eleven, the queen as twelve, and king as
thirteen, you get ninety-one. Four ninety-ones
give you three hundred and sixty-four, the
number of days, according to some calcula
tions, in the year.
His Royal Highness mentioned that the
English Government had a plan for purchasing
up the whole slave population of their West
India islands, to get rid of slavery in them.
This was new to me, and seemed so to others
at table. At first blush, I thought it struck
all as very bold, if not impracticable.
How far the great West India Emancipa
tion-act since carried into effect by Britain, on
the foundation of what the Duke of Sussex
then said, will result favourably to the interests

78 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
of humanity in those islands, does not, as yet,
seem to have been ascertained.
December 10. Dined at Mr. Canning's, Glou
cester Lodge. Mr. Planta, Mr. Stratford Can
ning, Mr. Chinnery, and a few others, were the
guests. At dinner, Mr. Canning took less than his
usual share of the conversation, leaving it
chiefly to his guests. Ships and steam-boats
formed one of the topics. All agreed that
naval science was on the eve of great revolu
tions, and soon to be carried to a much higher
pitch than the present or past ages had wit
nessed. At this classic villa of the Foreign Secretary,
one of the suite of rooms is the library. We
went into it, to coffee, after leaving the dinner-
table. The conversation became literary. Wash
ington Irving's Sketch-book was spoken of, and
highly commended. Mr. Canning said it was
a work of extraordinary merit ; but he preferred
the American pieces. In this preference
others joined. The " Dutch Schoolmaster,"
and " Rip van Winkle," were singled out, as
rich in humour. The topic changing, Swift
came on the tapis. Several of his pieces were
called up, with genuine gusto. Mr. Canning
was on a sofa ; Mr. Planta next to him ; I and
others, in chairs, dotted around. " Planta,"

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 79
said Mr. Canning, " pray hand down the volume
containing the voyages, and read the descrip
tion of the storm in the voyage to Brobdignag ;
seamen say that it is capital ; and as true, nau-
tically, as Shakespeare always is, when he under
takes to use sea terms." Mr. Planta took down
the volume, and read the passage. One sen
tence in it runs thus : " It was a very fierce
storm, the sea broke strange and dangerous ;
we hauled off upon the lanniard of the whip-
staff, and helped the man at the helm'' When
he was done, all admired the passage, under
this new view and commendation of it, which
Mr. Canning had given us. He himself said
nothing for a few moments, but sat silent ; then,
as if in a reverie, he uttered, in a low tone, yet
very distinctly, the words, " and helped the
man at ihe helm I and helped the man at the
helm!!" repeating them. It seemed as if the
helm at the Foreign Office, with all its anxieties,
had suddenly shot into his mind, clouding, for
a moment, his social ease. His familiar friends
of the circle bantered him a little on that
fancy. He declared off, however, and only
said that it was a fine passage. So passed this
agreeable evening in the library at Gloucester
Lodge. April 23. [I antedate once more, in the
present year, to allude to an official dinner at

80 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823
Gloucester Lodge.] Dined at Mr. Canning's.
The entertainment was in honour of the King's
birth-day. We had all the Ambassadors and
Ministers, and, in addition, two Princes of
Bentheim, one of them a general in the Aus
trian service; Sir George Rose, late British
Minister at Berlin ; Lord Clanwilliam, his suc
cessor ; Sir Brook Taylor, English Minister at
Munich; Sir Henry Wellesley, now English
Ambassador at Vienna ; Lord Fitzroy Somerset,
Mr. Planta, Lord Francis Conyngham, Lord
Howard de Walden, and Lord  Bentinck.
The table glittered with plate ; and the
glittering costumes of the ambassadors was
superadded. I sat next but one to Mr. Can
ning, and had Sir Henry Wellesley on my left.
With the latter I had conversation about Spain,
where he had recently been ambassador. I
found little opportunity, at so large and cere
monious a dinner, of conversing with Mr. Can
ning ; but was able to make a brief allusion to
what had fallen from him in the House of
Commons a few days before, on the neutral
course of the United States in '93, saying with
what pleasure I had read it. He replied to
my remark by saying, that he had lately been
examining the state-papers of our Government
at that era, and that they presented, in his
opinion, especially the letters of Mr. Jefferson

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 81
while Secretary of State, principles well fitted
to enter into a neutral code. The Ambassador
of the Netherlands, who sat close by, appeared
to listen with as much interest as I did, to this
tribute from such a source, to the American
defence of neutral rights.
It may be worth subjoining, that another of
the European Ambassadors, and from a larger
power, who sat farther off from Mr. Canning,
sought me out on the day following, when I
met him at another dinner, to ascertain what it
was Mr. Canning had said to me about neutral
rights ; remarking that he had caught just
enough of his words to know the subject, but
nothing more. I told him ; adding, that what
he had publicly said in the House of Commons
on the 16th of April, amounted, in effect, to
the same thing.
December 12. Had an interview with Mr.
Canning, on the subject of the general negoti
ation. He asked if I still despaired of having
a colleague. I said not utterly; but my hope
was so slender, that I could not justify it to my
duty to ask any delay whatever in bringing on
the negotiation, but would be ready at any
time. As a further motive to an early begin
ning I remarked, that perhaps we might then
hope to get through with some of the heaviest
parts, before the meeting of Parliament in
SECOND SERIES. — IT. G

82 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
February ; after which his own and Mr. Hus-
kisson's engagements in the House of Commons,
might be likely to interpose delays to our pro
gress. He informed me, that the instructions
on their side were in daily course of prepa
ration, but that he did not now think a begin
ning could be made with any advantage, on the
score of expedition, until after the Christmas
holidays, and that these would not be over until
after the first week in January.
He further informed me, that he was upon
the eve of writing to Sir Charles Bagot, their
Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, on the subject
ofthe Russian Ukase of September, 1821, rela
tive to the north-west coast ; and that if I
could previously impart to him some of the
views of the United States on this subject,
perhaps it might prove useful to our ulterior
discussions. I promised to do so.
December 17. Had an interview this morn
ing with Mr. Canning, at Gloucester Lodge,
expressly sought on his part with a view to
speak to me on the subject of the north-west
coast of America.
Learning on my arrival, that he was labour
ing under an attack of gout, I would have
deferred the interview to suit his convenience ;
but he had given orders for receiving me in
his chamber, into which I went, where I found

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 83
him in bed, though anxious to see me. His
motive, he said, was, to be put in possession of
an outline of our views in regard to the North
west coast, before preparing his instructions
to their Ambassador at St. Petersburgh on the
same subject. I accordingly stated them. A
map of the coast and country was spread upon
the bed, and, whilst his head was raised up on
pillows, I was able to point his attention to the
lines on the map which traced our title. He
went into no remarks, beyond simply inti
mating, that our claim seemed much beyond
any thing England had anticipated. I said
that I had the hope of being able to show
its good foundation when the negotiation came
on. Further conversation of a general nature
passed on the subject, and on coming away I
left with him, at his request, a brief, informal
statement of our claim, in writing.
Vespasian, when too ill to sit up and attend
to business, gave audience to ambassadors in
bed. Lord Chatham, when confined to his
bed with the gout, received and did business
with his colleagues of the Administration.
Here, in addition, a Foreign Secretary of Eng
land, in bed with the gout, receives and
transacts business with a foreign Minister.
December 18. Yesterday, before night came
on, Mr. Canning's servant brought me a private
g 2

84 RESIDENCE AT THE 1823.
note. It was familiarly written, telling me
that he remained as when I saw him ; but
that, when I had left him, he naturally looked
at my memorandum; and, when he did look
at it, how could he help exclaiming, " What
is here ! Do I read Mr. Rush aright ? "
" The United States will agree to make
no settlement north of 51, on Great Britain
agreeing to make none south of that line."
" So far all is clear," continues Mr. Canning
in his note. " The point of contact is touched,
and, consequently, the point of possible dispute
between the United States and Great Britain;
but the memorandum goes on" —
" Or north of 55."
"What can this intend?" continues his
note. " Our northern question is with Russia,
as our southern with the United States. But
do the United States mean to travel north to
get between us and Russia ? and do they mean
to stipulate against Great Britain, in favour of
Russia ; or reserve to themselves whatever
Russia may not want ? "
The note ends with saying, that he had given
me only his first thoughts, and hoped I would
" help him to clear the perplexity of them."
: I aimed at„ this, by answering his note

1823. COURT OF LONDON. 85
instanter. I said, that it was even so; our pro
posal was, that Great Britain should forbear
further settlements south of 51, and north of
55, for we supposed that she had, in fact, no
settlements above 55 ; and we supposed that
to be also the southern limit of Russia, it being
the boundary within which the Emperor Paul
granted certain commercial privileges to his
Russian-American company in '99. " Fifty-one
was taken," my answer went on to say, " as the
northern limit of the United States, because
necessary to give us all the waters of the
Colombia;" and it added, that we "had no
design to concede to Russia any system of
colonial exclusion, above 55 ; or deprive our
selves of the right of traffic with the natives
above that parallel." This was the general
explanation I gave of the little memorandum
in writing I had left with Mr. Canning ; which,
brief as it was, had been carefully formed from
my instructions. My note concluded with
saying, that I was charged by my Government
with other views of the whole subject ; which,
when the negotiation came on, I had the hope
would be satisfactorily made out.
Under this date, (the 18th,) I received a
second familiar note from Mr. Canning, written
from his bed, in which he says, that he would
take my explanation, " like the wise and wary

86 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
Dutchman of old times, ad referendum and ad
consider an dum . ' '
January 2, 1824. Had an interview with
Mr. Canning, at Gloucester Lodge, at his
request. His attack of gout had passed off.
The interview was mainly to confer on the
subject of the North-west coast. He objected
strongly to our claim going as high north as
51, and hoped we would not urge it. He said,
that it was to the south of, this line that Britain
had her dispute with*/pain about Nootka
Sound. How, therefore, could she now yield
this point to the United States ? It was a
question too important for her to give up. He
again hoped we would not urge it.
The President's message having arrived since
our last interview, he referred to that part of it
which holds out the principle, that the United
States will henceforth object to any of the
powers of Europe establishing colonies on
either of the continents of America. If I had
instructions, he wished me to state the precise
nature and extent of this principle. He had
not before been aware of it. Suppose, for ex
ample, that Captain Parry's expedition had
ended, or that any new British expedition were
to end, in the discovery of land proximate to
either part of the American continent, north or

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 87
south, would the United States object to
Britain planting a colony there ? I said, that
when such a case arose it might be considered ;
that I had no instructions on the principle since
it was proclaimed in the message, but would be
prepared to support it when the negotiation
came on. He then said, that he would be
under the necessity of addressing me an official
note on the subject, prior to writing to their
Ambassador at St. Petersburgh ; or else decline
joining us in the negotiation with Russia rela
tive to the North-west coast, as we had pro
posed. The latter was the course which he
would prefer, not desiring to bring this part of
the message into discussion at present, as
England must necessarily object to it. Further
conversation passed as to the best mode of
dealing with the principle in our approaching
negotiation. January 5. Had another interview with Mr.
Canning relative to the North-west coast. He
said, that he was still embarrassed in the pre
paration of his instructions to Sir Charles Bagot,
in consequence of the non-colonization principle
laid down in the message ; and hoped I would
be inclined to the negotiation proceeding sepa
rately, without England joining with the United
States, as contemplated by my government. I
replied, that I was entirely willing that the

88 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
negotiation should take that course, as far as I
had any claim to speak.
January 6. In a despatch to the Secretary of
State of this date, I mention Mr. Canning's
desire that the negotiation at St. Petersburgh,
on the Russian Ukase of September, 1821,
respecting the North-west coast, to which the
United States and England had equally ob
jected, should proceed separately, and not
conjointly, by the three nations, as proposed
by the United States, and my acquiescence in
this course. It being a departure from the
course my Government had contemplated, I
give the following reasons for it.
1. That whatever force I might be able to
give to the principle of non-colonization as laid
down in the message, which had arrived in
England since my instructions for the negotia
tion, my opinion was, that it would still remain
a subject of contest between the United States
and England ; and that, as by all I could learn
since the message arrived, Russia also dissented
from the principle, a negotiation at St. Peters
burgh relative to the North-west coast, to which
the three nations were parties, might place
Russia on the side of England, and against the
United States. This, I thought, had better be
avoided. 2. That a preliminary and detached discus-

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 89
sion of so great a principle, against which Eng
land protested in limine, brought on by me,
when she was content to waive it, and preferred
doing so at present, might have an unpropi-
tious influence on other parts of the negotiation
of more immediate and practical interest.
3. That by abstaining at such a point of time
from discussing it, nothing was given up. The
principle, as promulgated in the President's
message, would remain undiminished, as notice
to other nations, and a guide to me in the
general negotiation with England, when that
came on.
The foregoing were the reasons which deter
mined me to the departure. My conferences
on the subject with Mr. Canning, which began
on the 2d instant, were resumed and concluded
only yesterday, that I might allow myself full
time for deliberation,
January 21. Had an interview with Mr.
Canning at the Foreign Office. Mr. Huskisson
and Mr. Stratford Canning were present. It
was agreed that the general negotiation should
be opened, in form, on the 23d instant, at the
office of the Board of Trade.
I then handed Mr. Canning a paper, contain
ing the following list of the subjects : — 1. Com
mercial intercourse between the United States
and the British North- American Colonies, and

90 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824,
West India Islands ; connecting with these
heads, the question of the navigation of the
river St. Lawrence. 2. Suppression of the
Slave Trade. 3. Boundary Line under the
fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent. 4. Admis
sion of Consuls of the United States into the
Colonial Ports of Britain. 5. Newfoundland
Fishery. 6. Relative claims of the two nations
on the North-west coast of America. 7. De-
bateable questions of maritime law.
Some conversation passed as to the order in
which the subjects were to be taken up, when
it was agreed that we would begin with the
Slave Trade

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 91

CHAPTER XXV.
the general negotiation opens.  subject of the
slave trade first taken up.  dinner at the duke
of Sussex's; at mr. stratford canning's. — renewed
interview with mr. secretary canning on spanish-
american affairs. — second meeting of the pleni
potentiaries on the business of the negotiation.
 interview with the deputies from greece. 
third meeting of the plenipotentiaries.  west
india and colonial trade.  navigation of the st.
lawrence.  dinner at prince polignac's, french
ambassador.  fourth meeting of the plenipoten
tiaries.  dinner at the marquis of lansdowne's ;
at the duke of wellington's ; at mr. peel's. 
fifth, sixth, and seventh meetings of the pleni
potentiaries. — convention relative to the slave
trade agreed upon and signed.  circumstances
which led to its defeat.
January 23. The negotiation opens at the
office of the Board of Trade, Great George
Street, Westminster. The British Plenipoten
tiaries, Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Stratford Can
ning, hand me for inspection their original full
power from the King ; and I hand them mine,

92 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824;
under the President's autograph, constituting
me the Plenipotentiary of the United States.
Theirs, in describing my appointment, speak of
it as having been by the President, with the
consent, and by the authority, of the Senate
and House of Representatives of the United
States. I pointed out the inaccuracy, men
tioning that the Senate only was associated
with the President in the appointing power;
but on their asking if I thought it material, I
said No, being only surplusage ; and both powers
being found in due and proper form in all other
respects, copies were exchanged, each party
attesting his own.
It was agreed that all our discussions should
be carried on by conference and protocol, with
the insertion on the protocol of such written
documents as either party might deem neces
sary, either as matter of record or explanation ;
and that the business of the negotiation should
be conducted in all respects, as far as practi
cable, according to the precedents of the nego
tiation between the two nations in 1818. The
British Plenipotentiaries informed me that they
had appointed Mr. Lack their secretary.
It having been agreed that the subject of the
Slave Trade should be taken up first, I pro
ceeded to open it on the side of the United

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 93
States. After making all such statements and
remarks on the subject as seemed to me neces
sary to introduce and explain it, according to
the true spirit in which I had been instructed
by my Government to present it, I concluded
by reading the entire projet of the convention
transmitted to me by the Secretary of State,
with his despatch ofthe 24th of June, 1823.
The British Plenipotentiaries said that they
would take the whole into careful considera
tion. They remarked, that Britain wanted
nothing, on her part, to put down this trade, so
far as her own subjects were concerned ; her
laws against it being already effectual, and
having put a stop to it as far as laws could. I
replied, that such was also the case with the
United States ; that, for ourselves, we wanted
nothing further, and offered this projet only
to meet the call for a substitute for the British
proposals hitherto made to us, but which the
United States, under their constitutional system
and for other reasons, had been compelled to
decline ; and also to meet the request expressed
in a resolution of the House of Representatives,
passed by a vote nearly unanimous, in the
winter of 1823. I added, that in the projet
I had submitted, the first, second, fourth, and
ninth articles, were to be considered as em
bodying principles not to be departed from.

94 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
We adjourned at 4 o'clock, to meet again on
the 29th.
Immediately after the negotiation was, in
due form, opened, the British Plenipotentiaries
remarked, in manner altogether conciliatory,
that should our labours unfortunately end
without any treaties growing out of them,
which however they did not wish or mean
to anticipate, the failure would at least not
disturb the good understanding subsisting be
tween the two nations; a remark to which I
cordially responded.
January 25. Dined with the Duke of Sussex,
where we had a small party. On rising from
table, we went into the rooms containing his
Royal Highness's library, in one of which coffee
was served. The whole suite was lighted up,
enabling us to range through them, and glance
at the books. The entire collection was stated
to be fifty thousand volumes, chiefly formed by
himself within a few years. They are arranged
in different rooms according to the subjects.
Of theology, there were said to be fifteen
thousand volumes, comprising one thousand
different editions of the Bible, several of them
polyglot editions ; his Royal Highness being a
good linguist, and fond of biblical learning.
The first Bible ever printed with types was in
the collection. One hundred and thirty guineas

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 95
was the price given for it, and it seemed to be
prized even beyond that sum by its royal
owner.* January 26. Dined at Mr. Stratford Can
ning's. Mr. Huskisson was there, and re
quested that our second meeting might take
place on the 2nd of February, instead of the
29th instant as first appointed; which was
agreed to. Mr. Secretary Canning was of the
party, and much pleased with the commence
ment of our work on the Slave Trade. He had
been informed of my projet of a convention,
called it a promising " first step," and one which
he hoped would be productive of good fruit in
the end.
February 1. Had an interview with Mr.
Canning, at Gloucester Lodge, on Spanish-
American affairs. I read to him a despatch
received from the Secretary of State, dated the
29th of November, 1823, which laid down the
principles of my Government on this subject,
* This liberal-minded and excellent Prince died a year or two
ago. He was always attentive to American gentlemen, when
afforded opportunities of making their acquaintance. None shared
more largely, or better merited, his esteem, than our late Minister
to England, Mr. Stevenson ; and perhaps I may here add, that
when the latter was about to visit Paris in 1837, his Royal Highness,
on his own friendly impulse, gave him a letter of introduction to
the King; which ardently breathed respect and good- will to the
United States, as well as to Mr. Stevenson personally.

96 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
and gave answers to his propositions and com
munications to me of last summer and autumn,
the basis of which intervening events had
changed. Mr. Canning then mentioned to me the
present position of England in relation to this
subject; and that it might be known to me the
more precisely, he handed me for perusal a
despatch which he had prepared to Sir William
A'Court, British Ambassador at Madrid, of
date so recent as the 30th of January. It was
written in consequence of the Ambassador
having informed his Government that Spain
had again been addressing herself to France,
Austria, and Russia, calling on them to hold a
congress at Paris, (to which England was not
to be invited,) for the purpose of assisting Spain
in the recovery and establishment of her
authority over her colonies in America. I read
the despatch entirely through. The substance
of it was : —
1. — That England disapproves of the
plan. 2. — That she thinks the day gone by for
all interference towards a settlement of this
contest, unless on the basis of the inde
pendence of the new States; and that she,
England, is willing to mediate between the
parties on that basis ; but no other.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 97
3. — But that she is nevertheless willing that
Spain should be allowed special advantages
over other nations, England being still content
to stand on the footing of the most favoured
nation, after Spain.
4. — She expresses a desire that Spain should
herself be the first among European powers to
acknowledge their independence ; and that she
should do it promptly. The despatch urges
this measure strongly, and intimates it to be
the intention of England to wait a while longer,
in the hope of its adoption.
5. — But that, should Spain refuse to adopt it,
or indefinitely put off the recognition of the
new states, England will herself recognise
them : and that this may even happen in a
few months.
Such was this official paper, resolved into its
essential points.* Mr. Canning said to me, in
conclusion, that he had no belief whatever that
any Congress would now be held, and before
I came away expressed anew his wishes for the
auspicious progress of our negotiation.
February 2. The Plenipotentiaries of the
two governments met according to appoint
ment, at the same place as before. The
British Plenipotentiaries had drawn up the
* A full copy of it was afterwards sent to me, which I transmitted
to my Government.
SECOND SERIES.— II. H

98 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824,
protocol of our first conference, which, with
some additions to it which I suggested, was
agreed to.
They then went, at large, into the con
sideration of some of the articles I had sub
mitted on the Slave Trade. They raised objec
tions to some of the provisions, made queries
as to others, and were full and free in their
general remarks. I replied to them all, under
the lights of my instructions, and such others
as occurred to me. Many of their objections
and difficulties, they admitted, went rather to
the details of the plan than its substance ; and
they said that they would consult more fully
with their law-officers, under every anxiety to
see all objections satisfactorily removed. We
adjourned on this footing, after having been
together several hours, agreeing to meet again
on the 5th instant ; but as it was hardly sup
posed, by the British Plenipotentiaries, that
they would be able at so early a day to see
their way through all the first difficulties grow
ing out of the plan I had offered, it was agreed
that we should take up the subject of com
mercial intercourse at our meeting on the 5th ;
making a pause for more careful examination
and reflection on the subject first opened.
February 3. Had an interview with the
deputies from Greece, resident in London,

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 99
Mr. Orlando and Mr. Luriottis. I delivered to
the latter a letter from Mr. Adams, Secretary
of State.
It was a letter in answer to one written to
the Secretary, in which Mr. Luriottis had asked
at the hands of the United States active aid
to the cause of Grecian emancipation. In de
clining to afford this aid, Mr. Adams, as the
organ of the United States government, puts
the refusal on the ground of constitutional and
international duty, not on any sentiment of
indifference to the cause of Greece, but ex
cluding such an inference; and I was requested
to accompany the delivery of his answer with
remarks and explanations of my own, in unison
with its spirit — a duty which I gratefully per
formed. Mr. Bowring, an active, intelligent
friend of the cause of Greece, in London, was
present at the interview.
Mr. Orlando had lately been President of
the Senate of Greece, and said, that he was
charged by that body to convey to me its
thanks for the interest I had shown, last winter,
in London, in the cause of Grecian emancipa
tion. This had merely reference to an occasion
when I had publicly uttered expressions of
good will to that cause of suffering humanity in
a classic land, — a feeling common to Christian
mankind; yet, in further and over-merited h 2

100 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
return for such expressions, Mr. Luriottis also
delivered to me, from Prince Mavrocordato,
Secretary of State ofthe Grecian government, a
letter of personal thanks.
February 5. The Plenipotentiaries met at
the office ofthe Board of Trade. The protocol
of the last conference was read, and, with some
alterations, agreed to. Mr. Huskisson stated,
that Mr. Lack's engagements at the Board of
Trade would prevent his attending to the
duties of Secretary to the British Plenipoten
tiaries, and that they had appointed Anthony
St. John Baker, Esq. in his stead.
According to the understanding at our last
adjournment, I proceeded to open the whole
subject of commercial intercourse between the
two nations, agreed to be brought into the
negotiation. I did so, with the fulness sug
gested by the Secretary of State's instructions ;
and the necessary review of all past negotiations
and conferences with the British Government,
in which I had myself borne a part. In con
clusion, after stating what appeared to me the
main facts and principles, I offered to the
British Plenipotentiaries a paper which I had
drawn up, and marked A, consisting of three
articles. The two first stated the footing upon
which the United States now desired to place
this commercial intercourse ; and the third

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 101
provided for our free navigation of the river
St. Lawrence.
As explanatory at large of the nature and
grounds of the latter claim, after having, in my
verbal opening, stated, in a general way, the
principles of public law on which it was placed,
I offered a paper, marked B, which I had also
prepared, that it might be annexed to the pro
tocol. To the footing on which my articles proposed
to place the West India and Colonial trade, the
British Plenipotentiaries made strong objec
tions at first blush ; yet said, that they would
give them full consideration, in the hope that
something might be made of them under their
own modifications, after having them in hand
for more careful scrutiny.
The paper, marked B, in support of our claim
to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, they
appeared unwilling to receive in that light,
until they could consult their Government, and
requested a delay of their decision on the point
until our next meeting. The claim was entirely
unexpected and new to them ; — they had anti
cipated nothing of the kind. It was so that
they expressed themselves; and in the strongest
terms of objection to the doctrine I advanced.
They asked what equivalent I was prepared to
offer for our claim to the navigation of a river,

102 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824
flowing through a channel, both shores of which
were admitted to be within British territory,
and under exclusive British jurisdiction ? and
when I replied, none, for the reasons made
known in the paper I had drawn up, they
manifested increased objections to it.
We separated after a long sitting ; the British
Plenipotentiaries saying, that they would give
every consideration to my proposals, and the
papers with which I had accompanied them.
The 10th of the month was appointed for our
next meeting.
February 8. Receive a note from the British
Plenipotentiaries requesting a postponement
until the 16th instant, of our meeting appointed
for the 10th.
February 15. Dined at Prince Polignac' s,
the French Ambassador's, Portland Place. It
was an entertainment given to all the Foreign
Ambassadors and Ministers, and most of the
members of the Cabinet. * * * * Shows much
desire to know how the negotiation goes on ;
and, especially, if we had got to the maritime
questions ; and what we mean to do upon
them. I tell him, that we have not got to
them ; that there will be a great deal to say
when we do, which perhaps other nations may
think important; and that, at a future day,
I can have no objections to resuming convert

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 103
sation with him on the subject. He says, that
there are rumours about the extent of our
demands. I ask, of what nature ? He does
not know, or draws back from telling ; and
only refers to our principle of non-colonization
on the American continents. He asks, if I have
understood how France views that principle.
I answer in the negative, and express a hope
that France may not intervene on such a prin
ciple, considering all the circumstances now
surrounding it in the hands of the United
States ; whose Plenipotentiary had to meet the
known opposition of the whole British Cabinet
to it, and the probable influence of Russia
superadded. He said, that his impression was,
that France also had objected to it, or would.
February 16. The Plenipotentiaries met.
The protocol of the last conference was agreed
to and signed.
The British Plenipotentiaries gave no an
swers to my proposals respecting commercial
intercourse, but ample discussions took place
upon them. They stated, and reiterated, the
improbability of being able to agree to them in
their present shape, assigning reasons at large ;
and asked if I had no other proposals to offer.
I said none, to change essentially the grounds
of those submitted ; but added, that if they
failed, in the end, to prove acceptable, I would

104 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
gladly receive their counter proposals for trans
mission to my Government, if unable previ
ously to mould them into any thing myself.
The paper marked B, on the navigation of
the St. Lawrence, they objected vehemently
to inserting on the protocol. They thought it
too argumentative to be considered within the
spirit of the right reserved by each party, to
annex written statements to the protocol ; say
ing, that the right, if exercised in this manner,
instead of being used as simply explanatory of
oral statements, would lead to elaborate written
discussions on each side, contrary to what had
been their understanding as to the mode in
which the negotiation was to be conducted.
I replied, that I was not tenacious of its
being annexed to the protocol ; but the claim
which it embraced, being one of great magni
tude to the United States, and new to all past
discussions between the two countries, all I
desired was, that it be received as a paper
containing a general exposition of the princi
ples upon which my Government rested the
claim for the United States, and would expect
their Plenipotentiary to defend it. In this
light they said they would receive it, as I
expressed a wish to that effect.* They denied
* But see 17th and 18th Protocols, when the negotiation had
reached those stages.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 105
wholly the right we claimed ; saying, that the
principles of public law were against it, and
the practice of nations ; though it was not
their purpose, at the present moment, to go
into the argument, or produce their authorities
in answer to the contents of the paper I had
drawn up. This is a brief, abridged notice
of what passed on this head at this conference.
We next resumed the subject of the Slave
Trade. On this subject they said, that they
were not finally prepared to submit their
alterations and modifications of my plan ; not
having yet obtained the official opinions of
their law officers on several parts of the plan,
as they now hoped soon to do. But with this
preliminary remark, they put into my hands,
informally, a paper which they had drawn up,
embracing their alterations and modifications ;
which paper they requested I would take into
consideration, in order that, should the opinions
of their law officers be found in the end to
sanction it, time might thus be saved. I re
ceived their paper with this understanding.
Our sitting was again a protracted one, and
we adjourned without specifying a day for the
next meeting, as the British Plenipotentiaries
could not, under their present circumstances,
fix upon it ; but they hoped it would be soon,
and they would give me two days' notice before-

106 [RESIDENCE AT THE 1821.
hand, that the time might be made to suit both
parties. February 28. Dined at the Marquis of
Lansdowne's, where I met Admiral Sir Edward
Codrington. He told me that he was at the
battle of New Orleans, and related some par
ticulars of it. He knew Mr. Edward Living7
ston, one of General Jackson's aids, and since
our Minister to France. Coming on board the
fleet on business from General Jackson, he was
detained several days by Admiral Cockburn,
and carried to Mobile. Sir Edward remarked,
that his conversation and whole bearing, made
a highly favourable impression on the British
officers ; of which all would be sure who knew
Mr. Livingston, his talents, attainments, and
train of gentlemanly qualities.
February 29. . Dined at the Duke of Wel
lington's. We had several of the diplomatic
corps and their ladies, my wife among the
latter, and other company. Of the number
was Mr. Secretary Canning, with whom I con
versed. He was very cordial; probably the
more so from the points of difference which
seem to be unfolding themselves in the nego
tiation ; of which, however, we did not speak
on this occasion.
The Duke's sideboard was full of lustre.
The most prominent piece of plate upon it this

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 107
evening, was the celebrated shield, a present
to him from the City of London. It is of pure
gold. On it are represented, in bas-relief,
and in alto, the most important of his vic
tories. The cost of this munificent present
was stated to be fifteen thousand pounds
sterling. Virgil has almost described it: —
" On Tyrian carpets richly wrought they dine ;
With loads of massive plate the sideboards shine ;
And antique vases, all of gold embossed,
(The gold itself inferior to the cost
Of curious work,} where on the sides were seen,
The fights and figures of illustrious men,
From their first founder to the present Queen.''
Dryden. JEneid, book i.
March 6. Dined at Mr. Peel's, Home Secre
tary of State since the resignation of Lord
Sidmouth. We had nearly all the diplomatic
corps, and other guests. In the table orna
ments, you saw the alliance of taste with wealth.
When Mr. Adams returned to Washington, in
1817, from the English mission, he was accus
tomed to say, speaking of the public men of
England, that for extensive education and
knowledge, combined with superior endowments
of mind and effective oratory, he regarded Mr.
Peel as first amongst those then advancing into
renown — an opinion remarkably sustained by
the result ; and all who have read the speech
of Sir Robert Peel, on his ir-Auguration into the

108 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
office of Lord Rector of the University of Glas
gow, in 1837, may see in it that his mind is
not less thoroughly imbued with the spirit of
all that is chaste and elegant in literature, than
stored with the solid acquirements which, as
Premier of England, have given him a mastery
over public affairs in their largest range and
combinations. This — as a reminiscence of more
than a quarter of a century. I return to my
proper date.
The conversation at table, had, as one topic,
the reforms in the law, which Parliament has
taken in hand, and with which Mr. Peel has had
so much to do. In alluding to them this even
ing, even his incidental and brief remarks told
the listener how able he was to look at the law,
as a science, through the lights of his general
reading in that and other fields ; and therefore
qualified to take hold of it with a reforming
hand, though no professional man.
Prince Polignac, French Ambassador, was of
the company. While we were in the drawing-
rooms, after dinner, I had conversation with
him on the relations between France and the
United States. It had not proceeded far, when
he alluded to Lafayette's intended visit to the
United States, and in a tone of complaint;
friendly indeed, but decided. What caused it
to be complained of, I asked ? how was this

.1824. COURT OF LONDON. 109
possible ? " It was the invitation given to him
by our Government, and offer to send a frigate
over to France to convey him to our shores."
These things it was, he said, which, consider
ing the relations Fayette held to the present
Government of France, gave him pain, and
would pain others in France. I endeavoured
to remove this kind of sensibility in him, by the
simple remark, that I thought all France ought
to regard the visit in a light precisely the reverse ;
for that, if it were possible by any single inci
dent, beyond any other imaginable, to revive in
the United States the ancient attachment to
Bourbon France, it would be this very visit of
Fayette ; whose presence once more among us,
after so long an interval, would almost rekindle
the enthusiasm of the revolution, recall Washr
ington to us, whose favourite Fayette was, and
the times when French hearts and arms were
united with our own, while a Bourbon filled the
throne of France.
March 7. Prince Polignac visits me. He
resumes the topic of yesterday at Mr. Peel's,
urging anew his friendly complaint; whilst I
enlarged upon the repelling and soothing view
of it, held up to him yesterday — but probably
with as little success.
All may do homage to the consistent devo
tion of such a man as Prince Polignac to his

110 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824-
Sovereign, and sympathise with him while a
prisoner in Ham Castle ; but it is not easy to
regard in the same light the clearness of his
understanding. I receive to-day a note from the British
Plenipotentiaries, proposing the 9th instant for
our next meeting, and reply that it will suit
me. March 9. The Plenipotentiaries met. The
protocol of the last meeting was read over, and
agreed upon.
The opinions of the law-officers having
sanctioned the principles and modifications
which the British Plenipotentiaries had intro
duced into my project on the Slave Trade, and
which, in fact, they embodied in the form of a
counter-projet of a convention of ten articles,
we proceeded to the consideration and dis
cussion of them at large. The discussions
were confined to the parts which I thought
objectionable, and particularly to the passage in
their first article offered as a substitute for my
fourth article, relating to convoy ; and to that
in their tenth article, in lieu of the passage in
my ninth, by which they aim at retaining all
their former alleged rights of search, not con
ceded under the proposed convention. The
British Plenipotentiaries earnestly insisted upon
the exclusion of my article relating to convoy,

1821. COURT OF LONDON. HI
saying that they would be embarrassed by it, if
retained ; as in their treaties with other Powers,
stipulations had been entered into on this point,
at variance with those I offered. To this
I replied, that the stipulations in those treaties
were altogether objectionable in the eyes of my
Government, and could not, under any circum
stances, be assented to. I asked, would ' the
British Government give instructions to its naval
officers never to stop or detain our vessels sail
ing under convoy, on the plea of looking for
slaves, supposing no prohibitory article inserted?
The British Plenipotentiaries answered in the
affirmative. Why not then, I remarked, insert
the article, and thus put it on the footing of
an international stipulation ? The conference
lasted a long time, but was productive of no
results. We adjourned, to meet on the 11th
instant. March 11. The Plenipotentiaries met accord
ing to adjournment. Further and full dis
cussions took place on the Slave-trade question,
which ended in our finally settling all the
articles necessary to the convention. I con
sented to renounce the words in my fourth
article relative to convoy, on their essential
meaning being retained in the first article of
the British projet, and on the other parts of
their article relative to convoy being entirely

112 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824
expunged. Respecting those parts of the
tenth article of the British projet to which
I had objected, such erasures and additions
were made as, in the end, reconciled both
parties. We adjourned, to meet on the 13th.
March 13. The Plenipotentiaries met. Full
discussions having now been had on the subject
of the Slave Trade, and everything agreed upon
by the Plenipotentiaries on each side, a con
vention for the purpose of more effectually
putting down the trade by the co-operating
naval efforts of both nations, was this day signed
and executed in due form, subject to the ratifi
cation of the Senate of the United States.
March 15. Under this date I transmit the
convention to the Secretary of State, with a
despatch giving an account of alL the dis
cussions which led to its conclusion.
I stated, that I had offered, in the first
instance, to the British Plenipotentiaries, the
projet enclosed to me, in the form I had
received it. That I considered the essential
principles of it to be ; first, That England was
to declare the Slave Trade piracy, as the
United States had done. Second, That the
vessel captured on suspicion of being a slave
trader, by any of the public ships designated
for that purpose from the navy of the two
powers, was to be sent for adjudication to the

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 113
country to which she belonged, and never, if an
American vessel, be tried by British tribunals ;
we, on the other hand, not claiming to try
British vessels before our tribunals. Third,
That no individual belonging to the crew was
ever to be taken out of the accused vessel.
Fourth, That the capturing officer should be
laid under the most effective responsibility for
his conduct in all respects. Fifth, That no
merchant vessel under the protection, or in the
presence of a ship of war, was ever, under any
circumstances, to be visited by a ship of war of
the other nation.
I stated that these essential principles were
all secured by the convention ; although, in the
progress of the negotiation, the British Pleni
potentiaries had objected so strongly to them
for the most part, that the convention had
well nigh fallen through, under their objec
tions ; that if in the details necessary to give
validity to these cardinal principles, I had, in
some instances, yielded up my own phraseology
in favour of theirs, and in some other respects
at last acceded to their views on points which
I did not deem essential, and where their argu
ment seemed entitled to attention, they still
reminded me, that the preponderance of con
cession was largely on the British side, taking
the convention as a whole.
SECOND SERIES. — II. I

114 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
My despatch was sufficiently full on all the
points ; but I here make no other references to
it than the above, as embracing condensed
allusions to the parts most material. The docu
ments of the negotiation, as well as the con
vention itself, have been long since published;
but as the latter fell through, from the Senate of
the United States having annexed to the ratifi
cation of it modifications and exceptions which,
in the end, did not prove acceptable to England,
T do not think it necessary to insert, in this
work, either the documents or convention. The
less, as there is now an existing arrangement
between the two Governments for naval co-ope
ration with a view to the suppression of the
Slave Trade, in the 8th Article of the Treaty of
Washington, of August, 1842.
In ratifying the convention, the Senate ex
cepted from its provisions, the 2nd Article, and
a portion of the 7th. These were introduced
by the British into their projet, and I finally
gave my assent to them in the progress of the
discussions. They consisted,, in the opinion of
my Government, of provisions unessential to the
great objects of the convention, and need not
now be stated, as England herself ultimately
yielded them; and would have joined in the
ratification of the convention, although the
Senate had expunged thenT.

1824. " COURT OF LONDON. 115
But the striking out of a provision from the
first article, was a measure which proved fatal
to the instrument in the eyes of England.
That article commenced thus : " The com
manders and commissioned officers of each of
the two high contracting parties, duly autho
rized, under the regulations and instructions of
their respective Governments, to cruise on the
coasts of Africa, of America, and of the West
Indies, for the suppression of the Slave Trade,
shall be empowered, under the conditions, limi
tations, and restrictions hereinafter specified,"
&c. &c
The Senate struck from this article the
words, " of America."
With the above exceptions, the convention
received the full ratification of the Senate ; that
body simply adding a clause by which each
party was to be left at liberty to renounce the
convention, on giving six months' notice to the
other ; to which England had no objection.
The fatally objectionable words were in the
projet I first submitted, prepared at Washing
ton. In striking them out, the Senate pro
bably had in view the coast of the United
States ; though the words embraced all South
America, with the coast of Brazil. But on no
part of the coast of the United States was there
i 2

116 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
any probability that slave-trading vessels would
ever be found, unless within the Gulf of Mexico ;
so that the necessity for the guarded exercise
of the authority to capture, would have been no
greater than upon, or proximate to, the coast
of Europe.
Before the convention finally fell to the
ground, Mr. Canning sounded me as to the plan
of a qualified restoration of the words struck
from the first article, so as to restrict the right
of cruising to the southern coast of the United
States, as the part alone wdiere slavery was
found. I replied at once, that it would be
decidedly objectionable, as carrying an appear
ance, I was sure he could not intend, of our
being a divided nation. He rejoined, that he
could have no such thought, having only thrown
out the suggestion in his anxiety to save the
convention from destruction.
England had no solid foundation for com
plaint at the refusal of the Senate to ratify the
convention as signed in London. She knew it
to be a fundamental provision of our constitu
tion, that no treaty was finally valid until it
received the sanction of that body. My full
power to negotiate, a copy of which her Pleni
potentiaries were in possession of, stated, that
whatever treaty or convention I concluded, was

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 117
to be transmitted to the President for his final
ratification, " by and with the advice and con
sent of the Senate of the United States."
Yet, it is not to be disguised that she was
disappointed at the result : First, because the
words which the Senate struck from the first
article, and which alone, in the end, had been
the means of destroying the convention, were
introduced in our own projet, prepared under
the eye of the executive government of the
United States at Washington. To this it was
answered, that the Senate had differed from
the President ; a difference not to have been
foreknown, and no more than a natural occur
rence under our constitutional forms, although
it may not have been frequent in the case of
treaties. And, secondly, because we had made
it a sine qua non to entering upon the negotia
tion, that she should declare the Slave Trade
piracy, by act of Parliament ; which she accord
ingly did. To this we answered, that what
ever appearance of concession, beforehand, this
might carry, England had an independent moral
ground on which to rest her act of Parliament,
in the acknowledged enormity of the offence
which it denounced as piracy ; the laws of the
United States having also previously branded it
with the same guilt.
I add, in conclusion, on this head of the

118 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
general negotiation, that President Monroe was
prepared to have ratified the convention exactly
as I had signed it in London ; of which I
informed the British Government ; and he was
pleased to convey to me, in the same despatch
in which this was declared, (one from the Secre
tary of State of the 29th of May, 1824,) his
approbation of the course I had pursued in the
negotiation of it.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 119

CHAPTER XXVI.
THE GENERAL NEGOTIATION PROCEEDS UNDER ITS OTHER
HEADS.  CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE, INCLUDING UN
SETTLED MARITIME QUESTIONS.  IMPRESSMENT, PRIVA
TEERING, AND THE OREGON QUESTION.  FINAL REPORT
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE
PROGRESS AND TERMINATION OF THE WHOLE NEGOTIA
TION.  OREGON QUESTION THEN, FOR THE FIRST TIME,
DISCUSSED AT LARGE BETWEEN THE TWO NATIONS. 
VIEWS OF EACH STATED.
In the succinct, but I would hope intelligible,
account given in the foregoing chapter of the
fate of the Slave-trade convention, only one sub
ject of a complicated negotiation was disposed
of. Six others remained, all of importance to
the two countries, and some involving interests
of humanity not less dear and permanent, and
wider in scope, than those involved in the Slave
Trade. To treat of such subjects with neces
sary fulness of investigation, under all the other
calls upon the time of the British negotiators
and upon my own, (for the current business of

120 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
the Legation went on,) occupied the remainder
of the spring, and two months of the summer ;
the final conferences running into the closing
days of July. Twenty-six formal protocols were
drawn up ; and the intervals between the meet
ings at which the matter of them was canvassed
and settled, as authentic records of the negotia
tion, did not pass without toil on the part of the
negotiators. I made detached reports from time to time of
its progress, having kept full minutes of every
thing ; but waited until its close for the trans
mission of a connected Report of the whole,
condensed and arranged from those minutes in
ways that appeared suited to render the whole
intelligible under one view. That Report was
dated on the 12th of August, 1824, and was
published by Congress. Having already given
partial extracts from some of these minutes,
serving to show the spirit in which the negotia
tion on some of its points opened, and the forms
under which it proceeded, I now design to
depart from that mode ; which, if continued,
and the minutes were given in full, might be
come too monotonous. Instead of that plan,
I will insert the final Report itself; with which
document, followed by its essential adjuncts, the
protocols, and a memorandum or two, made
afterwards, this volume will close.

1824. COURT OF LONDON JL21
The negotiation was one of such extent, and
embraced public interests of such magnitude,
that its connected history can scarcely be with
out some share of interest; and, perhaps, its
exhibition in these pages may invest it with
some chance of being more known, than if left
to be ascertained from separate, and numerous
official documents, piled away among the records
of our Government; oftentimes, too, needing
elucidation, which the documents themselves
do not afford. Some of the questions, as will
be seen, were founded in the loftiest views, and
most expanded patriotism. For the share I had
in this negotiation, I neither seek nor deserve
any award of merit, beyond having faithfully
aimed at fulfilling the instructions under which
I acted; but let its history duly speak to all
American citizens, the merit ofthe Government
of the United States at that epoch.
Let its history convey the just award to that
virtuous and honourable man, pure patriot, and
wise chief magistrate, James Monroe ; whose
services and worth ought to be freshened in the
eyes of his country. A noble-minded man he
was, without a particle of selfishness or ill-
directed ambition in his whole nature ; a man of
Roman mould; honest, fearless, and magnani
mous ; who, having shed his blood in the war
of the revolution, and risked it in that of 1812,

122 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
the official prop of which he was at the darkest
crisis of Mr. Madison's administration, sought,
with returning peace, to establish, on the
broadest foundations, the relations of peace,
and lessen the calamities of future wars, when
wars were to come. Let the just award be
given to his Secretary of State, Mr. Adams;
whose extraordinary endowments and fervent
patriotism are stamped upon the instructions
I received. I do not republish them, as they
would swell too much the bulk of this volume ;
but their great and enlarged ends, under some
views, and profound sagaciousness for his coun
try's interests, under others, will be sufficiently
collected, I trust, from my Report.
It will be seen, that the whole subject of our
commercial intercourse with the Colonial Empire
of Britain, insular and continental, in this hemi
sphere, which still remains an unsettled subject,
has never been put on better foundations for the
United States, than were then contemplated;
and that our trade and tonnage are in danger
of suffering, whenever those foundations are lost
sight of.
It will be seen, in connexion with this subject,
what large views were taken of our right to the
navigation of the St. Lawrence, then becomming
an international question of great magnitude;
though since superseded by artificial water high-

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 123
ways of our own, and other outlets and modes
of transportation for the teeming produc ions of
our soil and industry in those vast portions of the
Union, for which the St. Lawrence, at that era,
was the natural outlet to the ocean. I repub
lish neither the American nor British argument
in detail on this broad question ; but the nature
of it will be seen from my Report, and cannot be
without historical interest, any more than the
manner in which it was taken up and urged,
can be without its just bearing upon the pa
triotism of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Adams.
It will be seen how prophetic, under some
aspects, were the views taken of the North
eastern Boundary question at that time ; since
settled by the treaty of Washington of 1842,
after it had gone near to producing a war.
It will be seen, under the head of " Maritime
Questions," — a subject of the deepest interna
tional interest, and still altogether unsettled
throughout nearly the whole field of belligerent
and neutral rights as between the two nations, —
what was then said. And, most especially, will it
be seen, how expanded and beneficient, looking to
the whole family of nations, were some of the
proposals of the United States. It will be seen,
how this enlightened American President, hold
ing in trust, and exercising under a high estimate
of political and moral duty, the executive power of

124 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
the second maritime nation of the world, autho
rized and directed me to propose to the first
maritime nation of the world, to abolish not
merely privateering, but all private war
upon the ocean ; in other words, that no
public ship of either nation, should, thence
forth, when war came on, capture a merchant
vessel of the other, or otherwise plunder private
property; but confine belligerent operations
upon the ocean exclusively to the ships of war
of each nation. Thus, this rising Republic, so
often misunderstood, would have led the way,
had her proposals been accepted, to this great
consummation of benevolence and humanity;
earning the gratitude of mankind in present and
future ages, by the most signal triumph which
civilization in modern times would have had
over barbarism, still left in the legal code of
nations ! Nor must it be forgotten, that in
making this great proposal, she was ready to
sacrifice to a moral principle all base and sordid
gain ; for whilst the national ships of England.
were in overpowering number to her own, pri
vateering was an arm with which she was fully
able to cope with England, under all the bad
temptations to its use, which the vast and rich
commerce of England affords.
And it will be seen, what passed on the
Oregon question in this negotiation, in addition

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 125
to what was disclosed at its opening scenes.
This is a question not only still unadjusted,
but, at the present time, intensely engaging
attention in both countries ; and the whole past
history of which cannot therefore be without
deep interest. It will be seen, that it was only
then that the two countries, for the first time,
fully opened themselves to each other upon this
question ; and it will be seen, how wide asunder
were their opinions, arguments, and expecta
tions ; thence suggesting to each, the duty no
.less than wisdom, of giving a respectful con
sideration to each other's convictions ; for I will
not pass this subject over without saying, that
satisfied as I was, and have ever remained, of
the superiority of our title, and sincerely as I
strove to demonstrate it, I do not doubt but
that the British Plenipotentiaries were as sin
cerely convinced that theirs was the best. This
belief is nothing more than obvious justice from
nation to nation, where decided differences of
opinion exist ; else we break down all mutual
respect, and have only to fly to immediate
force. Other subjects came into this negotiation,
which, if secondary in importance to some of
the foregoing, belong to the history of our
foreign relations, and are not unworthy to be
known.

126 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
Many and anxious were the hours devoted
to it; for its long road was often rugged. The
discussions were between two nations, neither
of which, from the characteristics of a common
race, is prone to yield when it believes itself in
the right ; yet, there was always this of conso
lation — that the ruggedness of the official road
never interrupted the personal harmony of the
negotiators. The questions we were handling,
all had reference to the past or future ; no ex
isting irritations of practice were then upon us,
in connexion with them ; and this was favour
able to their calm consideration. Social and
hospitable intercourse were maintained; and
would often agreeably step in, after we had
been dwelling upon protocols and other mat
ters hard to be arranged between the parties.
Never did this kind of hospitality come in ways
more refreshing, than when the scene of it was
Gloucester Lodge.
Without further remark, I proceed to the
insertion of the Report of which I have been
speaking.No. 10. " London, August 12, 1824.
" Sir, — My letter of the second of this month
will have informed you that the negotiations
in which I have so long been engaged with
this Government, had come to a close, but

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 127
without any treaty or other arrangement
having been concluded on any of the subjects
which had been given in charge to me. This
is a result which I should lament the more,
did I not endeavour to reconcile myself to it
by the reflection, that I have earnestly, though
fruitlessly, striven to render it more auspicious,
and by the consideration, far more important,
that, as several of the subjects discussed have
been . both of novelty and magnitude between
the two nations, my Government will have the
opportunity of being put in more full posses
sion of the sentiments of this Government,
prior to the conclusion, or to the proposal
anew, of any definite or final stipulations.
" The task of reporting to you, for the
information of the President, the whole pro
gress of the negotiation, now devolves upon
me. I enter upon it in the anxious hope that,
whilst shunning a prolixity that might fatigue,
I may nevertheless omit nothing necessary to
a full understanding of all that has passed. I
console myself with the recollection, that the
protocols and other papers that will be trans
mitted to you, will mainly delineate every
material occurrence. From these may be
learned all the formal proposals that have
been made on the one side or on the other;
but the grounds of them, the discussions by

128 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
which they were sustained or opposed, together
with various explanations which the written
memorials of the negotiation, wearing for the
most part the character of abstracts only, do
not indicate, — these it becomes my duty to
make you also acquainted with in every essen
tial particular. It must be my purpose to fulfil
this duty in the course of the present despatch.
" It was my first intention to have made my
report to you in the shape of separate com
munications, allotting a distinct one to each
subject, that I might be able to follow in this
respect the example of your instructions to
me. But after the discussions were opened,
it was often found impracticable to keep the
subjects distinct. More than one subject, or
branches of more than one, would sometimes
engage our conferences on the same day, super
inducing the necessity of mixing them up in
one and the same protocol. For this reason,
and because also the British Plenipotentiaries
in some instances established a connexion
between subjects where, as I thought, none
regularly had place, and so treated them in
our records in the manner I shall have occa
sion to describe, it has appeared to me most
conducive to good order to present the whole
under one view. If this unity in my Report
would not appear at first sight to be suggested,

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 129
by a view of the diversity as well as number
of its subjects, it has seemed to me upon the
whole to adapt itself best to the course which
the negotiation actually took, both in the oral
discussions, and in the entries upon the pro
tocols ; and that it will become most intelligible,
whether in its incidents or its general spirit,
when exhibited as a whole. In the hope that
this mode of making up my Report may meet
your approbation, I proceed, without more of
introduction, to its proper business.
" 1. After the Slave-trade question had been
disposed of, the subject upon which we next
entered was that of the commercial intercourse
between the United States and the British
Colonial ports in the West Indies and North
America. Copious as this subject was found
to be when examined in all its details, its mere
discussion — I mean the strictly commercial
parts — was, perhaps, attended with less dif
ficulty than that of some others. It had
been familiar to the past and even recent dis
cussions of the two Governments ; so much so,
that, upon almost every point connected with
it, opinions had been formerly expressed by
both. When, at an early stage, the British
Plenipotentiaries said that, after the opening of
this trade to the vessels of the United States,
by the act of Parliament of the 24th June,
SECOND SERIES.  II. £

130 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
1822, it had not been expected by Great
Britain that our foreign tonnage-duty and
additional impost would have been continued
to be levied upon their vessels, I naturally
replied that, to whatever other observations the
policy of the United States might be open in
this respect, it could scarcely be said to have
been unexpected, as upon at least two occa
sions since I had been their organ at this
Court, they had expressly declined acceding
by compact to the very terms in regard to this
trade which were afterwards moulded into the
act of Parliament. Your instructions being
precise and full upon this head, I caused them
to be well understood. I recapitulated the
history of the negotiations that led to the con
vention of the 20th of October, 1818, in all
those parts of it which had relation to the
question of commercial intercourse. I pre
sented the review of all the legislative acts, or
other measures affecting this intercourse, as
well prior as subsequent to that convention.
On the side of Great Britain, the act of Par
liament of July, 1812, the draft of the four
articles submitted by Lord Castlereagh, in
1817, the act of Parliament of May, 1818, and
the order of Council which followed it on the
27th of the same month.
„ " On the side of the United States : the act of

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 131
Congress of the 3d of March, 1815 (the legis
lative basis of their system of reciprocity), the
two acts, original and supplementary, of April
the 18th, 1818, and May the 15th, 1820, con
cerning navigation; the act of May the 6th,
1822, with the President's proclamation of the
24th of August, founded upon that act ; to all
these I referred, in connexion, also, with the
second negotiation of June and September,
1819, when the proposals again submitted by
me on behalf of the United States for regu
lating this intercourse by treaty, were again
rejected by Great Britain. The deduction
I made from the whole was, that the United
States had, with uniform consistency and steadi
ness, pursued a course in regard to this trade,
which aimed at placing it upon a footing of
entire reciprocity ; that they asked nothing
more, but, in justice to their citizens, could be
satisfied with nothing less.
" To work out this reciprocity seemed, how
ever, not to be an easy task, I remarked, on the
side of Great Britain, whatever had been her
desire. Her commercial system was of long
standing, and, from its great extent, often in no
slight degree complicated and intricate. It was
marked, not only by a diversity in its operation
upon her home and colonial empire, but by
subdivided diversities in its application to her
k 2

132 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
colonies. In some of her West India Islands,
for example, there were export duties; in others,
none. Some had port charges, and various
other local charges, operating upon vessels or
their cargoes, not recognised in others, but,
what was more important than all, her ancient
navigation acts still remained substantially in
force, mingling their fetters with all her modern
legislation upon the same subject. Her com
mercial and navigating system, whatever other
recommendations it might possess in her eyes,
had been rendered by time and her past policy
deficient in the uniformity and simplicity cal
culated to place it, in these respects at least,
upon a par with the commercial and navigating
system of the United States. This broad dis
tinction between the two countries was always
necessary to be kept in mind, I said, in their
commercial dealings; and, whatever explanation
or excuse it might furnish to Great Britain, for
continuing the pursuit of a course which still
moved in many points in subordination to her
ancient policy, it afforded to the United States
neither motive nor justification for giving up
theirclaim to the principle of an absolute and
perfect equality, in all their regulations of trade
with Great Britain.
" This brought me to the true nature of the
act of Parliament of the 24th of June, 1822.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 133
I explained to the British Plenipotentiaries,
that this statute had not, whatever might have
been its intention, opened the ports of the
British Colonies, in the West Indies and
America, to the vessels of the United States,
upon the same terms as were enjoyed by British
vessels. The privileges granted by it to vessels
ofthe United States were, that they might carry
directly, but in no other way, from some port
of the United States to certain specified colonial
ports, certain specified articles of merchandise,
whilst very high duties were to be paid on all
such of those articles as could alone be the
subjects of a profitable trade. British vessels,
on the other hand, possessed the additional and
exclusive privilege of carrying the same articles
to the same colonial ports, directly or indirectly,
and free from all duty whatever, when carried
from a British colony m North America, to a
British colony in the West Indies. Moreover,
I observed, the vessels of the United States,
admitted only as above to the colonial ports,
were obliged, supposing they obtained a cargo,
to return directly to the United States, and to
give bond, under a heavy penalty, for landing
it at the port for which it was entered, with the
additional burden, not imposed by the act of
Parliament, but existing in fact, of paying a
colonial export duty of four or five per cent.

134 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
upon the value of this return cargo. This
burden did not fall upon British vessels, as
they might avoid it by going, which they were
free to do, to any port of the British dominions,
either in Europe or America, a range not allowed
to the vessels of the United States. Nor were
the British vessels required to give any export
bond for landing the articles at the port for
which entered, and producing, within twelve
months, a certificate of this fact ; a condition
which was also attached to American vessels.
It was evident, I insisted, from the foregoing
recapitulation, that vessels of the United States
had not the same privilege under this act of
Parliament with British vessels, and that the
former were, also, subject to restrictions, im
posed by the act or otherwise existing, from
which the latter were exempt.
"I reminded the British Plenipotentiaries',
however, that no sooner had the knowledge of
this Act of Parliament reached the United
States, than the President, exercising, without
the least delay, the authority with which by
anticipation he had been invested, issued his
proclamation, of the 24th of August, 1822,
opening the ports of the United States gene
rally to British vessels coming from any of the
ports enumerated in the British Act, an exercise
of authority in a high degree liberal, considering

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 135
the relative state of the statutes of the two
countries then in force for the regulation of this
trade. In other respects, the proclamation of
the President had done nothing more, I said,
than lay British vessels coming from the colonies
to the United States, under the same restrictions
in regard to their cargoes, to which vessels of
the United States were subject when going to
the colonies. This, in necessary justice to the
United States, it was obliged to do, and by the
permanent laws of the Union, British vessels
continued liable to the charge of foreign ton
nage, and impost duties. I explained to the
British Plenipotentiaries, that, if neither the
proclamation nor the permanent laws of the
Union imposed burdens upon British vessels
and their cargoes which were the specific
counterparts of those imposed by the Act of
Parliament of the 24th of June, 1822, upon
American vessels, they were nevertheless the
necessary counterparts of the burdens which
did, in point of fact, exist as against American
vessels. To their owners it mattered not
whence these burdens originated, so long as
they continued to press unequally in the com
petition of American with British vessels. It
was to complete the intention of meeting these
burdens upon a basis of reciprocity at all
points, that the act of Congress of the 1st of.

136 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
March, 1823, was finally and on full delibe
ration passed. Its express object I described
to be to countervail all restrictions, of whatever
kind they might be, in actual operation against
vessels of the United States, whether enacted
by the act of the 24th of June, 1822, in force
under the old navigation act of Charles II. , or
recognized and permitted by colonial ordi
nances or local regulations in any of the British
ports that had been opened. As this act of
Congress could not effectuate its just object by
applying to British vessels restrictions which
were of the precise and corresponding nature
with those operating against the vessels of the
United States, it adopted, I said, such as were
analogous to them, without, however, in any
instance, going beyond the measure of a neces
sary retaliation, but rather keeping within than
exceeding this limit. The act of Parliament
had, it was true, proceeded upon the hypo
thesis of extending like privileges to American
as to British vessels ; but here it had stopped,
without imposing upon the latter the same re
strictions which had previously existed against
the former. The act of Congress went further,
and, in according the like privileges with the
British act, imposed also restrictions equivalent
to those that were really and injuriously in
force against the vessels of the United States.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 137
" It was in this manner that I fully opened to
the British Plenipotentiaries the principles and
views of my Government in relation to this
interest. If I am not more minute in recount
ing all that I said, it is merely because I abstain
from swelling this communication by a repeti
tion of the principles, the facts, and the argu
ments contained in your despatch to me of the
23d of June, 1823. With the various matter
of this despatch I had made myself familiar, and
it was alike my duty and my endeavour to ex
hibit it all to the British Plenipotentiaries in
the most perspicuous and impressive ways in
my power. I went on to remark, that it seemed
plain, notwithstanding our countervailing re
strictions, that we were still left at a disadvan
tage in the competition ; for, that, for an enu
merated list of ports open to our vessels, only
part of which, too, had been opened by the act
of Parliament of the 24th of June, 1S22, we
had opened all of our ports, in return, to British
vessels. For an enumerated list of articles,
which we were alone allowed to export to the
Colonies, we received, in return, all articles
which the Colonies found it most to their inte
rest to send to us ; and, for a duty of ten per
cent, on our articles imported into the West
Indies, and of four or five per cent, on those
that we brought away, our laws did nothing

138 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
more than retain a foreign tonnage-duty, of less
than a dollar per ton, on British vessels, and of
ten per cent, on the duty otherwise chargeable
on the articles brought to the United States in
them. It was even doubtful, I said, whether,
under these circumstances, our vessels would be
able to continue the trade, and it was, perhaps,
quite as much so whether the double system of
restrictions upon which it stood would not
deprive it of all value to both countries. I used,
under this branch of the subject, all the topics
of illustration with which your despatch had
supplied me, and others which the subject called
for. " The British order in Council of the 17th of
July, 1823, laying a duty of four shillings and
threepence sterling, per ton, on our vessels going
to the colonial ports, to countervail, as Mr.
Secretary Canning informed me in October last,
our foreign tonnage duty, having been subse
quent in date to your instructions to me, no
remarks upon it were, consequently, embraced
in them. But I considered the duty imposed
by this order open to the same animadversions
as all the other burdens falling upon our vessels.
If we had grounds for complaint before this.
measure, they were but increased by it. If we
were deprived of the opportunity of fair compe
tition in the absence of this new duty, its impo-rf

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 139
sition could not but augment the inequality.
If we were carrying on the trade under every
prospect of disadvantage without it, a more
positive and certain loss to us must be the
result if it were continued. Hence, I did not
scruple to say to the British Plenipotentiaries,
that it must be considered as giving additional
force to all our other objections to their regular
tions. I had not, I admitted, and from the
cause stated, received your instructions upon
the subject of it ; but, as our foreign tonnage-
duty, and the additional impost, had been kept
up against British vessels in necessary self-
defence against all the anterior restrictions
upon our vessels, and duties upon their cargoes,
I took it for granted that this new British
duty, if not abrogated, would, on the same
principles, and from the same necessity, be met
by some measure of counteraction on our side.
In offering such comments as these upon it, I
trust that they will be thought conformable to
the true nature and objects of your instructions,
though not in words pointed out by them.
" In the end, I offered, for the entire and satis
factory regulation of this trade, a draft which
I prepared of the two articles (marked A) an
nexed to the protocol of the third conference.
The first of these articles, after reciting the
restrictions upon the trade existing on each

140 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
side, and the desire and intention that pre
vailed of removing them, goes on to provide,
that, upon the vessels of the United States
admitted by law into the colonial ports, and
upon the merchandise imported in them, no
other duties or charges of any kind should be
levied than upon British vessels, including all
vessels of the Colonies themselves, or upon the
like merchandise imported into the colonial
ports from any other port or place, including
Great Britain and the colonial ports them
selves. And, reciprocally, that upon the ves
sels of Great Britain, admitted by law into the
ports of the United States, and upon the mer
chandise imported in them, no other duties or
charges of any kind should be levied than upon
vessels of the United States, including vessels
of each and every one of the States, or upon
the like merchandise imported into the United
States from any other port or place whatever.
The words last underscored, were inserted only
for the greater satisfaction of the British Pleni
potentiaries, it being explained by me, and so
understood by them, that it could carry no
new meaning ; there being no such thing under
our system with foreign nations, as a vessel of
any one of the States, distinct from a vessel of
the United States. It followed, that the passage
would have had the same meaning without

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 141
these words. The second article provided, in
fulfilment ofthe intentions ofthe first, that the
trade should continue upon the footing on
which it had been placed by the laws of the
two countries, with the exception of the re
moval, by Great Britain, of the duties specified
in schedule C, of the act of Parliament of the
24th of June, 1822, and those specified in the
schedule B, of the act of the 5th of August of
the same year, and of the removal, by the
United States, of the foreign tonnage-duty and
additional impost, complained of by Great
Britain. The article concluded with a mutual
pledge for the removal of all discriminating
duties on either side, of whatever kind they
might be, from the desire which operated with
the parties, of placing the trade in all respects
upon a footing of perfect equality. Such was
the nature of my proposals, for the more exact
terms of which, I beg to refer to the paper
which contains them.
" The British Plenipotentiaries made imme
diate and most decided objections to the part of
these proposals which went to the abolition of
the duties in the two schedules indicated. They
declared that, under no circumstances, could
they accede to such a principle ; and they pro
ceeded to assail it under every form. The
fundamental error of their reasoning, as always

142 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824;
heretofore upon the same point, appeared to
me to lie in considering their colonial posses
sions as part of the entire British dominion at
one time, yet treating them as separate countries
at another. For her own purposes, Britain could
look upon these Colonies as on one and the same
country with herself. For the purposes of trade
with foreign States, she felt herself at liberty to
consider them as detached from herself, and form
ing a new and distinct country ; as moving, in
short, within a commercial orbit wholly of their
own. It was to this, that her rule, resolved into its
true principles, came at last. However such
a rule might be met, and its application admit
ted, as between foreign States mutually posses
sing colonies, and therefore mutually able, in
their commercial intercourse with each other, to
act upon it, its application was manifestly un
equal and incongruous towards the United
States. Possessing no colonies themselves, the
United States neither legislated nor acted upon
a principle of subdividing their empire for any
purpose of commercial advantage, or, above all,
monopoly, with other nations, but held out
indiscriminately to all, one integral and undi
vided system. In strict justice, it would hence
not be unreasonable in them to expect, that all
nations with which they entered into commercial
Stipulations, should look upon their colonies, if

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 143
they had any, only in the light of an extension
of the territories and jurisdiction of the parent
State, since this was, in effect, the aspect which
the United States presented throughout the
whole extent of their territories and jurisdiction,
to all foreign nations. The productions of
Massachussets, for example, which entered into
the articles of international traffic, were, as com
pared with those of Louisiana, scarcely less
different in their nature, than were those of
Britain from those of Jamaica; yet one com
mercial code spread itself over the whole of the
United States, of which foreign nations, and
Britain amongst them, had the benefit, whilst
different commercial codes, and entangling com
mercial practices under them, were seen to exist
on the part of Britain. This resulted from the
mere fact, important it might be to Britain, but
indifferent to the United States, of these codes
and these practices being applicable to the
Government of different portions of the British
empire, some of which fell under the denomi
nation of her home dominion, and some of her
Colonial dominion.
" It was to no effective purpose, hoAvever,
that I enlarged upon, and endeavoured to en
force, by placing in other lights, the foregoing
distinctions. The British Plenipotentiaries con
tinued to combat my positions, and to insist

144 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
upon their right to lay whatever duties they
deemed expedient upon our productions going
to their Islands, in protection of the like arti
cles exported to them from any part of their
own dominion. They said that they would
never part with this right, for which we
offered them no equivalent concession. They
likened our request for its surrender, by an
analogy, the force of which I could never see,
to a request on the side of Great Britain,
should she prefer such a request, to be ad
mitted into a participation of our coasting
trade. They alleged also, that in laying these
duties they had aimed only at making them a
necessary protection to their own subjects in
their North- American colonies ; and that they
were scarcely up to this point was shown by
the fact, which they also alleged, of their
subjects in those colonies not having yet been
able, since the trade was opened, to obtain a
proportionate share of it.
I had more than once occasion to remark,
that it was not the right of either party to
model its own laws as it thought proper, that
we were discussing; it was the terms upon
which it would be best to do so, that we ought
rather to be desirous of settling. Here were
certain colonies belonging to Great Britain on
the continent of North America. It happened

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 145
that some of them were in the immediate
neighbourhood of the United States. Their
course of industry was the same, their pro
ductions the same. If the live stock and
lumber from one of these colonies, from that
of New Brunswick for example, were allowed
to be imported into Antigua or St. Christo
pher's duty free, whilst similar articles from
the State of Maine, bordering upon New
Brunswick, laboured under a duty of ten per
cent, on their importation into the same
islands, was not, I asked, all just competition
at an end? Still more was this the case, I
remarked, if, after disposing of their cargoes,
the vessel from New Brunswick could take in
a return cargo, absolved from an export duty,
and was moreover left at liberty to take ad
vantage of circumstances by trading from
colony to colony, whilst the vessel from Maine
was obliged to depart in ballast, or, if she took
in a cargo, do so subject to the export duty.
How, too, under the weight of this latter duty,
were the articles upon which it was charged to
bear up in the markets of the United States
against the competition of similar articles found
in their markets, partly of their own produce,
and partly derived from islands in the West
Indies, other than those belonging to Great
Britain ? It was thus that I endeavoured to
SECOND SERIES. — IT. L

146 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
establish the reasonableness of our complaints,
and to recommend our proposals to adoption.
I admitted the general right which every nation
had to foster the industry of its own subjects,
preferably to that of strangers, but contro
verted its justice or expediency, as applicable
to this trade, a trade that was anomalous in
many points, and to be judged of and regu
lated not so much on any general theory,
as under an impartial view of all the pecu
liarities that belonged to it. As to the ex
pression, " from elsewhere," introduced into
the act of Congress of the 1st of March,
1823, I insisted upon the propriety of giving
it a construction that would include the
British Colonies themselves as well as foreign
countries,— the only construction that ever
could satisfy the United States, because the
only one that could ever be equitable. With
out it, a reciprocity in words might exist ; but
there would be none in fact. There was ob
viously no foreign nation, except the United
States, that supplied the British West Indies
with the articles in which a traffic had been
opened. To say, therefore, that they should
be imported into the British Islands, subject to
no higher duties than were levied on articles of
the same kind coming from any other foreign
country, would be altogether without meaning.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 147
The field of competition was exclusively in the
North-American Colonies of Britain. These,
by their position and all their local pecu
liarities, were fairly to be considered as another
country in the estimate of this trade, though
they were, it was true, in political subjection
to Great Britain. Their being dependencies
altered not those physical and geographical
characteristics in them which made them the
rivals in this intercourse, and the only rivals of
the United States.
" The British Plenipotentiaries yielded to
none of this reasoning. They admitted that
there were many difficulties in the way of a
satisfactory adjustment of the Shipping ques
tion, and of this intercourse generally between
Great Britain and the United States. These
difficulties were partly colonial, partly the result
of their old navigation laws, and partly spring
ing from the nature of the British North-
American trade, which bore so close an affinity
to some portion of the trade of the United
States. But they continued to declare their
determination not to admit the productions of
the United States into their islands upon the
same footing with the like productions from
other colonies of their own ; and they reiterated
their allegations that, even under the present
duties on our productions, the trade was in our
l 2

148 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
favour. They argued hence, that the amount
of the duties, instead of being too high, seemed
insufficient thus far, taken on a general scale, to
balance the advantage of our proximity to the
West Indies, and of the greater extent and
productiveness of our soil. On this head they
gave me details. They said that, by their
latest accounts, full two-thirds of the flour and
lumber sent to their islands from North America
were ascertained to have been of the produce
of the United States, and that, perhaps, seven-
eighths of this quantity were conveyed in
vessels of the United States. On the return
trade, also, they declared that our vessels had a
share not much below the same proportion. To
these statements, I could only reply that my
impressions were different. That it was true
I was in possession of no returns subsequent
to June, 1823, but that, up to that period,
my information justified me in believing that
the trade had not yielded a fair proportion of
gain to our merchants. The British Plenipo
tentiaries dwelt emphatically upon the circum
stance of our vessels taking away specie from
their islands, in place of a return cargo in the
produce of the islands, as indicative of the trade
being against the islands, since it left upon
their hands their rum and molasses, articles
which they wore chiefly anxious should find a

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 149
market in the United States. If it were the
export duty that produced this necessity in our
vessels to take payment in money for their car
goes, rather than in the produce of the islands, the
Plenipotentiaries said that they could not repeal
it, because it applied equally to British vessels.
It was a duty of four-and-a-half per cent, exist
ing on the exportation of produce, not in all of
the islands, but in some of them, viz. in An
tigua, St. Christopher's, Montserrat, Barbadoes,
Nevis, and the Virgin Islands. In the latter,
it was granted for the benefit of the Crown, in
1774. In most, or all of the others, it had
existed, for the same purpose, as far back as
1668. British vessels paid it, they said, when
going from these islands, whether their destina
tion was the mother country, or any foreign
country. But I did not understand them to
say that it was paid if they went only from
colony to colony.
" To the objection of only a limited number
of ports being open to our vessels, they said,
that they admitted them wherever custom
houses were established, and that the privilege
reserved to British vessels of going from colony
to colony was only the privilege of letting them
enjoy their own coasting trade. They seemed
to forget, that, by whatever name this privilege
went, it was still one which operated against

150 RESIDENCE AT THE .1824.
the competition of vessels of the United States.
On the non-admission into their islands of
articles that we desired to send, as, for example,
salt-fish, beef, pork ; these, they said, were also
excluded from the direct trade between Great
Britain and the United States, including all
other foreign countries. Here, too, they
seemed to throw out of mind, that this very
exclusion, in whatever principle it originated,
still operated against the commerce of the
United States; for, that a system of positive
exclusion formed no part of the regular or per
manent system of the United States, and was
therefore one of which, as long as they dealt
out a different measure of commercial benefit
to other nations, they had good grounds to
complain. " I am saved the necessity of recapitulating
any further the remarks of the British Plenipo
tentiaries upon our proposals, from their having
furnished me with a summary of them in
writing. This was not in the regular course of
our proceedings, and the paper not being con
sidered as an official one, was not annexed to any
protocol, or referred to in any. It was merely
given to me as an informal memorandum, in
which light I was willing and glad to receive
it, as it protects me from all risk of not
doing justice in my Report to their representa-

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 151
tions. It will be found among the enclosures,
marked W.
" After all that I have said, it may be almost
superfluous to state that this Government will
decline abrogating the tonnage-duty of four shil
lings and threepence sterling, imposed upon our
vessels, by the order in Council of July, 1823.
Mr. Huskisson expressly brought this subject
before the House of Commons in the course of
the last session of Parliament, with a view to give
full validity to that order, doubts having arisen
how far it was justified by the provisions of the
Act of Parliament of the preceding session, on
which it was founded. By this Act a general
power had been given to the King in Council,
to impose countervailing duties on the cargoes
of foreign vessels, but not upon their tonnage.
It was under this Act that the order of July,
1823, affecting the tonnage of our vessels,
passed ; and Mr. Huskisson obtained, at the last
session, a new Act for indemnifying all persons
concerned in executing this order, which, though
out of the words, was conceived to be within
the objects of the first Act. A copy of the last
Act is enclosed. The two Acts taken together,
now give to the King and Council a permanent
power to meet other nations on the ground of
reciprocity in duties, both as to vessels and
cargoes. To this ground Prussia has acceded,

152 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
by a treaty concluded with this Government in
April last, a printed copy of which I enclose,
that its terms maybe seen. Denmark has done
the same, by a treaty concluded in June. The
latter is not published as yet, but I have reason
to know, that its terms are the same as those of
the treaty with Prussia. It does not include
the colonies of Denmark, nor, of course, those
of Britain; standing, in this respect, upon the
footing of our commercial convention with
Britain of 1815. Prussia, having no colonies,
her treaty, as far as there will be room for its
operation at all, necessarily stands upon the
same footing. Among the colonies of Denmark
are comprehended Greenland, Iceland, and the
Faroe Islands, which are enumerated as such in
the treaty. It is understood that Sweden has
shown a disposition to come into this reciprocity,
and that there are pending negotiations between
this Government and that of the Netherlands
to the same effect.
" After the British Plenipotentiaries had
finished all their remarks upon our proposals,
I thought it best, seeing that they had not
proved acceptable, to invite others from them,
in turn, to be taken for reference to my Govern
ment. These they afforded me, and they are
annexed, marked L, to the protocol of the six
teenth conference. The first article, after reciting

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 153
the desire of both parties to abolish, recipro
cally, all discriminating duties in this trade,
proceeds to effect this purpose, after the British
understanding of it. It pledges Great Britain
to lay no higher duties on our produce than
upon produce of the same kind, imported
not from elsewhere, or from any other country,
but from any other foreign country, using here
the very term to which, in both the former
negotiations, we had objected at large. The
same term has place in the part of the article
intended to operate against Great Britain, as
she only claims in sending her colonial produce
to the United States, that it shall be received,
subject to the same duties as are paid on articles
of the same kind, when imported into the United
States, from any other foreign country. To
this correlative provision the British Plenipo
tentiaries referred, as illustrative of the true
idea of reciprocity. I again insisted upon its
manifesting the very reverse. It was palpable
that the term had a real substantive meaning in
the one case, but might as well be omitted in
the other. Like produce with that sent to the
British Islands from the United States, the
Islands obtained, as we had seen, from no other
foreign country, but only from the British pos
sessions in North America ; whereas the United
States did receive from Cuba, from St. Domingo,

154 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
and from other foreign islands and countries,
the same kind of produce as that yielded in the
British Islands. Surely, then, Great Britain
would be benefited by the operation of the
term; whilst to the United States it must be
nugatory. There was a visible sphere within
which it would act in the one case, whilst in the
other there was no shadow of foundation upon
which it could rest. But I was always unsuccess
ful in obtaining from the British Plenipoten
tiaries the admissions due to us on this cardinal
principle. Their second article provides for the
actual abolition, subject, of course, to the fore
going reservation, of all discriminating duties or
charges of every kind, whether on the vessels or
cargoes of the two Powers. The third contains a
stipulation, that, in case the trade should prove
on trial unduly advantageous to one of the
parties, the other will examine in a proper
spirit the complaint, and, on its being substan
tiated, adopt measures in unison with the true
principles on which the parties intended to fix
it. The fourth provides, that whatever advan
tages Great Britain may in future extend to
any friendly State in Europe or America, with
respect to this trade, shall be common to the
United States ; and that the United States shall
extend to Great Britain whatever advantages
they may at any time grant to the most

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 155
favoured State, in any trade carried on between
the possessions of such State in the West In
dies or America, and the United States. The
fifth and last article provides, in consideration
of the foregoing arrangements, that Consuls
shall be admitted from the United States into
the open colonial ports, and received on the
same conditions as are stipulated in the fourth
article of the convention of July, 1815. Upon
this last article I shall have occasion to remark
in another part of my communication. The
others I leave, including the fourth, upon the
remarks, already made. The fourth, it is evi
dent, still keeps to the British principle of con
sidering their Colonies as equivalent, of them
selves, to the whole of the United States, in
the arrangements of this trade.
" During the pendency of the negotiation, I
received a letter, which seemed to me to be of
importance, from Mr. Kankey, our consular
commercial agent at the island of Barbadoes.
He informed me^ that, under directions which
had been recently given to the collector and
comptroller of the customs of that island, by
the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, ves
sels of the United States were permitted to
land there a portion of their cargoes, and to
carry the remainder elsewhere, if entered for
exportation, paying the import duty only on so

156 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
much as was landed. This regulation, he added,
would be of service to our trade, provided the
necessity of paying the tonnage-money of four
shillings and threepence sterling per ton, at
more than one of the colonial ports, during the
same voyage, could be avoided ; and he ap
pealed to me to have this effected.
" I immediately brought the subject before the
British Plenipotentiaries, urging the right of our
vessels to an exemption from all such double
payments, on the ground of British vessels never
being subject to double payments of tonnage
duty in the United States, during the same
voyage, though they did proceed from port to
port. I was asked if I had any instructions
from my Government upon this point. I replied
that I had not, but that I was confident in my
belief that, under our laws, the fact could not
be otherwise than as I had stated it. Mr. Hus
kisson then said that he would obtain the
sanction of this Government for placing our
vessels in the West Indies upon the same
footing, in this respect, upon which British
vessels were placed in the United States, and
would undertake, in his official capacity of
President of the Board of Trade, to see that
the necessary orders were forthwith issued for
the accomplishment of this object.
" Mr. Kankey made another representation to

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 157
me, which I also brought before the British
Plenipotentiaries, as pertinent to the business
in which we were engaged. He stated that an
improper duty was charged at Barbadoes, on
the article of biscuit, when imported in barrels
from the United States, a repeal of which he
had not been able to effect by remonstrating
with the collector. This article, when intended
for a foreign market, is packed in barrels, such
as are used to hold flour, and seldom contain,
it appears, more than eighty pounds weight.
But without any reference to the weight, the
collector was in the habit of demanding, on
every such barrel of biscuit (the cracker) landed
at Barbadoes, a duty of two shillings and six
pence sterling, when by the true construction of
the Act of Parliament of the 24th of June, 1822,
under which the duty arose, it was believed
that only one shilling and sixpence per hundred
weight ought ever to be charged. Of this
heavy overcharge on a single article, which the
exporters of the middle states were constantly
sending to the British Islands, I complained in
the terms that Mr. Kankey's representation to
me warranted, Mr. Huskisson gave me an
immediate assurance that my complaint should
be attended to. He subsequently informed me
that, in consequence of it, the officers of the
customs, generally, in the islands, had been

158 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
directed, in all cases where such biscuit was
imported from the United States, in barrels,
weighing less than one hundred and ninety-six
pounds, to charge the duty by the weight, and
at the rate of not more than one shilling and
sixpence sterling per hundredweight. I am
happy to think, that, in at least these two
instances, some portion of immediate relief is
likely to be extended to our trade in that
quarter. " From Mr. Monroe Harrison, the Consul
of the United States at Antigua, I also
received a communication, whilst our proceed
ings were going on, of which I apprised the
Plenipotentiaries of this Government. He in
formed me that our citizens, trading to that
island, being often compelled to sell their cargoes
on a credit, payable in produce, when the crops
came in, found it convenient, if not sometimes
necessary, to make another voyage to the West
Indies, in order to recover the proceeds of their
cargoes so disposed of. The markets in the
French and other islands being often better
than in the British Islands, our citizens, in the
predicament stated, would find it, Mr. Harrison
remarked, to their advantage, to be able to
resort to the former islands in the first instance.
But this object they were precluded from
coupling with that of afterwards calling at the

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 159
British Islands for the collection of their debts
in the produce of them, since, should they only
touch at the British Islands, having on board
any article other than of the produce of the
United States, their vessels became liable to
seizure. I did not receive from the British
Plenipotentiaries the same attention to this
representation that was shown in the other
cases ; nor, under my present lights, did I feel
altogether warranted in pressing it upon the
same grounds. They informed me, in the
course of our conversation upon it, that there
was no objection, under the British regulations,
to a vessel of the United States, bound from one
of our ports to any island in the West Indies,
other than British, afterwards proceeding from
such other island to a British Island, with the
whole or part of her cargo ; provided it had not
been landed at any intermediate port, and that
there had been no change in the property
during the voyage. I presume that those of
our citizens who are interested in knowing it,
are acquainted with this construction of the
British laws ; which, however, does not present
itself to my mind in the light of any important
boon. " The Act of Parliament ofthe 5th of August,
1822, having immediate relation to the commer
cial intercourse between the United States and

160 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
the British continental possessions in their neigh
bourhood, I naturally regarded it, as your instruc
tions to me had done, in connexion with the Act
of June the 24th, 1822. This brought under
consideration our claim to the navigation of the
river St. Lawrence. Between this question, and
the questions of commercial intercouse under
the Act of June, 1822, the British Plenipoten
tiaries were constantly unwilling to acknowledge
any connexion. Nevertheless, looking to your
instructions, and as well to the reason of them
as to their authority, I treated the two ques
tions as belonging to one and the same general
subject. They asked whether, taking the two
Acts of Parliament together, the United States
did not already enjoy the navigation of this
river. I said that they did; by the Act of
June the 24th, 1822, they enjoyed it from the
ocean to Quebec; and by that of the 5th of
August, 1822, from any part of the territories
of the United States to Quebec. But, from
the fact of the Colonial Governments in Canada
being invested with a discretionary power to
withdraw the latter of these concessions, by
excepting any of the Canadian ports from
those to which our vessels were made admis
sible, it followed that our enjoyment of the
navigation of this river was rendered con
tingent upon British permission. This was a

J a

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 161
tenure not reconcilable, in the opinion of the
Government of the United States, with the
growing and permanent wants of their citizens
in that portion of the Union, or with the rights
of the nation. It was due to both these con
siderations, that it should stand upon a different
tenure, and the time had arrived when it was
desirable that the two nations should come to
an understanding upon a question of so much
importance. " The British Plenipotentiaries next asked,
whether any question was about to be raised
on the right of Great Britain to exclude,
altogether, vessels of the United States from
trading with British ports situated upon the
St. Lawrence, or elsewhere, in Canada ? I
replied that I was not prepared absolutely to
deny such a right in Great Britain, to what
ever considerations its exercise might be open.
I remarked, also, that it seemed already to
have been substantially exercised by this Act
o fthe 5th of August, 1822 ; for, by its pro
visions, only certain enumerated articles were
allowed to be exported from the United States
into Canadian ports, and duties were laid upon
these articles which might be said to amount
to a prohibition. I added that, although the
foregoing Act had not laid any duty on the
merchandise of the United States descending
SECOND SERIES. — II. M

162 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
the St. Lawrence, with a view to exportation
by sea, yet, that an Act of the preceding year
did, viz. upon their timber and lumber, which
made it highly expedient that the relative
rights of the parties to the use of the waters
of this great stream should be ascertained. I
here went into a review of the footing upon
which the trade between the United States and
the Canadas stood under the stipulations of
the treaty of 1794. The memorial from the in
habitants of Franklin County, in the State of
New York, and the Report of the Committee
of the House of Representatives upon that
document, furnished me with the necessary
lights for executing this duty, as well as for
pointing out the injurious and burdensome
operation of the act of the 5th of August,
1822. The latter act had superseded all the
former conditions of this intercourse. With
these conditions the citizens of the United
States had been, I said, content ; and, it was
believed, that they had been found, on expe*
Hence* satisfactory on both sides. The treaty
stipulations of 1794, were among the articles
of that instrument declared, when it was made,
to be permanent ; and so mutually beneficial
had appeared to be their operation, that both
parties continued, in practice, to make them
the rule of their conduct for some years after

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 163
the war of 1812, until, by the Acts of Parlia
ment just recited, Great Britain chose to con
sider the intervention of that war as putting
an end to their validity. This state of things,
by remitting each party to their anterior and
original rights, rendered it manifestly incum
bent upon the Government of the United
States now to attempt to settle, by convention,
or in some other manner* with Great Britain,
the true nature of the tenure by which they
held the navigation of this stream.
" Such was the character of the remarks by
which I illustrated the propriety of adding to
the two articles which I had offered for the
regulation of the commercial intercourse be
tween the United States and the British colonies,
whether continental or insular, a third article
relating exclusively to the navigation of the
St. Lawrence. A third article will be found,
accordingly, in this connexion, as part of our
projet already referred to as annexed to the
protocol of the third conference. Its stipula
tions were, that the navigation of the St.
Lawrence, in its whole length and breadth to
and from the sea, should be at all times equally
free to the citizens and subjects of both
countries; and that the vessels belonging to
either party should never be subject to any
molestation whatever by the other,, or to the
m 2

164 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
payment of any duty for this right of naviga
tion. After this unequivocal provision, it con
cluded with a clause that, regarding such
reasonable and moderate tolls as either side
might claim, and appear to be entitled to, the
.contracting parties would treat at a future day,
in order that the principles regulating such tolls
might be adjusted to mutual satisfaction.
" I deemed it most advisable to ingraft
upon the article this principle respecting tolls,
although it was not particularly mentioned in
your despatch. In pursuing into their details
some of the general principles which you had
laid down, I was left under the impression that
our title to navigate this river, independently of
the consent of Great Britain, could be made
out with more complete and decisive strength
under the qualified admission of the claim to
toll. The writers on public law had generally
so treated the subject, and in some of the
modern treaties, of high authority in our favour
on the general question, the admission was also
to be seen. I refer particularly to the fifth
article of the treaty of peace of the 30th of
May, 1814, between the Allied Powers and
France, where, after providing for the free
navigation of the Rhine to all persons, it is
agreed that principles should be laid down, at a
future Congress, for the collection ofthe duties;

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 165
by the States on its banks, in the manner most
equal and favourable to the commerce of all
nations. In adverting to the claim of toll as a
question only for future discussion, and one
that might be of like interest to both parties
(the British navigation of this river being
obliged, in some parts, to pass close to our
bank), and, moreover, where the claim, if ad
vanced on either side, was to be made depend
ent, on sufficient cause being shown for it,
I did not believe that I was losing sight of any
principle of value to the United States in this
controversy. The clause, I hope, will be found
to have been too guarded in its terms to be
open to such a risk.
" There was another point on which I felt
more uncertainty. The navigation of this
stream, although I believed it could be demon
strated to be the just right of the people of the
United States, could not draw after it all its
benefits to them, without a concurrent right of
stopping at some point, or port, where both of
its banks fell within the colonial territory of
Great Britain. Upon what footing was I to
treat this latter and subordinate question ?
Your instructions had not dealt with it, and I
felt myself at a loss. It could scarcely be
doubted but that, our right to navigate the
river being established, Britain would, as matter

166 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
of international comity, and as an arrangement
advantageous also to herself, allow us a place of
entry for our vessels, and deposite for our pro
duce, somewhere on its shores. She has so
largely, of late years, been extending the ware
housing system to all other nations, for their
convenience and her own, that it might well be
presumed she would not exclude the United
States from a participation in it at Quebec, or
elsewhere, at a suitable port in Canada. Yet I
felt it to be a point of some delicacy, and, there
fore, thought that it would be most judicious to
leave it wholly untouched in my proposal.
Another reason operated with me for this
silence. As far as I was able to carry my inves
tigations into the point, I found much ground
for supposing that the right to the navigation of
a river under the strong circumstances which
marked that of the United States to the navi
gation of the St. Lawrence, would involve, as an
incident, the right of innocent stoppage some
where on their shores — an incident indispen
sable to the beneficial enjoyment of the right
itself. By the seventh article of the treaty of
Paris, of 1763, the free navigation of the Mis
sissippi was granted to Great Britain ; but with
out any clause securing to British vessels the
privilege of stopping at New Orleans, then a
French port, or at any other port or place on

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 167
any part of the shores. Yet the historical fact
appears to have been, that Britain did use New
Orleans as a place for her vessels to stop at,
and this without any subsequent arrangement
with France upon the subject. The case be
comes still stronger if, afterwards, when New
Orleans fell into the hands of Spain, the British
continued to use it for the same purpose, con<-
trary, at first, to the remonstrances of the
Spanish governor of that town, which is also
believed to have been the fact. I abstained,
however, from asserting, in this negotiation, the
subordinate right in question.
" On the principal question of our equal right
with the British to the entire and unobstructed
navigation of this river, I dwelt with all the
emphasis demanded by its magnitude. I spoke
of it as a question intimately connected with
the present interests of the United States, and
which assumed an aspect yet more commanding
in its bearing upon their future population and
destinies. Already the immense regions which
bordered upon the lakes and northern rivers of
the United States were rapidly filling up with
inhabitants, and soon the dense millions who
would cover them, would point to the para
mount and irresistible necessity for the use of
this great stream, as their only natural highway
to the ocean. Nor was the question one of

168 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824:
magnitude to this part of the Union alone.
The whole nation felt their stake in it, the
Middle and the North more immediately, but
all the rest by the multiplied ties and connexions
which bound up their wants, their interests, and
their sympathies, with the Middle and the
North. It was under such a view of the imme
diate and prospective value of this navigation to
us, that I first presented it to the notice of the
British Plenipotentiaries as a question of right.
I told them that they must understand this
to be the sense in which I had drawn up the
article upon the subject, and that it was the
sense in which I felt myself bound, as the Pleni
potentiary of the United States, to urge its
adoption. " I approach an interesting part of this nego
tiation, when I come to make known in what
manner the British Plenipotentiaries received
this disclosure. They said, that, on princi
ples of accommodation, they were willing to
treat of this claim with the United States in a
spirit of entire amity ; that is, as they explained,
to treat of it as a concession on the part of
Great Britain, for which the United States must
be prepared to offer a full equivalent. This was
the only light in which they could entertain the
question. As to the claim of right, they hoped
that it would not even be advanced; persisted

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 169
in, they were willing to persuade themselves it
would never be. It was equally novel and ex
traordinary. They could not repress their
strong feelings of surprise at its bare intimation.
Great Britain possessed the absolute sovereignty
over this river in all parts where both its banks
were of her territorial dominion. Her right,
hence, to exclude a foreign nation from navi
gating it, was not to be doubted, scarcely to be
discussed. This was the manner in which it
was at first received. They opposed to the
claim an immediate, positive, unqualified re
sistance. " I said that our claim was neither novel nor
extraordinary. It was one that had been well
considered by my Government, and was believed
to be maintainable on the soundest principles of
public law. The question had been familiar to
the past discussions of the United States, as
their state papers, which were before the world,
would show. It had been asserted, and success
fully asserted, in relation to another great river
of the American continent, flowing to the south,
the Mississippi, at a time when both of its lower
banks were under the dominion of a foreign
power. The essential principles that had
governed the one case, were now applicable to
the other.
" My reply was not satisfactory to the British

170 RESIDENCE AT THE' 1824.
Plenipotentiaries. They combated the claim
with increased earnestness, declaring that it was
altogether untenable, and of a nature to be
totally and unequivocally rejected. Instead of
having the sanction of public law, the law and
the practice of nations equally disclaimed it.
Could I show where was to be found in either
the least warrant for its assertion ? Was it not
a claim plainly inconsistent with the paramount
authority and exclusive possession of 'Great
Britain ? Could she, for one moment, listen
to it?
" I remarked, that the claim had been put
forward by the United States, because of the
great national interests involved in it ; yet, that
this consideration, high as it was, would never
be looked at but in connexion with the just
rights of Great Britain. For this course of pro
ceeding, both the principles and practice of my
Government might well be taken as the guaran
tee. The claim was, therefore, far from being
put forward in any unfriendly spirit, and would
be subject to a frank and full interchange of
sentiments between the two Governments. I
was obviously bound, I admitted, to make known,
on behalf of mine, the grounds on which the
claim was advanced, a duty which I would not
fail to perform. I stated that we considered
our right to the navigation of this river, as

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 171
strictly a natural right. This was the firm
foundation on which it would be placed.
" This was the light in which it was defensible
on the highest authorities no less than on the
soundest principles. If, indeed, it had ever
heretofore been supposed that the possession of
both the shores of a river below, had conferred
the right of interdicting the navigation of it to
the people of other nations inhabiting its upper
banks, the examination of such a principle would
at once disclose the objections to it. The ex
clusive right of jurisdiction over a river could
only originate in the social compact, and be
claimed as a right of sovereignty. The right of
navigating the river .was a right of nature ante-*
rior in point of time, and which the mere
sovereign right of one nation could not anni
hilate as belonging to the people of another. It
was a right essential to the condition and wants
of human society, and conformable to the voice
of mankind in all ages and countries. The
principle on which it rested, challenged such
universal assent, that, wherever it had not been
allowed, it might be imputed to the triumph of
power or injustice over right. Its recovery and
exercise had still been objects precious among
nations, and it was happily acquiring fresh
sanction from the highest examples of modern
times. The parties to the European alliance

172 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824:
had, in the treaties of Vienna, declared that the
navigation of the Rhine, the Necker, the MayneT
the Moselle, the Maes, and the Scheldt, should
be free to all nations. The object of these
Stipulations was as evident as praiseworthy. It
could have been no other than to render the
navigation of those rivers free to all the people
dwelling upon their banks ; thus abolishing
those unjust restrictions by which the people of
the interior of Germany had been too often
deprived of their natural outlet to the sea, by an
abuse of that right of sovereignty which claimed
for a state, happening to possess both the shores
of a river at its mouth, the exclusive property
over it. There was no principle of national law
upon which the stipulations of the above treaties
could be founded, which did not equally apply
to the case of the St. Lawrence. It was thus
that I opened our general doctrine. It was
from such principles that I deduced our right
to navigate this river, independent of the mere
favour or concession of Great Britain, and, con
sequently, independent of any claim on her side
to an equivalent.
" I abstain from any further recapitulation to
you of the principles which I invoked, or of the
authorities to which I referred, for a reason to
be now mentioned. It will be seen by the first
protocol, that our agreement had been to carry

.1824. COURT OF LONDON. 173
on the negotiation by conference and protocol.
This, the more usual mode at all times, was
conceived to be peculiarly appropriate, where
the subjects to be handled were so various, and
their details, in some instances, so extensive.
It was recommended, also — and this was of
higher sway with me — by the example of the
negotiation of 1818, in the course of which
some of the same subjects had been discussed
with this Government. Nevertheless, each
party had reserved, under this agreement, the
right of annexing to the protocol any written
statement that might be considered necessary,
as matter either of record or of explanation.
In your instructions to me respecting this claim
to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, a ques
tion wholly new, as between the two nations,
you had adverted to my presenting it in writing,
if necessary; and I determined, under all the
circumstances, that I should not properly come
up to my duty, unless by adopting this mode.
The question was not only new, but of the
greatest moment. v I saw, also, from the be
ginning, that it would encounter the most
decided opposition from Great Britain. In
proportion as her Plenipotentiaries became ex
plicit and peremptory in denying it, did it occur
to me that it would be proper on my part to be
unequivocal in its assertion. This could be

174 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824,
best done upon paper. This would carry the
claim distinctly to the archives of this Govern
ment, rather than trust it to foundations more
uncertain and fugitive. It would explain, as
well as record, the sense in which it was in
serted on the protocol. Another motive with
me for this course, and scarcely a secondary
one, was, that it would serve to draw from
Great Britain, in the same form, a precise and
full avowal of the grounds on which she de
signed to oppose the claim. On a question so
large, and which, from all that I perceived to
mark its first opening between the two Govern
ments, could hardly fail to come under dis
cussion again hereafter, it appeared to me that
it would be more acceptable to my Government
to be in possession of a written document,
which should embody the opinions of this Go
vernment, than to take the report of them from
me under any form less exact or authentic.
" I accordingly drew up a paper upon the
subject, which, under the right reserved, I
annexed (marked B) to the protocol of the
eighteenth conference, and so it stands amongst
the papers of the negotiation. The British
Plenipotentiaries continued to urge their ani
mated protests against this proceeding on my
part; not that they could divest me of my pri
vilege of recording my sentiments in the shape

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 175
of this written statement, but that they earn
estly pressed the propriety of my abandoning
altogether any claim to the navigation of this
river, as a claim of right, which shut them
out from treating of it upon other bases.
But having taken my determination, under
other estimates of my duty, I did not depart
from it.
" The paper which I drew up aimed at pre
senting a broad but intelligible outline of the
principal reasons in support of our claim. These
were such as you had set before me, and as I
judged to be immediately deducible from them.
Under the latter, I included the argument on
the Mississippi question, used by an illustrious
individual, then the organ of our Government
in its intercourse with foreign states. I con
sidered this argument as virtually compre
hended in your instructions, by the reference
which they contained to it; the questions in
both cases, so far as each drew support from
the deep foundations of the law of nature, being
the same. Of this luminous state paper I fol
lowed the track, adopting its own language
wherever this could be done, as the safest, the
most approved, the most national. The only
view of the subject not elicited on that occa
sion, was one pointed out by the locality of
the St. Lawrence. I will briefly explain this,

176 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
as I presented it to the British Plenipoten
tiaries. " The exclusive right possessed by Great
Britain over both banks of this river, was won
for her by the co-operation of the people who
now form the United States. Their exertions,
their treasure, their blood, were profusely em
barked in every campaign of the old French
war. It was under this name that the recol
lection of that war still lived in the United
States, a war which, but for the aid of New
England, New York, and Pennsylvania, if of
no more of the States, would probably not
have terminated when it did, in the conquest
of Canada from France. If these States were,
at that epoch, a part of the colonial empire
of Britain, it was nevertheless impossible to
obliterate the recollection of historical facts, or
exclude the inferences that would attach to
them. The predecessors of the present inha
bitants of those States, had borne a constant
and heavy burden in that war, and had ac
quired simultaneously with the then parent
State, the right of descending this stream, on
the hypothesis, assumed for the moment, of
their not having possessed it before ; a right
of peculiar importance to them, from their
local position and necessities. It was to this
effect that I noticed a title by joint acquisition,

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 177
as also susceptible of being adduced for the
United States to the navigation of this river.
There was at least a strong national equity in
it, which would come home to the people of
the United States, impressing them with new
convictions of the hardship of now refusing
them the use of this stream as an innocent
pathway to the ocean. But, as I had not your
elucidations of this view of the subject, I was
careful to use it only in subordination to the
argument of natural right. The latter I treated
as sufficient in itself to- make out our title, and
repudiated the necessity of resorting to any
other. I will own, however, that my disposi
tions to confide in the argument founded upon
joint acquisition, was increased by the analogy
which it appeared to me to bear to the course
of reasoning pursued with Great Britain by
my predecessor in this mission in relation
to the fisheries. If our title to a full partici
pation with Britain in the fisheries, though
they were within the acknowledged limits and
jurisdiction of the coasts of British America,
was strengthened by the fact of the early
inhabitants of the United States having been
among the foremost to explore and use the
fishing grounds, why was the analogous fact of
their having assisted to expel the French from
the lower shores of the St. Lawrence to be of
SECOND SERIES. — II. N

178 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
no avail? I had believed in the application
and force of the argument in the one instance,
and could not deny it all the consideration
that it merited in the other.
" The necessity of my recounting to you the
British argument in answer to our claim, is
superseded by my being able to transmit it to
you in their own words upon paper. It is suf
ficiently elaborate, and was drawn up with great
deliberation. It is annexed (marked N) to the
protocol of the twenty-fourth conference. The
intention avowed by the British Plenipoten
tiaries at the nineteenth conference, of obtain
ing for its doctrines, before it was delivered to
me, the full sanction of their highest profes
sional authorities on matters relating to the law
of nations, may serve to show the t gravity and
importance,' to repeat their own expression,
which the question had assumed in their eyes.
I have otherwise reasons for knowing that their
argument was prepared under the advice and
assistance of five of the most eminent publicists
of England.* With all the respect due to a
paper matured even under such auspices, I am
not able to look upon it as impugning the
argument which, under your direction, and fol-
* Lord Stowell, Sir Christopher Robinson, Dr. Lushington, Dr.
Adam, and Dr. Philliraore. It was understood to have been also
submitted to Lord Chancellor Eldon.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 179
lowing the course of others before me, as well
as taking such new views as the subject sug
gested, I had become the organ of making-
known on behalf of the United States.
" In several instances, the British paper has
appealed to the same authorities that are to be
found in mine. It is in the application of them
only, that the difference is seen. In other
parts, the difference is made to turn upon
words rather than substance. But an error
that runs throughout nearly the whole of their
paper, consists in attributing to mine a mean
ing which does not belong to it. This applies
especially to the particular description of right
which we claim, how far it is one of mere inno
cent utility ; how far a right necessary to us,
and not injurious to Britain ; how far a right
which, if not falling under the technical desig
nation of absolute, is, nevertheless, one that
cannot be withheld — these are all qualifications
that were not overlooked in my exposition of
the doctrine, a light, however, in which the
British paper does not appear to have regarded
it. But as each document is now of record,
and will be judged by the terms which it
has used, and the construction that justly at
taches to them, I will not enlarge upon this
head. " The British paper deals with our claim as
n 2

180 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
standing upon equal footing with a claim to the
use of the roads, canals, or other artificial ways
of a country, forgetting that the case in dispute
is that of a natural stream forming the only
natural outlet to the ocean, the stream itself
being common by nature to both countries.
Commenting upon the acquired title of the
United States, which I had put forward under
the restriction described, their paper argues
that the same ground would justify a correlative
claim by Great Britain to the use of the navi
gable rivers, and all other public possessions of
the United States, which existed when both
countries were united under a common govern
ment! By a like misapplication of obvious
principles, it argues that our claim would also
justify Britain in asking a passage down the
Mississippi or the Hudson, though neither the
one nor the other touch any portion of the
British territories ; or that it might equally
justify a claim on her side to ascend, with
British vessels, the principal rivers of the
United States, as far as their draft of water
would admit, instead of depositing their cargoes
at the appointed ports of entry from the sea !
On doctrines such as these, I could only say to
the British Plenipotentiaries, that I was wholly
unable to perceive their application to the
argument, unless the United States had been

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 181
advancing a claim to the navigation of the river
Thames in England.
" Their argument, also, assumes that the treaty
stipulations of 1794, exclude all idea of a right,
on our side, to the navigation of this river, for
getting that if, under those stipulations, vessels
of the United States were interdicted the navi
gation of British rivers,, between their mouths
and the highest port of entry from the sea ;
so, on the other hand, British vessels were
interdicted the navigation of the rivers of the
United States, beyond the highest ports of
entry from the sea; and, also, that the whole
terms of the international intercourse, in that
quarter, were, by this compact, such as, at the
time, satisfied both parties, without impairing
the rights which either possessed, independent
of the compact, and which only remained in
suspense during its existence.
" This observation suggests another, to which
their argument is open in parts which they press
as of decisive weight. It alleges, that, because
by the general treaty of Vienna the Powers
whose States were crossed by the same navi
gable rivers, engaged to regulate, by common
consent, all that regarded their navigation ; be
cause Russia held by treaty the navigation of
the Black Sea; and because of the many
instances capable of being cited where the navi-

182 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
gation of rivers or straits, that separated
or flowed through the territories of different
countries, was expressly provided for by treaty ;
that, because of these facts, the inference was
irresistible, that the right of navigation, under
such circumstances, depended upon common
consent, and could only be claimed by treaty.
Here, too, it seems to have been forgotten, that
it is allowable in treaties, as well as oftentimes
expedient, for greater safety and precision, to
enter into stipulations for the enjoyment or
regulation of pre-existing rights; that treaties
are, in fact, expressly declared, by the writers
upon the laws of nations, to be of two general
kinds, those which turn on things to which we
are already bound by the law of nature, and
those by which we engage to do something
more. In their quotation, also, of the note from
the first volume of the laws of Congress, con
taining an intimation that the United States
could not be expected to yield the navigation of
the Mississippi without an equivalent, they seem
wholly to have overlooked, besides the other
points of that note, that it was made at a period
when it was well known that no part of that
river touched the territories of a foreign power,
and when, therefore, its exclusive navigation
belonged to the United States as much so as the
Delaware, or the Potomac.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 183
" The foregoing are some of the remarks upon
the British paper, which I submitted at the con
ference after receiving it. The first impressions
that I had of my duty in regard to it, and, con
sequently, my first determination, was, to reply
to it at large in writing, annexing my reply to
the protocol. But, on more reflection, I deemed
it most proper to abstain, at present, from this
step. As a view of the whole subject given out
under the immediate eye and authority of this
Government, and with extraordinary care, it
appeared to me that the British paper ought to
come under the knowledge of my own Govern
ment, before receiving a formal or full answer
from any source less high. If it be thought
to require such an answer, a short delay could
be nothing to the advantage of its being afforded,
either through me, or my successor, in this
mission, under the light of further instructions
from home. The pause seemed the more due,
not only from the newness of the discussion
between the two Governments, but because I
may not, at this moment, be sufficiently apprised
of all the modifications under which mine may
desire it to be presented in a second and more
full argument. I hope that this forbearance on
my part will be approved, as having been, under
the exigency, the most circumspect and becom
ing course. I gave the British Plenipotentiaries

184 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
to understand, that the written argument on the
side of the United States must not be considered
as closed, but, on the contrary, only as opened.
"Finally, on coming to a conclusion on the
general subject of our commercial intercourse
with the British West Indies and their North-
American colonies, whether by the way of the
ocean or the St. Lawrence, it may be proper in
me to recapitulate what I take to be the deter
minations of this Government in regard to it, at
all points.
" 1. — They will not give up the duty of four
shillings and threepence sterling per ton, im
posed upon our vessels by the order in Council
of July, 1823.
"2. — They will enter into no convention or
arrangement with us that does not recognise the
principle embraced in the first article of their
coxmter-projet annexed to the sixteenth pro
tocol. I mean that which goes to place our
produce imported into their islands upon the
same footing in respect of duties as the like
produce imported into them from any other
foreign country. This term they adhere to, on
the avowed principle of protecting and en
couraging the produce of their own colonial
possessions in North America.
"3. — They will not abolish the duties speci
fied in Schedule C of the Act of Parliament of

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 185
the 24th of June, 1822, or those specified in
Schedule B of the Act of the 5th of August,
1822. "4. — They totally deny our right to the
navigation of the St. Lawrence, declaring that
they cannot treat of the subject upon such a
basis. " 5. — They will be willing to repeal entirely,
if not already done, all duties or charges what
ever, whether imposed by Act of Parliament,
growing out of colonial laws or usages, or in
whatsoever manner existing, which go to sub
ject vessels of the United States to any burden
not common to British vessels ; the repeal to
extend to all the enumerated ports, without
exception. " 6. — Though stating that they are not
satisfied with the trade on its present footing,
they are willing that it should have a further
experiment ; that is, to let it go on, the United
States retaining their foreign tonnage-duty, and
additional impost of ten per cent., and Great
Britain retaining her tonnage-duty of July,
1823, and also an additional impost of ten per
cent. The protocols which have reference to the
different branches of this whole subject are, the
third, the ninth, the .fifteenth, the sixteenth,
the seventeenth, the eighteenth, the nine-

186 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824,
teenth, the twenty-fourth, and the twenty-
fifth. I pass to another subject.
" II. Boundary Line under the Fifth
Article of the Treaty of Ghent. This
subject was, throughout, coupled by the British
Plenipotentiaries with the one, the discussions
respecting which, I have just been detailing, viz.
the navigation of the St. Lawrence. Their
reasons for this course, will be seen presently,
though I did not acquiesce in their validity. I
brought the subject before them by stating
from the treaty of Ghent the duties which,
under its fifth article, were to have been per
formed by the Commissioners of the two coun
tries, in relation to this long unsettled boundary.
I brought into view, from your instructions of
the 25th of June, 1823, the many and essential
points upon which the Commissioners had dif
fered; 1st. upon where the north-west angle
of Nova Scotia was situated; 2d. upon what
was the north-westernmost head of Connecticut
river ; 3d. upon the meaning of the words in
the old treaty of 1783, ' along the high lands
' which divide those rivers that empty them-
' selves into the River St. Lawrence, from those
' which fall into the Atlantic ocean ;' 4th. upon
the admission of the general maps respectively
presented by the agents of the two Govern
ments, each objecting to the correctness of that

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 187
presented by the other, and pressing for the
reception of his own ; 5th. upon a proposal by
the British Commissioner to send out surveyors
to ascertain the correctness of the former surveys
in regard to the points objected to in the maps
presented by the agents ; 6th. upon a demand
made by the British Agent to examine upon
oath the surveyors who made the maps, with
regard to their correctness; 7th. upon the re
ception and entering upon the journals of a
memorial of the British Agent, containing a
statement of one of the British Surveyors, relat
ing to the maps presented by the Agents ; and
8th. upon the reception of a written motion by
the British Agent, requesting leave to exhibit a
memorial containing statements of the British
Surveyors relating to the maps, and that the
same might be entered on the journals. There
were still other points upon which the Commis
sioners had differed, but the foregoing, as it was
plain to see, embraced the chief ones. Neither
of the two points, viz. the latitude and longitude
of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, nor the
north-westernmost head of Connecticut River,
the ascertaining of which had been the great
object of the Commission, having been fixed, it
had become impossible, I remarked, for the Com
missioners to agree upon the map and declara
tion, which, by the stipulations of the Treaty of

188 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824;
Ghent, were conclusively to have determined the
boundary, and that consequently, there was now
no such map ; whilst, to aggravate this difficulty,
the general map produced by each side had been
totally discredited by the other.
" I then recited those parts of the fifth article
of the treaty of Ghent, under which, in con
junction with the corresponding clauses of the
fourth article, provision is made for carrying
the differences of the Commissioners, in case
they failed to arrange this boundary, before
some friendly sovereign for his decision ; but
added, that the Government of the United
States, instead of adopting this course, desired
to attempt a settlement of those differences by
direct negotiation between the two countries, as
heretofore proposed by the United States, and
acceded to by Great Britain. Having thus
opened our plan, I proceeded to expatiate on
the topics enlarged upon in your despatch
towards its elucidation and support. I pointed
to the formidable embarrassments which sur
rounded the subject on all sides, in its present
actual state, regarded as one to be settled by
an umpirage ; to the necessity which would be
devolved upon the sovereign, of deciding upon
a boundary of at least six hundred miles in
extent, through a half-discovered country,
which the parties themselves, after six years of

1284. COURT OF LONDON. 189
laborious investigation, had altogether failed to
fix, assisted too, as they had been, by able
surveyors, geographers, astronomers and agents;
to the various questions of construction of
ancient charters, treaties, and proclamations,
into which he would have to travel; to the
controversies between France and England,
prior to the cession of Canada to the latter,
with which he must become familiar ; and to
the immense volume of documents produced by
the labours, scientific, argumentative, or prac
tical, of the Commissioners, and those who acted
in co-operation with them, which he would have
to peruse. I forbear to go further with a reca
pitulation of the difficulties, as I omitted none
that your despatch had laid before me; and,
above all, did not omit to state, that, to the
appalling train of them, would be added, that
of the sovereign having to choose between maps
that had alike been discredited by both parties.
It was to avoid all these difficulties, and the
uncertain results that might, and probably
would, hang upon them, if the differences were
carried before an arbitrator, that my Govern
ment had charged me, I said, with the duty of
now submitting, in a distinct and formal man
ner, the proposal for settling them by direct
negotiation. "' This proposal I accordingly prepared and

190 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
offered in the shape of a written article,
[marked D] annexed to the protocol of the
ninth conference. The article, after reciting
that the Commissioners under the fifth article
of the treaty of Ghent, for ascertaining the
latitude and longitude of the north-west angle
of Nova Scotia, and the north-westernmost
head of Connecticut river, and for surveying
that part of the boundary-line between the
dominions of the two Powers, which extends
from the source of the river St. Croix, directly
north, to the above north-west angle of Nova
Scotia (and so on, pursuing the words of the
treaty), had not been able to agree, and also
reciting, that it was the desire of the parties,
instead of referring their ^differences to the
arbitration of a sovereign, as provided by the
treaty, to endeavour to settle them by nego
tiation between themselves, went on to stipulate
that the parties would accordingly negotiate on
them at Washington ; and further, that in the
course of such negotiation they would receive,
if necessary, the maps that had been respec
tively submitted and used by the Commissioners
of each nation, but that none that had been
used on the one side should be received or
used to the exclusion of those used on the
other. Such were the terms of my proposal,
which I trust will be thought to have embodied,

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 191
with sufficient care, your directions in relation
to this subject.
" The British Plenipotentiaries, after hearing
my proposal, and the reasons that had been
given in its support, though not accepting it,
did not object to the principle of compromise.
They declared, however, that, if ever they did
enter into any regular agreement to settle the
question by negotiation or compromise, it must,
in their view, contain a clause that, this mode
of settlement failing, that by arbitration under
the treaty was still to be retained as the right
of the parties. They expressed their concur
rence in opinion as to the difficulty which there
might be in submitting differences of such
scope and complication to the arbitration of a
sovereign, and wished, if practicable, to avoid
resorting to this plan. What they desired,
under present circumstances, was, that Great
Britain should be allowed to settle the several
disputed points which had arisen under the
fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, by going
into them on principles of mutual concession,
in connexion with the claim of the United States
to the navigation of the St. Lawrence. They
distinctly submitted this proposal to me, which,
however, was not given in writing, further
than as it will be seen in the seventeenth and
eighteenth protocols.

192 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
" To this proposal I made immediate objec
tions, as both new and unexpected. I admitted
no connexion between the two subjects. How
could I consent to treat of them conjointly, on
the basis of mutual concession, when the United
States expressly claimed the right of navigating
this river, independent of all concession ? The
subjects were distinct, and would not, I ex
pressed a hope, be coupled by the intervention
of a principle wholly alien to the one, and not
admitted by my Government to have any appli
cation to the other.
" The British Plenipotentiaries, always re
newing their pointed denials of our right to the
navigation of the St. Lawrence, said, that they
had coupled these subjects because of their
affinity under the general head of boundary,
some of the disputed points under the fifth
article of the treaty of Ghent being, as to
locality, contiguous to that part of the St.
Lawrence which flows through the British
territories. This was one of their reasons.
Another and stronger one was, that they were
prepared to make offers, which they would
describe as founded upon a most liberal and
comprehensive view of the wishes and interests
of the United States, in relation to the differ
ences under the fifth article of the treaty of
Ghent, in connexion with offers of the • same

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 193
character, in relation to the navigation of the
St. Lawrence, provided we were prepared to
treat of the latter on the footing of concession
by Great Britain. By having both the questions
under our hands at the same time, they urged
the greater probability of our being able to
settle both, and expressed their belief that, by
thus multiplying the materials of compromise,
we might arrive at a speedy and satisfactory
arrangement on both subjects. They therefore
hoped that I would accede to their wish of
coupling these two subjects together in the
manner that they proposed.
" I repeated my objections to their proposal,
declaring that my instructions did not permit
me to hesitate a moment in rejecting it. The
boundary question was one that stood upon its
own foundation. No other had been coupled
with it by my Government, and I could not
consent to treat of it with any other, where
the connexion was confessedly to impair the
equal ground of the United States as soon as
the principle of compromise was admitted.
The boundary question, too, besides being
detached and independent, was, in its nature,
peculiarly ample. The materials of compro
mise existed within its own limits, rendering
it unnecessary therefore to seek in a new sub
ject what was already at hand. The association
SECOND SERIES.  II. O

194 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
of another subject with it, and that subject
the navigation of the St. Lawrence, would be
open to the danger of producing further col
lisions, full as much perhaps as any enhanced
prospect of an easy arrangement. Besides, I
remarked, was the agreement heretofore signi
fied by Great Britain to attempt the settlement
of this question of boundary by direct com
munication between the two Governments with
out the association of any other with it being
at that period so much as thought of, — was
this to be overlooked ? Here, I recalled to
the British Plenipotentiaries what had passed
between Lord Londonderry and me upon this
question, and at a subsequent conference I
read to them those parts of my despatches of
February the 11th, and April the 6th, 1822,
which detailed it to you. It was in this
manner that I met the proposal of joining
the two subjects upon the terms intimated.
" The British Plenipotentiaries, repeating
their opinion that the junction would be likely
to accomplish results satisfactory to both sides,
said, that they had neither the desire nor in
tention of overlooking any past agreement upon
this subject with which their Government might
be chargeable. They then asked whether, in
case they were willing to go at once into the
boundary question, as one by itself, I was

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 195
prepared to make to them any specific offer
for a settlement. I replied that I was not.
My Government had not looked to a settle
ment of the question here at the present
moment, by any offers to be made through
me. Nor had it at any time contemplated the
submitting of offers merely to be accepted or
rejected by this Government, but only to be
received on the principle of negotiating, and it
was to secure a negotiation upon the entire
subject, that I had drawn up the article that
had been given to them. I had occasion to
perceive, that the British Plenipotentiaries re
verted to the same construction of their accept
ance heretofore of our proposal of attempting
an adjustment by direct communication as that
suggested to you by the British Minister in
Washington. They did not appear to con
sider that it charged this Government with
the obligation of a regular and formal nego
tiation upon the point, but only with that of
receiving from us, and considering an offer of
a boundary line by compromise, which they still
professed their readiness to do. I said that
the United States were not prepared at present
to make this offer, to say nothing of their
objections to making it at all, under the un
certainty of whether or not it would be received
on the principle of negotiating ; and I laboured
o 2

193 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
to show the latter to have been the true spirit
of the past agreement. Certainly it was that,
I said, in which it had been understood on
our side. But, under the turn which the
question of the St. Lawrence had taken, I
found the British Plenipotentiaries unwilling
to give to their past agreement any larger
meaning than that to which they considered
themselves pledged by their own understanding
of its terms ; and although I continued to the
last to press upon them the acceptance of my
proposal, in the form annexed to the ninth
protocol, I was not able to succeed.
" They asked whether, in case they were to
submit to me an offer of a boundary by com
promise, I was prepared to conclude anything
under such an offer. To this, too, I replied,
that I was not. They next inquired, whether
I was prepared to conclude arrangements with
them which, in their opinion, must accompany
any mere agreement to settle the disputed
points by compromise. I answered, that this
would depend upon the particular nature of the
arrangements. I had already, myself, put for
ward a formal proposal, intended to effectuate,
through negotiation, this end. If this proposal
had proved objectionable in any points where
the option of modification might rest with me,
I would willingly take into consideration counter-

1824; COURT OF LONDON. 197
proposals having in view the same end. Under
standing, however, that any counter-proposals
from them, if submitted at this juncture, would
contain at least some allusions to the question
of the St. Lawrence, I said that I would decline
the conclusion of any previous arrangement upon
the subject.
" It will be seen, from all that I have said,
how constant and earnest a desire was mani
fested by the British Plenipotentiaries to blend
these two questions, and how constantly I felt
it my duty, under every aspect, to keep them
asunder. I have stated also, that, on the sup
position of their being joined together as
elements of accommodation, the British Pleni
potentiaries remarked, that they were prepared
to make offers, founded (I use their own words,)
' on a most liberal and comprehensive view of
' the wishes and interests of the United States,
in relation to both. Such a declaration could
not fail to excite my attention. I was aware,
indeed, that Britain might make offers which
she would, doubtless, believe to wear this cha
racter of benefit to the United States, without
the United States being laid under the same
convictions, — so different an estimate might each
party form of what was its due. Yet, the
expressions were strong; and, although I felt
that I could accede to nothing whatever myself,

198 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
coupled with the principle of compromise that
had been avowed, I nevertheless thought that
there might be some propriety in knowing, for
the information of my Government, the nature
of the offers which professed, and in terms
so strong, to bear upon the interests and wishes
of the United States. I therefore said to the
British Plenipotentiaries, that I should be glad
to be made acquainted with them, not in a way
pledging this Government to any ulterior step,
but merely as offers that would have been made,
in case I had expressed a willingness to receive
them upon the condition from which they were
not to be severed. They asked, what progress
I supposed would be made towards a settlement
by a compliance on their part with my request.
I replied, none at present; but that I would
transmit their offers to my Government, in the
light of an incidental fact evolved in the course
of the negotiation ; and, so far, it might be pro
per, and possibly useful, that I should know
them. They next asked whether I could un
dertake to give them any reasonable assurance
that my Government, on receiving them, and
finding them satisfactory and advantageous,
would be disposed to take them into consider
ation under their essential condition of our
claim to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, as
a right, being waived. I replied that I was

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 199
wholly unauthorized to give them the slightest
assurance to that effect. This closed my en
deavours to obtain a knowledge of their offers,
which, as will be inferred, were, in the end, not
communicated to me. In the course of the
remarks to which these endeavours led, I did
not scruple to express the belief I entertained,
that my Government looked forward with a
well-grounded and even confident hope to the
negotiation on the boundary question alone,
terminating on a principle of compromise, in a
manner satisfactory to both nations.
"All attempts, under present circumstances,
to put the case into an effective train of settle
ment, either by direct offers of compromise, or
by an agreement to negotiate on that principle,
having thus failed, the plan of arbitration next
presented itself for consideration. I thought,
at one time, that the British Plenipotentiaries
designed to press an immediate resort to this
plan. I informed them, in reply to their own
inquiry, that I was prepared, if they insisted
upon it, to enter upon the necessary steps for
the selection of a sovereign as arbitrator. I
again dwelt, however, upon the extreme diffi
culty, not to say impossibility, which, in the
opinion of my Government, there would be,
under existing circumstances, in going on with
an arbitration. How, I asked, was it even to be

200 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
begun ? Was this Government prepared to
furnish a statement of the case proper to be
laid before the arbitrator, and which would, at
the same time, invite the concurrence of the
United States ? In regard to the first idea, I
reminded the British Plenipotentiaries of the
mutual complaints and recriminations, often
sharp and angry, which it was alike to be ad
mitted and lamented, were too profusely to be
found among the elaborate journals and other
proceedings of the commission, and over which
it might be supposed that each nation would
rather desire to draw a veil than publish more
largely to the world.
" This feature in the complicated transaction,
formed, indeed, one of the many reasons for
not resorting to an umpirage at all, and so I
had been instructed to declare. But, this ob
jection removed, how, I asked, in the second
place, would Britain prepare her statement in
a manner to be acceptable to the United States?
Upon what maps would it be founded ? Not
upon those used by the United States, for to
these Britain objected ; not upon her own, for
to these the United States objected; and there
was no common map which could reconcile
these discordant opinions. My own Govern
ment, I added, would have performed the task
of drawing up a statement, but for this diffi-

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 201
culty about the map ; not the only one, how
ever, but a difficulty common to both parties,
and which met them at the very threshold. It
was thus that I addressed the British Plenipo
tentiaries when we spoke of arbitration.
" I perceived, to my surprise, that they were
under an impression, at first, that no statement
at all was necessary ; and perhaps, under the
treaty of Ghent, might not even be admissible.
They quoted the words of the fourth article,
that run as follows, viz.- — ' that in the event of
' the two Commissioners differing upon all or
' any of the matters so referred to them, or in
' the event of both or either of the said Com-
' missioners refusing or declining, or wilfully
' omitting, to act as such, they shall make,
'jointly or separately, a report or reports, as
' well to the Government of his Britannic Ma-
'jesty, as to that of the United States, stating,
' in detail, the points on which they differ, and
' the grounds on which their respective opinions
* have been formed, or the grounds upon which
¦* they, or either of them, have so refused, de-
' clined, or omitted to act. And his Britannic
* Majesty and the Government of the United
' States, hereby agree to refer the report or
' reports of the said Commissioners to some
' friendly Sovereign or State, to be then named
' for that purpose, and who shall be requested

202 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
' to decide on the differences which may be
' stated in the said report or reports, or upon
' the report of one Commissioner, together with
' the grounds upon which the other Commis-
' sioner shall have refused, declined, or omitted
' to act.' From the tenor of the article, as thus
quoted, the British Plenipotentiaries said, that
they rather inferred it to be the intention of
the treaty, that it was the report itself, as the
authentic and official document, and not a
statement framed out of the report, that was to
be laid before the arbitrator. It was to the
source itself that he was to look for his infor
mation, not to anything derivative.
"I replied, that I considered this by no
means the true, certainly not as the imperative
construction of the treaty. The statement in
dicated by my Government, as proper upon the
occasion, was to be nothing more than an ab
stract to be made, by consent of both parties,
from the report, presenting, in a succinct and
intelligible form, to the arbitrator, the points on
which he was to decide, and drawing his atten
tion to such parts of the report as might espe
cially call for his investigation. It was not to
supersede the report, but to be something in
addition to it. The parties were surely com
petent to adopt, by mutual agreement, such a
measure. It would be obviously a convenient,

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 203
if not an indispensable form, by which to secure
to their case a ready and advantageous hearing.
I admitted that I could not advert to the pre
cedent of the statement prepared when the
slave question was submitted to the Emperor of
Russia, as governing, in this instance ; for, in
that case, the arbitration had not taken place
under any provision in the treaty ; but I in
sisted that the cases were analogous in reason,
the measure being designed chiefly, and in this
light imperiously due, to smooth the labours,
difficult as they must needs be, with every mi
tigation of the umpire.
" The British Plenipotentiaries, without push
ing the argument on this point further, now
inquired whether, if they were disposed to waive
whatever right they might have under the
treaty to object to the necessity ofa statement,
and prepare one after their own understanding
of what it should contain, I was empowered to
accede to it, without any reference home to my
Government. Here, again, I could only give
them a reply in the negative. My Government,
I said, had not anticipated such a step by me.
I had been fully written to on the whole sub
ject, but was not now in possession of the mul
titude of documents that belonged to it. I
could not, therefore, be supposed to be armed
with the means of fitly judging of their state-

204 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
ment. My sole duty respecting it would be to
transmit it to my Government, and I subjoined,
that how far it would prove acceptable to my
Government must depend, in a great degree,
on the map that was used in drawing it up.
Upon this point, important as it is, I was not
able to obtain from the British Plenipoten
tiaries any explicit declaration of their inten
tions, nor did they incline to take any steps
with me towards the concurrent selection of an
arbitrator. They admitted that difficulties
would lie in the way of their furnishing me with
any statement at this juncture, that would be
likely to be satisfactory to my Government, and
thought that no time would be lost by their for
bearing at present to offer one.
" In the course of our conversations on the
mode of carrying the arbitration into effect,
I always, as I have already mentioned, held
up, in the strongest lights in my power, the
numerous, the intrinsic, the insuperable ob
stacles presenting themselves on every side to
a practical resort to this mode of adjustment.
Your despatch had abundantly supplied me
with matter for doing so, and I was not sparing
in the use of it. Amongst other topics which
I advanced, was that of the full belief of
my Government that the case, from its great
bulk and entanglement, would be altogether

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 205
beyond the compass of the personal attention
of any arbitrator. Towards deciding upon
this extensive boundary in unsettled regions,
and on all the points of difference involved in
it, it would become, I said, a part of his duty
to examine thirty folio volumes of manu
scripts at the least, made up of conflicting
statements, conflicting arguments, conflicting
opinions. He would have besides to hunt for
the lines of his award, if ever he should arrive
at one, by the light of three collections of con
flicting maps ! Would it be proper, I asked, to
approach any sovereign with an enumeration of
these details of duty, for his own immediate
personal occupation; or could his compliance,
on such terms, be in candour expected ? Hence,
the suggestion of my Government was, that
the investigation, if gone into at all by an
umpire, must be by delegated authority; by a
person or persons commissioned by the umpire
to report to him a decision founded upon a full
examination of the whole case, to which de
cision it would be enough that the umpire
annexed his formal sanction. I added that, as
the simplest way of carrying this suggestion
into effect, it had occurred to my Government,
that the Minister-Plenipotentiary of the sove
reign arbitrator residing at Washington should
be charged with this delegated trust in such

206 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
manner as would render its execution effectual.
The British Plenipotentiaries made immediate
objections to this course. They said that if a
settlement by umpirage was finally forced upon
the parties, their opinion was that it should
take place at the Court of the Sovereign Arbi
trator, leaving him to seek there all such instru
mentality and assistance in the case, as might
be proper towards its investigation and deci
sion. From the tone in which they urged this
opinion, I am left under the belief that it is one
from which their Government would not depart.
"It will be perceived, from my foregoing
Report, that this Government has manifested a
reluctance, which I was incapable of overcoming,
at entering into any distinctive agreement at
present, upon any one of the preliminary points
which you had given me in charge relative to
this question. The ground of their reluctance
is obviously to be sought in their disappoint
ment at my not consenting to connect it with
the question of the St. Lawrence. As they not
only declined coming into all agreement for
settling the former question by compromise,
but also coming into any of the previous arrange
ments indispensable for ripening it into a state
for arbitration; what, I inquired, was to be done ?
Was the case to stand still ? Was it never to
be settled ? I knew of no mode by which it

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 207
could be brought to a close, except the two pre
ceding. The British Plenipotentiaries replied,
that they must not be understood as finally de
clining a resort to either mode of settlement;
but they did not withhold an expression of their
strong desire that the case should rest where
it is, until my Government had become apprised
of the discussions relative to the St. Lawrence,
the nature of which, from their being until
now new between the two nations, could not as
yet be known. They wanted my Government,
. at least, to be made acquainted, before proceed
ing any further, with their desire to treat of the
two subjects in conjunction, and upon the terms
which they had explained. I would not, of
myself, have consented to this course, not feeling
at all at liberty ; but was not able to prevent it.
I reconcile myself to it under the reflection, that
possibly something may be thought due, all the
circumstances considered, to this desire of Great
Britain; and under the hope, that the slight
additional loss of time thus incurred, may bring
with it no peculiar inconvenience over a question
that has already been pending since the Revo
lution. Having put you in possession of all the
discussions which passed on it, and shown you
the predicament in which it now stands, unsatis
factory, I must own, I go on to the considera
tion of another subject. The protocols relating

208 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
to it are, the ninth, the seventeenth, the eigh
teenth, and the nineteenth.
"III. Admission of Consuls of the United
States into the British Colonial Ports.
My Report upon this subject will be shortened,
by the communications which I have already
had the honour to address to you at former
periods, in relation to it. I allude more particu
larly to my despatches, Nos. 343 and 352, of
November and December, 1823, and to my
official note to Mr. Secretary Canning, of the
17th of November, 1823. In that note, written
after I had received your despatch of the 26th
of June, 1823, I found it necessary to execute,
in a great degree, the instructions which your
despatches contained. This Government, during
the negotiation, as well as when the corre
spondence, above alluded to, took place, always
considered the subject of appointing Consuls
to reside in their colonies, as connected with
that of the commercial intercourse generally;
and here I agreed that the connexion was a
natural one. It was evident, that, but for the
opening of the colonial ports to our trade, we
should not have asked for the privilege of ap
pointing Consuls to reside at them ; and if, by
any circumstances, they were again to be
closed, it was equally evident that our claim to
consular representation would be at an end.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 209
" The consular appointments made by the
President for Jamaica, St. Christopher's and
Antigua, Demerara, and Barbadoes, had been
sufficiently explained and justified to this Go
vernment, in the course of my communications
above mentioned, in conjunction also with my
number 349, which covered another official
note from me to Mr. Canning, upon the same
subject. Nevertheless, I did not omit to bring
before the British Plenipotentiaries all the
circumstances of this correspondence. They
were particularly pertinent to our discussions
on the question of commercial intercourse,
which had hinged so entirely on the point of
reciprocity, and throughout the whole course
of which it had been the aim of each party to
exonerate itself from any charge of deficiency
in this important point, if not to fix that
charge upon the other. I remarked upon the
fact of our trade to the opened colonial ports
having now continued for two years without a
single Consul on the part of the United States
having, to this day, been recognised in any one
of them, though at least three of those who
had gone there and presented themselves for
recognition had been appointed under the
previous and express consent of his Majesty's
Government; whilst, on the other hand, during
the whole of this period, the British trade
SECOND SERIES. — II. P

210 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
from those ports had been receiving full con
sular protection from the Consuls of Great
Britain in the ports of the United States. In
this, at least, it must be admitted there was
no reciprocity. Nor was the absence of it
cause of mere nominal complaint on the part
of the United States. And here I brought
into view, from your despatch of the 26th of
June, 1823, the practical inconveniences, espe
cially in the Island of Barbadoes, to which our
trade had been subjected, in the opened ports,
on occasions which probably would not have
occurred, had Consuls from the United States
been residing there. The British Plenipoten
tiaries met this complaint in the manner their
Government had formerly done. They said,
that when their consent had been given for
appointing Consuls at three of the colonial
ports, it had been given under an expectation
by Great Britain, that the United States would
carry on the trade on terms that were recipro
cal ; but that afterwards, finding the terms to
be such as Great Britain did not consider
reciprocal, she forbore to perfect the appoint
ments until the issue could be known, appre
hending that the effect of new retaliatory
measures on either side, would soon be, to
put an end to the trade altogether. I rejoined,
that, whatever motive deemed by herself suffi-

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 211
cient, though not so regarded by the United
States, Britain might allege for her course of
conduct in this particular, it did not destroy
the broad fact, or lessen the evils arising from
it, of Britain having enjoyed the advantage,
during the two years of this trade, of full
consular representation in the ports of the
United States, whilst the United States had
enjoyed none in the British ports.
" On the principal question of the claim of
the United States, to appoint Consuls for the
colonial ports, I took the ground which you
had laid before me, and heretofore maintained
in my note to Mr. Secretary Canning, of No
vember the 17th, 1823, as well as in the one
which I first of all addressed to him on this
subject, on the 17th of October, 1822 ; namely,
that our claim extended, not to any specified
number of the colonial ports, but to all, without
exception, that had been opened by the Act of
Parliament, of the 24th of June, 1822. This
was the ground which I pressed upon the
attention of the British Plenipotentiaries. It
was the only ground, I said, which, in the true
sense of reciprocity, and therefore, in the true
sense of justice, could be supposed to be satis
factory to the United States. As they gave all,
so it was reasonable that they should ask all.
The United States excepted none of their ports
p 2

212 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824,
to which the British colonial vessels resorted,
from the residence of British Consuls, and had a
fair right to expect that none of the colonial
ports to which American vessels resorted, would
be excepted from the residence of American
Consuls. Consular protection was an incident
of trade, which the United States did not feel
at liberty to forego in behalf of their citizens,
so long as they allowed it to be enjoyed in their
ports, without limit or exception, by the sub
jects of Britain. It satisfied neither the real,
nor even the verbal, meaning of the term reci
procity, in this discussion, to say, that the
residence of British Consuls in the ports of the
United States, was matched by the residence
of American Consuls in the ports of Great
Britain, in Europe. It was palpable that, if a
British ship, whether arriving from Liverpool
or Barbadoes, received consular protection at
New York, and an American ship received it
at Liverpool, but not at Barbadoes, there was
no reciprocity in fact, whatever artificial reasons
might justify Britain to herself, in distinguishing,
in this respect too, her colonial from her home
dominion. The only true match to the privilege
on the one side, would be the extension of it
to all the ports that were open, whether home
or colonial, on the other.
t. " The United States, I continued, in claiming

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 213
to appoint Consuls for all the colonial ports,
meant not to make an unreasonable use of the
privilege ; and so I was instructed to declare.
But the privilege of selecting the ports must
rest, I said, exclusively with the United States.
Their consular system did not recognise any
fixed emoluments as the standard of remu
neration for their Consuls, but left it to depend
upon the fees produced by trade. Hence, in
the ports to which trade flowed, Consuls were
necessary, and to those where there was none,
it was not to be supposed they would be sent,
or so much as consent to go. But as the chan
nels of trade were liable to shift, there was a
manifest convenience and propriety, on this, and
all other accounts, in leaving the selection of the
ports to the sound discretion of the appointing
power. Such were my remarks upon this sub
ject, in addition to those that I formerly made,
orally and in writing, to Mr. Canning. I did
not, in conclusion, offer any formal article in
relation to it ; first, because I thought it un
necessary, after the aspect which the negotiation
had assumed on the primary question of the
commercial intercourse itself; and, secondly,
because I had been informed in your instruc
tions, that the President was not tenacious of
any article relating to Consuls being inserted in
a commercial convention, if one had been

214 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
formed. But, I gave the British Plenipoten
tiaries fully to understand the true nature of
our claim, and, that it would not in any wise
fall short of the privilege of appointing for all
the opened ports.
" They consented, substantially, to this prin
ciple, as will be seen by the protocol of the
twenty-fourth conference. Their expression in
it, that they saw no objection to the admission
of our Consuls into their colonies, ' subject to
the usual exceptions and reservations,' means,
that both parties were to be considered as
reserving to themselves the . privilege of ex
cepting from the residence of Consuls, such
particular places as they might think proper.
This they explained to be their meaning. The
same reservation had place in the sixteenth
article of the Treaty of the 19th of November,
1794 ; which was pointed out to me, by you, as
the model of an article, on the present occasion,
had one been framed. It also exists in the
fourth article of the commercial convention, of
the 3d of July, 1815 ; which article is indicated
by the British Plenipotentiaries, as the model,
in the fifth article of their own coxmter-projet,
annexed to the protocol of the sixteenth con
ference. The two articles on this subject, in
the Treaty of 1794, and in that of 1815, are so
much alike, that they might be adopted, indis-

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 215
criminately, as models ; the latter being a copy,
with only slight variations, from the former.
In my note to Mr. Canning, of the 17th of
November, 1823, I had reminded him, that, in
case Great Britain excluded American Consuls
from the ports of the colonies, the United States
would have to reserve the right of excluding
from consular benefit in their ports, all British
vessels and seamen arriving from the colonies.
So, also, I reminded the British Plenipoten
tiaries, that the United States would have to
protect themselves, by a similar reservation, to
an extent, co-equal with that to which Britain
might use her option of excepting from the
residence of our Consuls, particular places in her
colonies, there being no other appropriate mode
by which we could countervail on our side this
right of exception on hers, so far as regarded
her colonies.
" It will be seen from the twenty-fourth pro
tocol, that Britain continues to decline, for the
present, receiving our Consuls in any of her
colonial ports. She acts, in this respect, under
an impression that there is danger of the inter
course between these ports and the United
States being soon wholly interrupted. She
waits the disappearance of this danger before
she recognises our Consuls, as its reality would,
according to her way of reasoning, render their

216 RESIDENCE AT THE 18241
recognition of little value. It was in vain that
I urged the justice of recognising ours at once,
so that we might be upon a par with Great
Britain until ulterior events were known. If
her tonnage-duty of four shillings and three
pence sterling per ton, on our vessels entering
her colonial ports, and her additional impost of
ten per cent, be met by countervailing duties
on our side, as I was forced, for the reasons
given in another part of this despatch, to inti
mate my belief would be the case, her Plenipo
tentiaries have informed me that it will lead to
fresh measures, of the same character, on her
side ; thus bringing on a state of things, that
can only terminate in rendering the trade no
longer worth the pursuit of either country. If,
on the other hand, the trade remains as at pre
sent regulated, without any alteration by either
party, although Britain, as I have had occasion
to remark before, alleges that she is dissatisfied
with it; she will let it have a further trial,
and, in this event, will receive our Consuls on
the terms mentioned in the twenty-fourth pro
tocol. This she will do, as I understand her
intentions, notwithstanding the tenor of the
fifth article of her counter-projet, above-men
tioned, which would seem to make her consent
to the reception of our Consuls dependent upon
our acceptance of her four preceding articles.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 217
I believe, moreover, that she would raise no
obstacle on the score of expense, but grant to
our Consuls exequaturs free of all charge, as we
grant exequaturs to hers. This point I men
tioned to the British Plenipotentiaries, and to
its obvious justice they took no exception.
There remains nothing further for me to im
part to you on the subject. The protocols that
relate to it, are the twenty-third and the twenty-
fourth. " IV. Newfoundland Fishery. — This sub^
ject was thrown out of the negotiation alto
gether. I was not the less mindful, however, of
your instructions upon it, and the subject must
be now explained. I brought it under the
notice of the British Plenipotentiaries at the
tenth conference. I gave them a full history
of the question from its origin. I stated the
grounds of complaint which the United States
had against France, as shown by the bare state
ment of the relative rights and pretensions of
the two nations to the fishery in dispute.
I stated the past unwillingness of France to do
us justice, and the obligations hence arising to
Great Britain to interpose her friendly and effi
cacious offices, to the end that justice should be
rendered to us. From your despatch of the
27th of June, 1823, I also stated the motives
which had restrained the President, until the

218 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
present epoch, from laying this case before the
British Government, — motives that I felt sure
would be appreciated, and that would increase
the claims which it now had to attention. The
case being wholly new until now, in any formal
shape, to this Government, and being one which
involved also the duties and the rights of a
third Power, I thought that it would be most
proper not to content myself with a verbal
explanation of it merely. Having, therefore,
gone through with this, under the lights which
your instructions and my own past investiga
tions of the subject had afforded, I finished, by
delivering to the British Plenipotentiaries a
paper, embracing a written summary of its
merits, and one which might serve as a memo
randum to Great Britain, of the true nature of
our claim. This paper consists of a synopsis
of the question which I had formerly made out
from Mr. Gallatin's letter to me of August the
3d, 1822, together with a reference to the
correspondence subsequently carried on by the
United States and France in relation to it. It
is amongst the papers of the negotiation,
marked E, and annexed to the protocol of the
tenth conference. It commences with refe
rences to the different treaties; that of Utrecht,
in 1713 ; of Aix la Chapelle, in 1748 ; of Paris,
in 1763; our own with Britain, in 1783; that

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 219
between Britain and France of the same year,
and the treaty of Paris of 1814, also, between
Britain and France; all of which go to show
that, whilst France possessed the right of taking
fish on the western coast of the island of New
foundland, she did not possess it, as she now
claims it, exclusively ; but that Great Britain*
the undoubted sovereign of the island, held it
in common with her. It next recites the first
article of the convention of the 20th of October,
1818, between the United States and Great
Britain, by which the people of the United
States are expressly allowed to take fish on the
western coast (and on other parts) of this island,
in common with the subjects of Great Britain.
It then states the fact of the cruizers of France
having, in the years 1820 and 1821, ordered
American fishing-vessels away from this coast,
even whilst they were within the acknowledged
jurisdiction of the island, threatening them with
confiscation if they refused. Finally, it con
cludes with pointing to the threefold duty which
devolved upon Great Britain, under the emer
gency described; 1st, To make good the title
of the United States to take fish on the coast
in question, as stipulated by the convention of
1818 ; but, 2d, if she could not do that, to
give the United States an equivalent for the
loss of so valuable a right ; and, 3d, to vindi-

220 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
cate her own sovereignty over this island,
already impaired and further threatened by the
conduct of the French cruizers towards the
fishing-vessels of the United States within its
jurisdiction. The paper subjoined copies of all
the official notes that passed between Mr. Gal
latin and Viscount Chateaubriand, in January,
February, and April, 1823, on the respective
rights of the two nations to the fishery in con
troversy. " The British Plenipotentiaries, after having
this paper in their possession, and consulting,
as they informed me, their Government respect
ing it, entered upon the matter of it at the next
succeeding conference. They said that it was
not their intention to controvert the title of the
United States to participate with Great Britain
in certain fishing liberties described in the first
article of the convention of 1818. They said,
too, that the United States might require a,
declaration of the extent of those liberties as
enjoyed by British subjects under any limitations
prescribed by treaty with other Powers. The
United States might also ask from Britain, as
sovereign of the island of Newfoundland, support
in the enjoyment of the liberties, as so limited.
But, the Plenipotentiaries went on to remark,
that the nature of the question seemed, in their
opinion, to be varied, by France having, as seen

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 221
in the notes of Viscount Chateaubriand to Mr.
Gallatin, placed her claim to exclude the United
States from the fishery in dispute, on engage
ments contracted by the United States with
France prior to the Convention of 1818, and
also on the fact of the United States having
opened discussions upon the whole subject with
France. They further remarked, that they had
understood, from one of their own negotiators
of the Convention of 1818, that the American
negotiators had been apprised at that period by
Great Britain, of the French right to fish on
this coast. At all events, they said that, as the
subject stood, they must decline entertaining it
as one susceptible of being handled in any effec
tive way, at present, in this negotiation. What
ever rights or remedies the United States were
entitled to from Great Britain upon the occasion,
could be brought into view, if thought necessary,
by a direct application to the British Govern
ment, in the usual form. With this intimation,
they would consider the subject, for so they
concluded with saying, as no longer upon the
list of those which it was the object of our en
deavours to mould into a general treaty or
convention between the two States.
"I said to the British Plenipotentiaries, in reply,
that I had certainly not anticipated all the above
avowals. I did not admit that, the fact of the

222 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
United States having opened a correspondence
upon this subject with France, could diminish, in
any degree, their right to resort to Great Britain,
remarking that it could scarcely have been ex
pected that a forbearance on their part to appeal
to this resort in the first instance, from considera
tions of delicacy, both towards Britain and
France, was now to be turned against them.
Forbearance had been due to France, at first, to
avoid the appearance of recurring, on a question
between her and the United States, to the aid
of a third power ; and to Great Britain it had
been due, as it was hoped, that the case might
have been settled without putting her upon her
duty of interfering. As little did I admit the
allegation of the French Government, that the
United States were excluded from this fishery
by their previous engagements to France, was
entitled to any weight. These engagements, I
said, had been made under treaties long since
expired, and the provisions of which were other
wise nugatory as to any just bearing upon this
controversy. Here I adverted to the arguments
used by Mr. Gallatin in reply to the notes of
the Viscount Chateaubriand, relative to the
operation of the tenth article of the Treaty with
France of 1778, and of the twenty-seventh
article of the Convention with her of 1800 ; argu
ments which completed the demonstration, as

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 223
you had remarked in your despatch, that the
pretension of France to an exclusive fishery
was not to be supported. I admitted, as one of
the American negotiators of the Convention of
1818, that we had heard of the French right at
that time, but never that it was exclusive. Such
an inference was contradicted not only by the
plain meaning of the article in the Convention
of 1818, but by the whole course and spirit of
the negotiation, which, it was well known, had
been drawn out into anxious and protracted dis
cussions upon the fishery question. As regarded
the arguments of Viscount Chateaubriand, I
reminded the British Plenipotentiaries, that
whilst part of them laboured to give to obsolete
treaties, as against the United States, a validity
and extent greater than they ever could have
had whilst existing, the remainder went to assert
a pre-existing and exclusive right in France to
fish on this coast, as against all the world, and,
of course, as against Great Britain. Was Britain,
I asked, prepared to acquiesce in this branch of
the argument ? for, undoubtedly, it was that
which it most concerned France to establish,
and without which the other branch would be of
little avail to her.
" The British Plenipotentiaries peremptorily
asserted a right in Great Britain to participate
in the fishery on this coast, and denied in the

224 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824,
same tone that the French right was exclusive.
But having concluded to consider the subject
as no longer amongst those embraced in our
negotiations, they declined pursuing any further
the discussion of it, leaving me to pursue such
other course as I might judge applicable and
expedient. My great duty having been to place
the subject explicitly before this Government,
with a view as well to our rights as our reme
dies, I said to the British Plenipotentiaries that
the form in which I did so was not material,
and that I should therefore adopt, without
delay, that of addressing an official represen
tation, in regard to the whole subject, to his
Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Fo
reign Affairs. I accordingly prepared such a
note to Mr. Canning, a copy of which will be
found amongst the papers which I transmit,
under date of the 3d of May. I do not reca
pitulate its contents, as they are to the same
general effect with the paper which I had pre
viously caused to be annexed to the protocol
of the tenth conference. I was careful, in the
pursuance of your directions, to give it an
aspect as friendly towards France, as was com
patible with duly making known the rights of
the United States. I recollect nothing further
that I have to communicate in explanation of
this subject. The protocols in which it is.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 225
mentioned, are the tenth and the fourteenth.
My note to Mr. Canning, considered in the light
of a first formal application to this Government,
is designed to bring on explanations respecting
our claim between the Governments of Britain
and France. These, I must hope, will take
place, and eventuate in a manner satisfactory
to the United States. I mentioned to the
British Plenipotentiaries the strong intimation
given to Mr. Gallatin by the French Minister
of Marine, that, as France had, according to her
own judgment, the exclusive rights of fishery
on the coast in dispute, so she ought to expel
from it the fishing vessels of any nation. But
I abstained from inserting this intimation in
my note to Mr. Canning. I did no more than
advert to the menace of seizure directed by
France against'our vessels.
" V. Maritime Questions. I entered upon
this subject with all the anxiousness that be
longs to its deep and permanent connexion with
the interests and character of the United
States ; with all the recollections that their past
history calls up, and all the anticipations that
every view of the future must awaken, when it
is mentioned. It was at the thirteenth confer
ence that I brought it forward. I laid before
the British Plenipotentiaries the opinions and
the hopes which my Government had formed
SECOND SERIES. — IT. Q

228 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
upon this great branch of the relations between
the two countries, and strove to do justice to
the principles upon which they were founded.
I said, that the United States were not behind
any of the powers of Europe in wishes, and,
moving, in their proper sphere, would never be
behind them in endeavours to bring about a
general melioration in the condition of mankind;
that such a principle was eminently congenial
to their political institutions, and had always
been a maxim of their policy in the whole
system of their external relations. Peace, I
said, wras their invariable desire, as well as
policy; but war taking place, it had been as
invariably their desire and their effort to do
homage to those beneficent principles which
serve as well to shorten its duration as mitigate
its evils. I instanced, as pertinent to a nego
tiation with Great Britain, the stipulations of
the tenth and the twenty-sixth articles of the
treaty of the 19th of November, 1794, when
both countries successfully engaged in the work
of sacrificing to these principles belligerent
rights, which both in strictness might otherwise
have claimed and exercised.
" But, in the wide maritime field, whether
occupied by the belligerent or the neutral, there
were, I continued, questions of the highest
moment to the United States and Great Britain,

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 227
which they had heretofore ineffectually endea
voured to arrange. These questions the United
States again, desired to approach, animated by
the hope that better auspices might shed them
selves over another attempt to come to a satis
factory and harmonious understanding respect
ing them. My Government, I remarked, was
not discouraged from this attempt by the failure
to adjust them during the negotiations at
Ghent; nor by the more recent failure at Lon
don, in 1818. Even since the latest of these
periods, the most material changes had been
witnessed in the political aspect of Europe and
of America. The European alliance had been
impaired by a variance in the principles, or in
the policy, of some of its chief members, and
the whole of that part of the continent of Ame
rica, lately dependent upon Europe, had as
sumed a new character in itself, and was hasten
ing to new relations with the rest of the world;
The most extensive alterations, if not an entire
revolution, in the colonial system, would, in all
probability, follow in the train of the latter of
these changes. These would probably super
induce the necessity of corresponding changes
in maritime interests and claims, once regarded
by Great Britain as essential to her welfare. I
remarked, too, that the circumstance of Britain
having held towards this struggle in America an
q 2

228 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
attitude of neutrality, as she had also done
towards the recent war in the Spanish Penin
sula, had served to strengthen the belief, that
she might, perhaps, at the present period, be
disposed to view neutral doctrines in different
and more favourable lights than formerly, under
circumstances so opposite.
" It was under the combined force of these
considerations that the United States again came
forward to her, with an offer to negotiate on
them. But if Britain still viewed them as
hitherto, if she still felt herself restrained from
treating of them but on her former maritime
principles, my Government would prefer being
so informed with candour in the outset, it being
alike due to candour to say, that the principles
of the United States remained the same, there
having been no equipollent changes in their
political, commercial, or maritime position in
the world. It was thus that I opened this part
of the subject to the British Plenipotentiaries,
discouraging our entering upon any discussion
of these questions, upon terms that could not
be productive of any beneficial results.
" I then proceeded to the paramount part of
your instructions of the 28th of July, 1823.
I said that there was yet another object, new
to all the past discussions between the two
Governments, but of pre-eminent interest in the

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 229
eyes of mine, by its connexion with the cause
of civilization and the peace of the world, which
it desired to propose to Great Britain. This
object was, that of totally abolishing all private
war upon the ocean.
" The United States, I said, from an early
period of their history, aimed at bringing about
among nations this great consummation of bene
volence and humanity. Once they had secured
it by a treaty with one of the Powers of Europe
— with Prussia ; and now they desired to offer it
to the consideration of Great Britain. They
hoped that she would go hand in hand with
them in giving validity and extent to the benign
consequences which its general adoption must
introduce into the world. The question, though
of novelty between the two Governments, was
one of too much magnitude under considerations
of a moral as well as political nature, to be dis
carded on that account. In proceeding to deve
lop the reasoning by which you had directed
me to recommend this object to the favour and
acceptance of the British Government, it may
be sufficient for me to say, that I omitted no
part of it, resorting, under this delicate head of
my.instructions, to the very language of them,
as the most appropriate and effectual for impart
ing the sentiments which they embodied, and
superadding such views of my own as justly

230 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
flowed from yours. I need not, therefore, repeat,
any more at large, the manner in which I exe
cuted this portion of my duty. I finished by
expressing, in the name of my Government, a
hope that Great Britain might be able to see
her way towards a concurrence in this object ;
the more so, as it was also to be proposed by
the United States to other European nations,
with whom the example of Great Britain might
be of powerful, perhaps decisive influence.
" The British Plenipotentiaries promised to
take my whole exposition of the subject into
consideration, and consult their Government
before giving me an answer as to the course
which it might become their duty to adopt.
" In speaking of the maritime questions
heretofore in discussion between the two
countries, I had mentioned that of impress
ment as of leading importance. A question
was then put to me by the British Plenipoten
tiaries, which, with my answer, it is proper
that I should at once state. They asked
whether I would be willing to treat of the
above class of questions generally, supposing
impressment not to be included among the
number. I had anticipated such a question,
and was prepared with an answer. Your in
structions not having supplied me with one, it
was only left for me to act upon my own

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 231
discretion. I therefore declined such a course,
saying, that I was unwilling to enter at all
upon the other points of maritime law, unless
the question of impressment were received by
Great Britain as part of the negotiation. It
will be understood that I spoke independently
of the question of abolishing private war upon
the ocean.
" My reasons for this determination were
derived, first, from the extraordinary import
ance of the question of impressment, trans
cending, as in my judgment it did, not only
the importance of any other, but the collective
importance of them all. I knew of no other
so closely linked in with the rights, the sove
reignty, and the peace of the Republic. There
was always a rational hope that the harmony
of the two countries might remain undisturbed
in the absence of conventional arrangements
upon the other questions ; but that of im
pressment always carried with it the seed of
dissension, was always difficult, always threaten
ing. The question of blockade, of contraband,
of the right of the neutral carrier to protect
the property of an enemy, and all the maritime
questions, were all of a nature, to be sure,
which it would be desirable to settle ; but,
upon some of them, the two Governments
had not always been widely asunder in their

232 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
negotiations ; and the whole were distinguished
by this feature, that each party, when dif
ferences arose under them, could more readily
appeal to the standard of principles and usages
to which other nations appealed. Impress
ment, on the contrary, springing from a claim
by Great Britain to enforce her common law
upon the high seas, was not so much distin
guished by its international, as by its exclusive
character. It was a question in a great mea
sure sui generis; peculiar, in its practical
operation, to the two nations ; remarkable for
the earnestness and perseverance with which
the point of right was asserted to exist on the
one side, and the explicitness with which it
had ever been pronounced a positive and
insupportable wrong upon the other. I did
not therefore believe that any treaty on mari
time questions, admitting that one had been
concluded, would have been acceptable to my
Government, of which an adjustment of this
subject of perpetual animosity and collision
did not make a part. Another reason was,
that I followed, in this respect, the precedent,
or at least the analogy, of the negotiation of
1818. " It will be recollected that in that negotia
tion the Plenipotentiaries of the United States
were instructed not to entertain the discussion

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 233
of maritime topics, unless that of impressment
were also brought forward, and by Great
Britain. I trust that these reasons for the
course which I pursued may be approved. It
is alike proper for me to mention, that, whilst
I declined going into the field of maritime
discussion, impressment being left out of it,
I avowed my perfect readiness to take up
impressment by itself. Its absorbing interest
justified, also, in my eyes, this course.
" The British Plenipotentiaries, . on hearing
this last opinion from me, immediately inquired
if I had any new securities to propose on behalf
of my Government, against the employment of
British subjects in the merchant-vessels of the
United States ? I replied that I had none that
differed essentially from those brought forward
in former negotiations.
" After an interval of deliberation, which was
not over until the twenty-first conference, the
British Plenipotentiaries communicated to me
the decision of their Government upon the
topics which I had unfolded to them.
"First, they spoke of impressment. They
said that Great Britain anxiously desired to
reconcile the exercise of this established right
with the convenience and feelings of other
nations ; that this desire had ever actuated her
heretofore, and ever would in future. It was

234 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824,
her duty to obey its impulse, and her interest
no less than her duty. But the right was,
nevertheless, one essential to her highest in
terests, and deemed by her as incontrovertible
as it was ancient. It was a right interwoven
with the frame of her laws, and precious to her
by its connexion with principles to which she
trusted for her strength and her safety at con
junctures when both might be at stake. She
could never abandon such a right ; it was im
possible. Nor would her duty allow her to
waive it, with respect to the United States, but
upon conditions the most satisfactory. She
could only forego it in their favour, on receiv
ing what she could deem ample security that
the objects for which it was exercised might be
attained by other means, They added that,
having been informed by me that I had no pro
posals to make on this head, essentially differing
from those that my Government had submitted
in former negotiations, they felt themselves
forced to abstain in this from entering into the
subject. The sentiments of their Government,
with respect to the impressment of British sub
jects, in time of war, out of the merchant-
vessels of whatever nation upon the high seas,
remained unchanged ; and they could, there
fore, indulge no hope of any good results from
a fresh discussion on only the same grounds

J824. COURT OF LONDON. 235
which Great Britain had, on full deliberation,
adjudged to be inadequate in all former disr
cussions. It was to this effect that the British
Plenipotentiaries spoke. It was in this manner
that they disposed of the question of impress
ment. " With regard to the other maritime ques
tions, affecting the relations of neutral and
belligerent Powers, the Plenipotentiaries rer
marked, that, as I was not prepared to enter
into stipulations respecting them, but in con
junction with the question of impressment,
which was excluded for the reason given, the
discussion of the others in any way, could be
to no useful purpose. It would therefore be
declined by them.
" Thus it was, that the whole of this subject
fell to the ground. The decision upon it, will
be found recorded in the protocol of the twenty-
first conference.
" I next said to the British Plenipotentiaries,
that the question of abolishing privateering,
and the capture of private property at sea,
whether by national ships, or by privateers, was
one that I considered as standing apart from
those on which their decision had been given
to me. Upon this question, therefore, I desired
them to understand, that I was ready to treat,
as of one occupying ground wholly of its own.

236 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
" They replied, that they were not prepared
to adopt this course. All other questions of a
maritime nature having been shut out from the
negotiation, there would be, they said, manifest
inconvenience in going into that for abolishing
private war upon the ocean. They considered
it a question belonging to the same class with
maritime questions, and one which, besides
being totally new, as between the two Govern
ments, contemplated a most extensive change
in the principles and practice of maritime war,
as hitherto sanctioned by all nations. Such was
their answer.
" This answer was given in the terms that I
state, and so entered upon the protocol. But
it is proper for me to remark, that no senti
ment dropped from the British Plenipotentiaries
authorizing the belief, that they would have
concurred in the object, if we had proceeded
to the consideration of it. My own opinion
unequivocally is, that Great Britain is not at
present prepared to accede, under any circum
stances, to the proposition for abolishing pri
vate war upon the ocean.
" By the preceding decisions of the British
Government, in conjunction with the restric
tions under which I had laid myself, discussions
the most interesting, and which it might have
been anticipated, would have been the most

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 237
ample, have been precluded. My Report, by
necessary consequence, under this division of
your instructions, becomes proportionably
abridged. From your despatch of the 28th
of July, 1823, I understood that I was to
make no communication to the British Govern
ment of the draft of the articles which it
enclosed, unless they first agreed to negotiate
respecting them. As they declined doing so
upon the terms, which, taking into view the
whole spirit of your instructions, I had alone
deemed admissible, it follows that I withheld,
altogether, any offer of the draft. The nego
tiation on the maritime questions fell through
ostensibly, and, according to my best judgment,
with sufficient reason, on the point of impress
ment. But here, too, I have to remark, that
the- British Plenipotentiaries said nothing to
warrant the opinion of any change in the
doctrines of their government on the other
points of maritime law, any more than upon
that of impressment. My own opinion is, that
no such change has taken place. If the altered
political and commercial circumstances of the
times should hereafter serve to make her rule
of 1756 an exception, it will probably be found
the only exception. Nor will this be a rule.
abandoned by her, so much as lapsed ; nor
even wholly lapsed, if, according to indications

238 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
contained in earlier parts of this communication,
there be any likelihood of her return to her
own colonial system in the West Indies, rather
than of her making larger departures from it.
I am aware, that she would probably deno
minate it a coerced return ; whilst all the facts
would present to the United States a view of
the subject so very different.
" The British Plenipotentiaries, after all
negotiation on the maritime questions had been
foreclosed, informed me that they were willing
to treat of other points, which, though not
immediately falling under this class* were con
nected with the friendly intercourse between
the two countries, and would aim at its improve
ment. I replied, that I was not prepared to
enter into any stipulations with them of this
description, detached from all other subjects,
but that I would receive and transmit to my
Government whatever proposals they might
have to offer of the nature stated. They ac
cordingly gave me* at the twenty-second con
ference, the substance of nine articles, which
are enclosed (marked M), as belonging to the
protocol of that conference. They were not
put into a formal shape, being rather the heads
of subjects, than as designed to be expressed
in full language.
"The first of these articles relates to the

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 239
mutual delivery of criminals, the subjects or
citizens of either party, taking refuge in the
dominions of the other, analogous to the twenty-
seventh article of the treaty of November, 1794,
so far as murder and forgery were concerned.
The second proposes arrangements for settling
the claims made by the subjects or citizens of
either party, to lands situated within the terri
tories of the other in America, and arising out of
grants heretofore made by authorities compe
tent, at the time, to make them. The follow
ing is the explanation of this article: — At the
opening of the negotiation, the British Plenipo
tentiaries inquired whether I was empowered to
treat of certain claims of British subjects to
lands in Florida. 1 replied, that my instruc
tions embraced no allusion whatever to such a
subject, and that, if brought forward by Great
Britain, all that I could do would be to refer it
to my Government. It was the first mention of
it that I had heard ; and it was not mentioned
afterwards. It is to this subject that the above
article points. The "third article has reference
to the non-confiscation of private debts in case
of war between the two countries ; as the fifth
has to the protection of the merchants on each
side, found within the dominions of the other,
on the breaking out of war, as under the tenth
and twenty-sixth articles ofthe treaty of 1794.

240 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
Though fully aware of the importance at
tached to the principle of these articles, under
your instructions, I did not feel myself at liberty
to conclude engagements concerning them in a
detached way. After the question of impress
ment had been expunged, and all the other
maritime questions, together with that for the
abolition of private war upon the ocean, which
I could not but regard as the chief questions
contemplated under your despatch of the 28th
of July, 1823, it did not seem to me either
necessary or judicious, that a treaty should be
entered into for the sake of these two articles
alone. I was the more swayed to this opinion,
from the hope that mayrea sonably be cherished,
that neither nation will henceforth be disposed
to depart from the principles which these ar
ticles sanctify, though not now confirmed by a
new treaty; since both nations have formerly
agreed to them in this manner, and are both
seen at this day substantially ready to propose
them again to each other's acceptance.
" The remainder of their articles, as a brief
recapitulation of them will show, are only of
subordinate interest. The fourth provides for a
previous statement of grievances, and demand of
redress, before a resort to reprisals by either
party, like the twenty-second article of the
Treaty of '94. The sixth relates to wrecks

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 241
and salvage, as is common in treaties between
commercial nations. The seventh extends
hospitality to vessels of either party, forced
by stress of weather into ports of the other,
to which they would not, under other cir
cumstances, be admissible ; as is also common,
and has place in the treaty of '94. The eighth
contains a provision respecting merchant-vessels
rescued from pirates ; and the ninth, and last,
a provision for mutually exempting the Con
suls of each nation, within the territories of the
other, from personal service, and the opera
tion of direct taxes. It must be confessed, that
under this last provision, it would be the
Consuls of the United States who would derive
the most benefit.
" On my declining, for the reasons I have given,
to conclude any arrangement at present on the
foregoing articles, the British Plenipotentiaries
lamented, that, whilst they made the inability to
treat of impressment no obstacle to entering into
stipulations concerning them, I did. To this
I replied by remarking upon the obviously dif
ferent ground on which the two nations stood in
this particular. To the United States, the
question of impressment was absolutely vital.
To Great Britain, it was of little concern, further
than as it might be supposed that she was de
sirous of rendering to the United States justice
SECOND SERIES.  II. R

242 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
in regard to it. The British Plenipotentiaries
here repeated the unfeigned regret which they
said they felt at our preliminary terms having
precluded them from arranging, at so favourable
a season of peace, this question, which they
desired I would understand that they too con
sidered as one of great moment. Whilst they
held their right to resort to the practice of im
pressment to be fully sanctioned by the general
voice of nations, under that maxim which en
titled every nation to command the allegiance
and services of its own subjects, they were not
unaware that the practice itself, from peculiar
and insurmountable causes, pressed heavily upon
the people of the United States. Hence, they
had been most anxious to come to some arrange
ment, by which an end might hate been put to
this source of contention; and they declared
that they would have accounted it amongst the
happiest and proudest incidents of their lives,
had they been able to sign with me a treaty by
which so imposing a bar to the harmony of our
respective countries could have been effectually
and permanently removed. As things had
eventuated, all that they could say was, and this
they desired to say in a spirit the most sincere
and earnest, that, whenever, in future, the prac
tice might be resorted to, it would be in a
manner to give the least possible inconvenience

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 243
to the United States, and none that could ever
be avoided, consistently with what was impe
riously due to the essential rights and interests
of Great Britain.
"I joined in the regrets expressed by the
British Plenipotentiaries, and, I will presume to
add, in a spirit not less sincere. I lamented
our failure to come to an understanding upon
this formidable question; one upon which,
perhaps, the peace of two powerful nations
hung. I spoke of the past offers of the United
States for its settlement; how far they had
gone ; how far they would still go, in an
accommodation to the British views. They
had offered to abstain from employing British
seamen on board their vessels, for they did not
want them there, having seamen enough of
their own; and to effect this exclusion, they
offered the highest enactments and sanctions
of their laws; pledges which they deemed
sufficient, and which they could never help
thinking might be accepted as sufficient. It
was to be considered, I said, that impressment
was a question in which were bound up the
highest rights and interests of the United
States no less than of Great Britain. The
United States admitted not the doctrine of
perpetual allegiance. As the rule of nations,
ancient or modern, they denied its existence.
r 2

244 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824..
It had no place in their own code ; and if it had
in that of Britain, it was but as a municipal
rule, to be executed at home — not upon the
high seas, and on board the vessels of an in
dependent and sovereign state. The latter
carried with it the assumption of a right of
search for men. This, whether as a right
direct or incidental, was denied by the United
States to have the least sanction in public law.
The bare claim was affronting to the United
States, in the dearest attributes of their national
sovereignty. I declared, that I too would have
hailed it as the most auspicious act of my life, to
have been able to mark the last days of my official
residence at his Majesty's Court, by putting my
name with theirs to stipulations, that would
have closed up for ever this fruitful and bitter
source of strife between our countries. As it
was, it was only left for me to deplore results*
under which so high and solid a satisfaction
had vanished from me. By an interchange of
remarks such as these, neither side had pro
posed to itself any discussion or review of a
question already dropped from our discussions,
but barely to give expression to sentiments
which both sides have such good cause for
feeling, at the abortive issue of this new en
deavour to get rid of the evils of impressment.
" Before leaving this part of the subject

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 245
entirely, I feel impelled to one or two extra
neous observations. The practice of seizing
men by force for the supply of the navy, even
as a lawful exercise of municipal authority in
Britain, is one that carries with it such a dis
regard of the liberty of the subject, and involves
such an aggravation of individual horrors, that
the propriety, the humanity, and the very policy
of its total relinquishment, even in her own
dominions, has not escaped the thoughts of
some of her considerate and enlightened men.
On my first arrival in this country, I had occa
sion to notice, and not unfrequently, evidences
of the existence of this feeling, both in private
life, and in the discussions of the press, and was
willing to give way to the hope of its further,
and, at no very distant day, efficient progress.
I lament to say, that this cheering hope has been
put back by a recent and too authentic indica
tion, the relevancy of which to the subject-
matter of this part of my Report will be sufficient,
I trust, to excuse my allusion to it. At the late
session of Parliament, and only in the month of
June, Mr. Hume, an active member of the House
of Commons, from Scotland, introduced into the
House a motion expressly upon the subject of
impressment. The purport of it was, that ' the
'House being well aware of the difficulty of
' manning the navy in time of war, and of the.

246 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
' evils of forcibly impressing men for that pur-
' pose, and considering that a time of profound
' peace would best admit of the fullest and fairest
' examination of that most important subject,
' would, early in the next session of Parliament,
' take it into their serious consideration, with a
' view to the adoption of such regulations as
' might prevent those evils in future, consistently
' with the efficiency of the navy, and the best
' interest of the British empire.' In giving his
notice of this motion, he declared, as one motive
for its claims upon the attention of the House,
that it would be a part of his duty in discussing
it, to show, that, in the event of a new war
between Great Britain and any of the European
Powers, it would be impossible for her to con
tinue the practice of impressment, without add
ing the United States to the list of her enemies.
It is a fact to be deplored, that even such a
motion as this, a motion that proposed nothing
more than a future and guarded consideration
of a subject so full of international importance,
(the light alone in which it is of any concern to
the United States,) should have been scarcely
listened to by the British House of Com
mons ! It was debated to, comparatively, empty
benches, and thrown out by a vote of 108 to 38.
' The most impressive part of this public
fact remains to be disclosed. This motion,

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 247
which, in my mere capacity as an American
spectator of the deliberations of the British
Parliament, I cannot hesitate to think the
most momentous by far in its bearing upon
the foreign relations of the country of any
that has offered itself to that body during
my residence of nearly seven years in Eng
land — this motion, so far as I know, was not
deemed worthy to engage the attention of a
single Minister of the Crown. It is certain
that not one of them spoke upon it. In the
House of Commons — in this alleged sanctuary
of knowledge, patriotism, and statesmanship,
in Britain — a question, implicating the highest
interests of two whole nations, and most essen
tially their future peace, passed away with less
of discussion and excitement than might have
been given to a bill for laying off a new road,
or enclosing a sterile heath. Jt was a spec
tacle calculated to fill with pain the mind of an
American citizen, and I have adverted to it in
no other spirit than that of unmingled sorrow,
at the greater distance to which, in conjunction
with the failure of my negotiation, it seems to
have removed all hope of arriving at a settle
ment of this ever-perilous and exasperating
topic of international hostility.
" Having nothing more to say at present on
the maritime questions, I leave them. The

248 RESIDENCE AT THE 18241
protocols in which they are noticed are, the
thirteenth, the twenty-first, and the twenty-
second. " VI. North-west Coast of America.
I now come to the last of the subjects that
the President confided to me ; that contained
in your instructions of the 2d of July, 1823,
relative to the North-west Coast of America.
Although no arrangement was concluded on
this subject, it is not the less incumbent upon
me carefully to apprise you of the discussions
by which it was marked. They will probably
be found not withbut interest.
" In one of my preliminary communications
respecting the negotiation, viz. my No. 356, I
informed you that I had thought it necessary,
yielding to events that transpired after your
instructions were received, to treat of this
subject of the North-west Coast with this
Government alone, without considering the
negotiation as common also to Russia, as had
been contemplated by your instructions. For
thus deviating from your instructions I assigned
my reasons, which, as they weighed strongly
with me at the time, and do not appear, from
any lights that I possess, to have lost any of
their force since, I must hope will have been
approved. My duty, therefore, will now be
confined to informing you of the discussions

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 249
that took place in my hands with Britain, and
as limited to the interests of the United States
and Britain. These are the only discussions,
I may add, with which I have any ac
quaintance, not having heard from Mr. Mid
dleton of the nature of those that were carried
on at St., Petersburgh, though, through the
kindness of the Russian Ambassador at this
Court, I have, very recently, been apprised of
their result. It is probable that it has been
through some accident that I have not heard
from Mr. Middleton, having apprised him of
the course that I had felt myself compelled to
adopt. In obedience to your request, I also
wrote to him on the subject of the Slave
Trade, transmitting him a copy of the Con
vention with this Government, as soon as I
had signed it.
" In another of my communications, written
before the negotiation opened, viz. my No. 358,
I gave you a general intimation of what I then
supposed would be the terms upon which this
Government would be disposed to arrange with
us the questions of boundary upon the North
west Coast. At that time, however, I had been
put in possession of nothing distinctive or final
upon the subject, and was to wait the arrival of
the negotiation itself, for the full and authentic
statement of the British claims. I am the more

250 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
particular in referring back to this latter com
munication, as it appears that I was under im
portant misapprehensions in it, in regard to
the true nature of the British claims. They
proved, on formally and accurately disclosing
themselves, to be far more extensive than I had
believed ; and were advanced in a manner more
confident than I had even then anticipated.
" I opened this subject to the British Pleni
potentiaries at the eleventh conference. I re
marked, that, although it had been understood
in my preparatory conversations with the proper
organ of his Majesty's Government, that the
respective territorial or other claims of the
United States and Russia, as well as of Great
Britain and Russia, regarding the country west
ward of the Rocky Mountains, were to be
matter of separate discussion at St. Petersburgh;
yet, that those of the United States and Great
Britain were now, according to the understand
ing in the same conversations, to be taken up
for formal discussion in London. My Govern
ment was aware, that the convention of October,
1818, between the United States and Great
Britain, one article of which contained a tem
porary regulation of this interest, had still four
years to run ; but the President, nevertheless,
was of opinion, that the present was not an un
suitable moment for attempting a new and more

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 251
definite adjustment of the respective claims of
the two Powers to the country in question. It
was a country daily assuming an aspect, poli
tical, commercial, and territorial, of more and
more interest to the United States. It bore
upon their relations with other States, upon
their fisheries as well as their commerce in the
Pacific, upon their fur trade, and the whole
system of their intercourse with vast tribes of
the Indians.
" I reminded the British Plenipotentiaries,
that, by the third article of the Treaty of Wash
ington, of February the 22d, 1819, between the
United States and Spain, the boundary lme
between the two countries was fixed, in part,
along the southern bank of the Arkansas, to its
source, in latitude 42° north, and thence by
that parallel of latitude, to the South Sea ; and
that Spain had also renounced to the United
States, by the same article, all her rights north
of that parallel. I then made known, at this
and other conferences — for, from the extent of
the subject, I was unable even to open it all at
one conference — what I understood to be the
nature of the title of the United States to the
whole of the country north of the parallel
stated. I said, that, apart from all the right as
thus acquired from Spain, which, however, was
regarded by my Government as surpassing the

252 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
right of all other European powers, on that
coast, the United States claimed, in their own
right, and as their absolute and exclusive sove
reignty and dominion, the whole of the country
west of the Rocky Mountains, from the 42nd
to at least as far up as the 51st degree of North
latitude. This claim they rested upon their
first discovery of the river Columbia, followed
up by an effective settlement at its mouth, a
settlement which was reduced by the arms of
Britain during the late war, but formally sur
rendered up to the United States at the return
of peace. Their right by first discovery they
deemed peculiarly strong, having been made
not only from the sea by Captain Gray, but also
from the interior by Lewis and Clarke, who first
discovered its sources, and explored its whole
inland course to the Pacific Ocean. It had
been ascertained that the Columbia extended,
by the River Muttnomah, to as low as 42°
North ; and by Clarke's river, to a point as
high up as 51°, if not beyond that point; and to
this entire range of country, contiguous to the
original dominion of the United States, and
made a part of it by the almost intermingling
waters of each, the United States, I said, con
sidered their title as established by all the
principles that had ever been applied on this
subject by the powers of Europe, to settlements

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 253
in the American hemisphere. I asserted, that
a nation, discovering a country, by entering the
mouth of its principal river at the sea coast,
must necessarily be allowed to claim, and hold,
as great an extent of the interior country, as
was described by the course of such principal
river, and its tributary streams ; and that the
claim, to this extent, became doubly strong,
where, as in the present instance, the same
river had also been discovered and explored
from its very mountain springs to the sea.
" Such a union of titles, imparting validity to
each other, did not often exist. I remarked,
that it was scarcely to be presumed, that any
European nation would henceforth project any
colonial establishment on any part of the North
west coast of America, which, as yet, had never
been used to any other useful purpose than that
of trading with the aboriginal inhabitants, or
fishing in the neighbouring seas ; but that the
United States should contemplate, and at one
day form, permanent establishments there, was
naturally to be expected, as proximate to their
own possessions, and falling under their imme
diate jurisdiction. Speaking of the powers of
Europe who had ever advanced claims to any
part of this coast, I referred to the principles
that had been settled by the Nootka Sound
Convention of 1790, and remarked, that Spain

254 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
had now lost all her exclusive colonial rights
that were recognised under that Convention,
first, by the fact of the independence of the
South-American States, and of Mexico, and,
next, by her express renunciation of all her
rights, of whatever kind, above the forty-second
degree of north latitude, to the United States.
Those new states would, themselves, now pos
sess the rights incident to their condition of
political independence, and the claims of the
United States, above the forty-second parallel,
as high up as sixty, claims as well in their own
right as by their succession to the title of Spain,
would henceforth necessarily preclude other
nations from forming colonial establishments
upon any part of the American continents. I
was therefore instructed to say, that my Go
vernment no longer considered any part of those
continents as open to future colonization by
any of the powers of Europe, and that this was
a principle upon which I should insist in the
course of the negotiation.
" It was in this manner that I first laid down,
for the information of this Government, the
principles contained in your despatch, or result
ing from them. I combined with what you had
written to me, the contents of the Message of
the President to Congress, of the 2d of Decem
ber last, a document which I could not but

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 255
regard with the highest solemnity towards
marking out my duty, although I had not your
instructions upon it, the document having ap
peared since your despatch was written. I
added, that the United States did not desire to
interfere with the actual settlements of other
nations on the North-west coast of America,
and that, in regard to those which Great Britain
might have formed above the fifty-first degree
of latitude, they would remain, with all such
rights of trade with the natives* and rights of
fishery, as those settlements had enjoyed
hitherto. " As regarded future settlements by either of
the parties, I said that it was the wish of my
Government to regulate these upon principles
that might be mutually satisfactory, and tend
to prevent all collision. I was therefore in*
structed to propose, first, the extension to a
further term of ten years* of the third article
of the Convention of October, 1818 ; and,
secondly, that Britain should stipulate, during
the like term, that no settlement should be
made by any of her subjects on the North-west
coast of America, or the islands adjoining,
either south of the fifty-first degree of latitude,
or north of the fifty-fifth degree ; the United
States stipulating that none should be made by
their citizens north of the fifty-first degree.

256 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
This proposal I drew up in form, and annexed
it (marked F) to the protocol of the twelfth
conference. I said that these limits were sup
posed to be sufficient to secure to Great Britain
all the benefit to be derived from the settle
ments of her North-west and Hudson's-bay
Companies on that coast, and were indicated
with that view.
" The insertion of a limit of ten years, which
I introduced as applicable to the above restric
tion upon future settlements, may require ex
planation. In your despatch to me, as I
understood it, there was no such limit of time
specified. But in your instructions to Mr.
Middleton, of the 22d of July, 1823, which
you enclosed to me, I perceived that there was
this limit introduced, and that it was under this
limit the proposal was described to him as the
one which I was to submit to the British
Government. I concluded that it would be
erring on the safe side to take, in this par
ticular, your instructions to Mr. Middleton as
my guide ; and I did so accordingly.
"It is proper now, as on the question of the
St. Lawrence, that I should give you faithful
information of the manner in which the British
Plenipotentiaries received my proposal, and the
principles under which I had introduced it.
I may set out by saying, in a word, that they

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 257
totally declined the one, and totally denied the
other. They said that Great Britain con
sidered the whole of the unoccupied parts of
America as being open to her future settle
ments in like manner as heretofore. They in
cluded within these parts, as well that portion
of the North-west coast lying between the forty-
second and the fifty-first degrees of latitude as
any other parts.
" The principle of colonization on that coast,
or elsewhere, on any portion of those conti
nents not yet occupied, Great Britain was not
prepared to relinquish. Neither was she pre
pared to accede to the exclusive claim of the
United States. She had not, by her Conven
tion with Spain in 1790, or at any other period,
conceded to that power any exclusive rights
on that coast, where actual settlements had
not been formed. She considered the same
principles applicable to it now as then. She
could not concede to the United States, who
held the Spanish title, claims which she had
felt herself obliged to resist, when advanced
by Spain, and on her resistance to which the
credit of Great Britain had been thought to
depend. " Nor could Great Britain at all admit, the
Plenipotentiaries said, the claim of the United
States as founded on their own first discovery.
SECOND SERIES.  II. S

258 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
It had been objectionable with her in the
negotiation of 1818, and had not been admitted
since. Her surrender to the United States of
the post at Columbia River, after the late war,
was in fulfilment of the provisions of the first
article of the Treaty of Ghent, without affect
ing questions of right on either side. Britain
did not admit the validity of the discovery by
Captain Gray. He had only been on an en
terprise of his own, as an individual, and the
British Government was yet to be informed
under what principles or usage, among the
nations of Europe, his having first entered or
discovered the mouth of the river Columbia,
admitting this to have been the fact, was to
carry after it such a portion of the interior
country as was alleged. Great Britain entered
her dissent to such a claim, and, least of all,
did she admit that the circumstance of a mer
chant-vessel of the United States having pene
trated the coast of that continent at Columbia
River, was to be taken to extend a claim in
favour of the United States along the same
coast, both above and below that river, over
latitudes that had been previously discovered
and explored by Great Britain herself, in ex
peditions fitted out under the authority and
with the resources of the nation. This had
been done by Captain Cook, to speak of no

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 259
others, whose voyage was at least prior to
that of Captain Gray. On the coast, only a
few degrees south of the Columbia, Britain
had made purchases of territory from the
natives, before the United States were an in
dependent power ; and upon that river itself,
or upon rivers that flowed into it west of the
Rocky Mountains, her subjects had formed
settlements coeval with, if not prior to, the
settlement by American citizens at its mouth.
"Such is a summary of the grounds taken at
the very outset by the British Plenipotentiaries,
in opposition to our claims. On my remarking
immediately, and before proceeding to any dis
cussion of them, that I had not before been
aware of the extent and character of all these
objections ; they replied, that it was also for the
first time that they had been apprised, in any
authentic and full way, of the nature of the
claims, as I had now stated them, on behalf of
the United States ; claims which they said they
were bound to declare, at once, Great Britain
was wholly unprepared to admit ; and, especi
ally, that which aimed at interdicting her from
the right of future colonization in America.
" Resuming the subject, I said that it was
unknown to my Government, that Great Britain
had ever even advanced any claim to territory
on the North-west coast of America, by the
s 2

260 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
right of occupation, before the Nootka Sound
controversy. It was clear, that by the treaty
of Paris, of 1763, her territorial rights in Ame
rica were bounded westward by the Mississippi.
The claim of the United States, under the dis
covery by Captain Gray, was, therefore, at all
events, sufficient to overreach, in point of time,
any that Great Britain could allege along that
coast, on the ground of prior occupation or
settlement. As to any alleged settlements by
her subjects on the Columbia, or on rivers falling
into it, earlier, or as early as the one formed by
American citizens at Astoria, I knew not of
them, and was not prepared to admit the fact. As
to the discovery itself of Captain Gray, it was not
for a moment to be drawn into question. It was
a fact before the whole world. The very geo
graphers of Britain had adopted the name which
he had given to this river. Vancouver himself,
undoubtedly the first British navigator who had
ever entered it, admitted that he found Captain
Gray there; and the very instructions to this
British officer, drawn up in March, 1791, and
to be seen among the records of the British
Admiralty, expressly referred by name to the
previous expedition in that quarter of the Ame
rican sloop, the Washington. Was this, I
asked, to be accounted nothing ? Did it lie
with a foreign power, whose own archives might

1824. . COURT OF LONDON. 261
supply her with the incontestible fact of the first
discovery by the vessel of another power, of a
vast river, whose waters, from their source to the
ocean, had remained until then totally un
known to all civilized nations ; did it lie with
such foreign power to say, that the discovery
was not made by a national ship, or under na
tional authority ? The United States, I said,
could admit no such distinction; could never
surrender, under it, or upon any ground, their
claim to this discovery. The ship of Captain
Gray, whether fitted out by the Government of
the United States or not, was a national ship.
If she was not so in a technical sense of the
word, she was in the full sense of it, applicable
to such an occasion. She bore at her stern the
flag of the nation, sailed forth under the pro
tection of the nation, and was to be identified
with the rights of the nation.
" The extent of interior country attaching to
this discovery was founded, I said, upon a prin
ciple at once reasonable and moderate ; reason
able because, as discovery was not to be limited
to the local spot of a first landing-place, there
must be a rule both for enlarging and circum
scribing its range ; and none more proper than
that of taking the water-courses which nature
had laid down, both as the fair limits of the
country, and as indispensable to its use and

262 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
value ; moderate, because the nations of Europe
had often, under their rights of discovery,
carried their claims much farther. Here I
instanced, as sufficient for my purpose, and
pertinent to it, the terms in which many of
the royal charters and letters patent had been
granted, by the crown in England, to indivi
duals proceeding to the discovery or settlement
of new countries on the American continent :
among others, those from Elizabeth in 1578,
to Sir Humphrey Gilbert ; and in 1584 to Sir
Walter Raleigh : those from James I. to Sir
Thomas Gates in 1606 and 1607, and the
Georgia charter of 1732. All these, extracts
from which I produced, comprehended a range
of country fully justifying my remark. By the
words of the last, a grant is passed to all ter
ritories along the sea coast, from the river
Savannah to the most southern stream ' of
' another great river, called the Alatamaha, and
' westward, from the heads of the said rivers,
' in a direct line to the South Seas.' To show
that Britain was not the only European nation
who, in her territorial claims on this continent,
had had an eye to the rule of assuming water
courses to be the fittest boundaries, I also cited
the charter of Louis XIV. to Crozat, by which
' all the country drained by the waters empty-
' ing directly or indirectly into the Mississippi,'

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 263
is declared to be comprehended under the
name, and within the limits of Louisiana.
" If Britain had put forth no claims on the
North-west coast, founded on prior occupation,
before the Nootka Sound contest, Still less could
she ever have established any, I remarked, at
any period, founded on prior discovery. Claims
of the latter class belonged wholly to Spain,
and now, consequently, to the United States.
The superior title of Spain on this ground, as
well as others, was, indeed, capable of demon
stration. Russia had acknowledged it in 1790,
as the state papers of the Nootka Sound
controversy would show. The memorial ofthe
Spanish Court to the British Minister on that
occasion expressly asserted, that, notwith
standing all the attempted encroachments upon
the Spanish coasts of the Pacific Ocean, Spain
had preserved her possessions there entire,
possessions which she had constantly, and
before all Europe, on that and other occasions,
declared to extend to as high at least as the
sixtieth degree of north latitude.
" The very first article of the Nootka Sound
Convention attested, I said, the superiority of
her title : for, whilst, by it, the nations of Europe
generally were allowed to make settlements on
that coast, it was only for purposes of trade with
the natives, thereby excluding the right of any

264 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
exclusive or colonial establishments for other
purposes. As to any claim on the part of Bri
tain, under the voyage of Captain Cook, I
remarked, that this was sufficiently superseded
(passing by everything else) by the journal of
the Spanish expedition from San Bias, in 1775,
kept by Don Antonio Maurelle, for an account
of which, I referred the British Plenipotentiaries
to the work of Daines Barrington, a British
author. In that expedition, consisting of a
frigate and schooner, fitted out by the Viceroy
of Mexico, the North-west coast was visited in
latitude 45, 47, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, and 58 degrees,
not one of which points, there was good reason
for believing, had ever been explored, or as much
as seen, up to that day, by any navigator of
Great Britain. There was, too, I said, the
voyage of Juan Peres, prior to 1775 ; that of
Aguilar in 1601, who explored that coast in
latitude 45°; that of De Fuca, in 1592, who
explored it in latitude 48°, giving the name,
which they still bore, to the straits in that lati
tude ; without going through a much longer list
of other early Spanish navigators in that sea,
whose discoveries were confessedly of a nature
to put out of view those of all other nations.
I finished by saying, that, in the opinion of my
Government, the title of the United States to
the whole of that coast, from latitude 42°, to as

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 265
far north as latitude 60°, was, therefore, superior
to that of Britain, or any other power; first,
through the proper claim of the United States,
by discovery and settlement, and, secondly, as
now standing in the place of Spain, and holding
in their hands all her title.
" Neither my remarks, nor my authorities, of
which I have endeavoured to present an outline,
made the impression upOn the British Plenipo
tentiaries which I was desirous that they should
have produced. They repeated their animated
denials of the title of the United States, as
alleged to have been acquired by themselves,
enlarging and insisting upon their objections to
it, as I have already stated them. Nor were
they less decided in their renewed : impeach
ments of the title of Spain. They said, that it
was well known to them, what had formerly
been the pretensions of Spain to absolute sove
reignty and dominion in the South Seas, and
over all the shores of America, which they
washed ; but that these were pretensions which
Britain had never admitted. On the contrary,
she had strenuously resisted them. They refer
red to the note of the British Minister to the
Court of Spain, of May 16, 1790, in which
Britain had not only asserted a full right to an
uninterrupted commerce and navigation in the
Pacific, but also that of forming, with the con-

266 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
sent of the natives, whatever establishments she
thought proper on the North-west coast, in parts
not already occupied by other nations. This
had always been the doctrine of Great Britain,
— and from it nothing that was due, in her esti
mation, to other Powers, now called upon her
in any degree to depart. As to the alleged
prior discoveries of Spain all along that coast,
Britain did not admit them, but with great
qualification. She could never admit that the
mere fact of Spanish navigators having first seen
the coast at particular points, even where this
was capable of being substantiated as the fact,
without any subsequent or efficient acts of sove
reignty or settlement following on the part of
Spain, was sufficient to exclude all other nations
from that portion of the globe. Besides, they
said, even on the score of prior discovery on
that coast, at least as far up as the 48th degree
of north latitude, Britain herself had a claim
over all other nations. Here they referred to
Drake's expedition in 1578, who, as they said,
explored that coast, on the part of England,
from 37° to 48° north, making formal claim to
these limits in the name of Elizabeth, and giving
the name of New Albion to all the country which
they comprehended. Was this, they asked, to
be reputed nothing in the comparison of prior
discoveries, and did it not even take in a large

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 267
part of the very coast now claimed by the United
States as of prior discovery on their side ?
" Such was the character of their remarks on
this part of the title. In connexion with them,
they called my attention to the Report of a
Select Committee of the House of Represent
atives in April last, on the subject of Columbia
River. There is a letter from General Jesup
in this Report, adopted by the Committee as
part of the Report, and which, as the British
Plenipotentiaries said, had acquired importance
in the eyes of their Government, from that fact.
They commented upon several passages of this
letter, a newspaper copy of which they held in
their hands, but chiefly on that part which
contains an intimation that a removal from our
territory of all British subjects now allowed to
trade on the waters of the Columbia, might
become a necessary measure on the part of the
^United States, as soon as the Convention of
1818 had expired. Of this intimation the
British Plenipotentiaries complained, as one
calculated to put Great Britain especially upon
her guard, arriving, as the document did, at
a moment when a friendly negotiation was
pending between the two Powers, for the ad
justment of their relative and conflicting claims
to that entire district of country. Had I any
knowledge, they asked, of this document ?

268 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
" I replied that I had not, as communicated
to me by my Government. All that I could say
of it was, and this I would say confidently, that
I was sure it had been conceived in no un
friendly spirit towards Great Britain. Yet,
I was bound unequivocally to re-assert, and so
I requested the British Plenipotentiaries would
consider me as doing, the full and exclusive
sovereignty of the United States over the whole
of the territory beyond the Rocky Mountains,
washed by the river Columbia, in manner and
extent as I had stated, subject, of course, to
whatever existing conventional arrangements
they may have formed in regard to it, with
other Powers. Their title to this whole country
they considered as not to be shaken. It had
often been proclaimed in the legislative dis
cussions of the nation, and was otherwise public
before the world. Its broad and stable founda
tions were laid in the first uncontradicted dis
covery of that river, both at its mouth and at
its source, followed up by an effective settlement,
and that settlement the earliest ever made upon
its banks. If a title in the United States, thus
transcendent, needed confirmation, it might be
sought in their now uniting to it the title of Spain.
" It was not the intention of the United
States, I remarked, to repose upon any of the
extreme pretensions of that power to specula-

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 269
tive dominion in those seas, which grew up in
less enlightened ages, however countenanced in
those ages, nor had I, as their Plenipotentiary,
sought any aid from such pretensions ; but to
the extent of the just claims of Spain, grounded
upon her fair enterprise and resources, at pe
riods when her renown for both filled all Europe,
the United States had succeeded; and upon
claims of this character, it had therefore be
come as well their right as their duty to insist.
I asserted again the incontestable priority of
Spanish discoveries on the coast in question. I
referred to the voyage of Cortez, who, in 1537,
discovered California ; to those of Alarcon and
Coronado in 1540 ; to that of Cabrillo in 1542,
all of whom were prior to Drake, and the last
of whom made the coast, by all the accounts
that are given, as high up as latitude 44°. As
to Drake, I said, that although Fleurieu, in his
introduction to Marchand, did assert that he
got as far north as 48°; yet Hakluyt, who wrote
almost at the time that Drake flourished, informs
us, that he got no higher than 43°, having put
back at that point from ' the extreme cold.'
All the later authors or compilers, also, who
spoke of his voyage, however they might differ
as to the degree of latitude to which he went,
adopted from Hakluyt this fact of his having
turned back, from the intensity of the weather.

270 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
The preponderance of probability therefore, I
alleged, as well as of authority, was, that Drake
did not get beyond 43° along that coast. At all
events, it was certain that he had made no set
tlements there ; and the absence of these would,
under the doctrine of Great Britain, as applied
by her to Spain, prevent any title whatever at
taching to his supposed discoveries. They were,
moreover, put out of view by the treaty of
1763, by which Britain agreed to consider the
Mississippi as her western boundary upon that
continent. "Our discussions, which grew into length,
and only a condensed view of which I have
aimed at presenting to you, terminated without
any change of opinion on either side. Having
stated the principal points which marked them,
my duty seems to be drawing to a close, without
the necessity of setting before you all the am
plifications and details into which, on topics so
copious, they would sometimes run. They
were ended on the side of Great Britain, by her
Plenipotentiaries repeating, that they found it
altogether impossible to accede, either to the
proposal of the United States, or to the reason
ing invoked in its support. That, nevertheless,
they desired to lay a foundation of harmony
between the two countries in that part of the
globe ; to close, not leave open, sources of

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 271
future disagreement, which time might mul
tiply and aggravate. That, with this view, and
setting aside the discordant principles of the
two Governments, in the hope of promoting it,
they had to propose, first, that the third article
of the Convention of October, 1818, should now
be considered as at an end. Secondly, that,
instead of it, the boundary line between the
territories respectively claimed by the two
Powers, westward of the Rocky Mountains,
should be drawn due west, along the forty-ninth
parallel of latitude, to the point where it strikes
ihe North-easternmost branch of the Columbia,
and thence, down, along the middle of the
Columbia, to the Pacific Ocean ; the navigation
of this river to be for ever free to the subjects
and citizens of both nations. And, further,
that the subjects or citizens of either, should
not, in future, be allowed to form settlements
within the limits to be thus assigned to the
other, with a saving in favour of settlements
already formed within the prohibited limits, the
proprietors or occupants of which, on both
sides, should be allowed to remain ten years
longer. " This proposal they annexed, in form
(marked P) to the protocol of the twenty-third
conference. They remarked, that, in submit
ting it, they considered Great Britain as depart-

272 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
ing largely from the full extent of her right,
and that, if accepted by the United States, it
would impose upon her the necessity, ulti
mately, of breaking up four or five settlements,
formed by her subjects within the limits that
would become prohibited, and that they had
formed, under the belief of their full right, as
British subjects, to settle there. But their
Government was willing, they said, to make
these surrenders, for so they considered them,
in a spirit of compromise, on points where the
two nations stood so divided.
" I instantly declared to the British Plenipo
tentiaries my utter inability to accept such a
boundary as they had proposed. I added, at
the same time, that I knew how the spirit of
just accommodation also animated the Govern
ment of the United States upon this occasion.
That, in compliance with this spirit, and in
order to meet Great Britain on ground that
might be deemed middle, I would consent so
far to vary the terms of my own proposal, an
nexed to the twelfth protocol, as to shift its
southern line as low as 49°, in place of 51°. I
desired it to be understood, that this was the
extreme limit to which I was authorized to go ;
and that, in being willing to make this change,
I too considered the United States as abating
their rights, in the hope of being able to put

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 273
an end to all conflict of claims between the two
nations, to the coast and country in dispute.
" The British Plenipotentiaries, after having
this modification of my first proposal a fortnight
under consideration, rejected it, and they made
me no new proposal in return. They did not,
in terms, enter their rejection of this, my second
proposal, on the protocol, and I did not urge
it, thinking that their abstinence, as far as it
could have any effect, might tend to leave the
door somewhat less permanently closed against
reconsideration, should the proposal, as so mo
dified by me, ever be again made. But it is
right for me to state, that they more than once
declared, at the closing hours of the negoti
ation, that the boundary marked out in their
own written proposal, was one from which the
Government of the United States must not
expect Great Britain to depart.*
" I have to add, that their proposal was first
made to me verbally, at the twentieth con-
* In a subsequent negotiation in 1827, Britain agreed to yield to
the United States, north of the Columbia, " a detached territory,"
as Mr. Greenhow, in his valuable work on the " History of Oregon
and California," calls it, extending, on the Pacific and Strait of
Fuca, from Bulfinch's Harbour, to Hood's Canal ; but adhered to
her claim to the whole northern bank of the Columbia, and her right
to the frea navigation of that river. By no published document
that I have seen, has she yet departed, in any greater degree, from
the ground laid down in the 20th and 23d protocols of the above
negotiation. SECOND SERIES. — II. T

274 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
ference, and that it then embraced an alter
native of leaving the third article of the
Convention of 1818 to its natural course and
limit. But this they afterwards controlled, by
their more formal and final proposition in
writing, annexed, as before described, to the
protocol of the twenty-third conference.
" Having made you acquainted with all that
transpired on this subject, I close it, by re
ferring to the protocols in which it is men
tioned. These are, the eleventh, the twelfth,
the nineteenth, the twentieth, and the twenty-
third. " I have now gone through all the subjects,
and feel it time to come to a conclusion. I
have made no omissions that are material, of
which, at present, I have any consciousness.
If, on reviewing, at full leisure, the private
journals from which I have selected the mate
rials of this official despatch, I discover omis
sions, I will take care that they shall be
supplied by a supplemental communication. I
have laid before you a faithful, I would hope an
intelligible, account of the progress, the charac
ter, and the results, of the whole negotiation.
The importance, to use the appropriate words
of your own despatch to me of the 29th of
July, 1823, of most of its subjects; the com
plicated character of the considerations in-

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 275
volved in them, and their momentous bearings
in present and future ages upon the interests,
the welfare, and the honour of the United
States, — I have felt, deeply felt, throughout the
protracted period allotted to their investiga
tion and discussion. A load of responsibility
and solicitude has weighed unceasingly upon
my mind. A just, I will add a painful, sense
of the great duty that was confided to me,
has never been absent from my thoughts. If
it had been the pleasure of the President to
have assigned me a colleague in its exercise,
I should have felt thankful ; having, as I took
the liberty to say before it came on, enter
tained an unfeigned distrust in my own un
assisted endeavours. For a proper estimate
of what was due from me, for zeal, for good
intentions, for diligence, I must humbly hope
that the confidence reposed in me has not
been misplaced. For the rest I cannot answer.
Now that the negotiation is over, I cannot pre
sume to hope, that the manner in which I have
conducted it, under all the many aspects which
it assumes, aspects unforeseen, and to me, often
as difficult as unforeseen, will be deemed to
have been always above exception. Constantly,
as I looked to the guiding light of your in
structions, and ample as was the light shed by
them over my general path, there were, there
t 2

276 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
must have been, in the progress of voluminous
discussions, where not the just desires of one
nation, but the clashing interests of two, were
at stake, points for which they did not provide.
Reposing, upon all these occasions, on their
general spirit, I must seek solace in the con
sciousness, that however unsuccessful the issue
of my endeavours, they were always well meant,
and in the hope that, regarded in their general
character and tendency, they will be looked at
with an indulgence proportioned to the anxious
desire for my country's good, in which I feel
sure it will be believed they ever originated.
Of the questions that it fell to my lot to
discuss with this nation, those that were old
were full of difficulty, and had proved baffling
in hands more skilful than mine, in times that
are passed. Those that were new, were found
to be encompassed with difficulties not less
formidable and intrinsic. Nor will it, I hope,
be reputed out of place with my duty, or with
the solemnity of this communication, to close
it finally by the remark, that the negotiation,
of which it has aimed at exhibiting an authentic
history, has been conducted with a nation, not
only mighty in her power, but not easily turned
aside from her purposes. The deliberate de
terminations to which she appears to have
come in this negotiation, I have felt it an

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 277
imperious duty to report, without, in any in
stance, abating the force of any of the con
siderations by which I understood her Pleni
potentiaries to expound and maintain them.
" I have the honour to remain, with very
great respect, Sir, your obedient Servant,
" Richard Rush."

The Protocols not inserted in the series that
follow, were those which recorded the proceed
ings of the Plenipotentiaries in framing the
Slave-Trade Convention, and were transmitted
to the Secretary of State with that instru
ment.

281

Protocol of the Third Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, February 5th, 1824.
Present — Mr. Rush,
Mr. Huskisson,
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
In pursuance of previous agreement, Mr.
Rush brought forward the propositions of his
Government respecting the trade between the
British Colonies in North America and the
West Indies and the United States, including
the navigation of the St. Lawrence, by vessels
of the United States.
On concluding the statement with which
Mr. Rush introduced these proposals, in expla
nation of the views and antecedent proceedings
of his Government, he gave in the three arti
cles which are hereunto annexed (marked A).
The British Plenipotentiaries, in receiving
the articles thus presented to them for con-

282 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
sideration, confined themselves to stating their
first impressions as to the scope and extent of
the American proposals, and the extreme dif
ficulty resulting therefrom, observing on such
parts of the American Plenipotentiary's state
ment as appeared to them to call for immediate
objection, or to admit of satisfactory explana
tion. Adjourned to Monday, the 16th instant, at
two o'clock. RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

Protocol of the Eighth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 18th of March,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
Another original copy of the convention on
the subject of the Slave Trade having been

1824, COURT OF LONDON. 283
prepared, at the request of the American Pleni
potentiary, with the view of enabling him to
transmit that instrument in duplicate to his
Government, was read over, and, upon its
proving to be perfectly correct, was signed by
the Plenipotentiaries on both sides.
RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

Protocol of the Ninth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 25th of
March, 1824 :—
Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The British Plenipotentiaries stated that,
not being yet at liberty, from circumstances
already explained, to make a full communica-

284 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
tion with respect to the three articles proposed
by Mr. Rush at the third conference, while
they were disposed, in the spirit of that perfect
amity and good-will which subsisted between
the respective Governments, to treat of the
free navigation of the river St. Lawrence by
American vessels, on the principle of accommo
dation and mutual concession, they thought it
desirable that the American Plenipotentiary
should at once bring forward the proposals of
his Government, on the several questions
already submitted by him for negotiation.
The American Plenipotentiary readily acqui
esced in the expediency of this course, on the
obvious understanding that the views of the
British Government would be in turn communi
cated to him. He consequently gave in the
paper D, annexed hereto, as containing the
proposal of his Government for endeavouring to
adjust, by compromise, the differences arising
under the 5th article of the Treaty of Ghent.
Mr. Rush remarked, at the same time, on
the extreme difficulties attending on arbitration,
as prescribed by that treaty; and stated his
conviction, that his Majesty's late Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs had signified to him the
assent of the British Government, to his pro-

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 285
posal of endeavouring to settle the points at
issue by direct communication between the two
Governments. In reply to a question from the British
Plenipotentiaries, Mr. Rush informed them that
he was not prepared, in case of his proposal
being finally accepted, to submit any particular
terms of compromise for settling the disputed
boundary, though he was persuaded that his
Government, in proposing a negotiation upon
that principle, looked with confidence to its
issuing in an agreement satisfactory to both
parties ; and also, that, in the event of an arbi
tration being insisted on, his present instruc
tions would enable him to proceed at once to
the concurrent selection of an arbitrator, agree
ably to the Treaty of Ghent.
It was agreed that the next conference
should be held on Monday next, the 29th
instant, when the American Plenipotentiary
would be prepared to continue his commu
nication of the proposals of his Government.
RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
- STRATFORD CANNING.

286 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
Protocol of the Tenth Conference of the Ameri
can and British Plenipotentiaries, held at the
Board of Trade, on the 29th of March,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The American Plenipotentiary entered upon
the subject of the Newfoundland fishery. He
stated, at length, the circumstances constituting
the case which his Government thought it
advisable to bring under the view of the British
Government, and concluded by giving in, as a
memorandum of his statement, the paper
marked E, annexed to the present protocol.
The British Plenipotentiaries, after making
such inquiries of Mr. Rush as they deemed
conducive to a thorough understanding of the
points in question, agreed to meet him again in
conference, on Thursday, the 1st of April.
RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 287
Protocol of the Eleventh Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 1st of April,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference was
read over and signed.
The American Plenipotentiary opened the
subject of territorial claims on the North-west
coast of America, westward of the Rocky
Mountains. It having been understood that
the pretension which had been put forward
by the Cabinet of St. Petersburgh, respecting
its jurisdiction in that quarter, was to be a
matter of separate discussion between the
respective parties, he observed, that, not
withstanding this circumstance, and although
the Convention of October, 1818, one article
of which contained a temporary regulation
with respect to the above-mentioned claims,
had still four years to continue, his Government
was of opinion that the present was not an
unsuitable moment for attempting a settlement

288 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
of the boundary on the North-west coast of
America westward of the Rocky Mountains, and
he therefore proceeded to explain the nature
of the claims which his Government thought
itself entitled to advance.
His statement not being completed in the
present conference, Mr. Rush undertook to
resume it on the following day.
RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

Protocol of the Twelfth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 2d of April,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The American Plenipotentiary resumed the

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 289
communication which he had commenced in
that conference, on the subject of the territorial
claims on the North-west coast of America,
westward of the Rocky Mountains, and con
cluded, by giving in the paper marked F,
annexed hereto, as containing the proposal of
his Government on that head.
Adjourned to Monday, the 5th of April.
RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

Protocol of the Thirteenth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 5th of April,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
SECOND SERIES. — IT. U

290 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
The American Plenipotentiary stated that,
in addition to the questions submitted for nego
tiation at the preceding conferences, he was
instructed to treat with Great Britain on various
subjects of maritime law, heretofore in discussion
between the two countries ; and also on that of
the abolition of privateering, and the exemption
from all capture of private property in merchant-
ships at sea. Amongst the former subjects,
he mentioned that of impressment as of leading
importance. He added, that, as he was not authorized
to assent to anything new in principle, on such
of these points as had been discussed on former
occasions, it was right for him to premise that,
unless the British Government were ready to
negotiate, with the understanding that the views
which they had heretofore entertained on them
were essentially changed, or likely, in the course
of negotiation, to be materially modified, the
Government of the United States would prefer,
on the whole, not bringing these questions under
discussion at the present time.
After stating the general political conside
rations which had induced his Government to
make this overture, he informed the British
Plenipotentiaries, in reply to an inquiry on their

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 291
part, that, although he was willing to treat of
impressment alone, he should not feel inclined
to enter on the other points of maritime law,
unless the question of impressment were, at the
same time, received by his Majesty's Ministers
as part of that negotiation.
The British Plenipotentiaries having further
asked whether any additional securities would
be proposed or admitted by the American
Government, against the employment of British
natural-born subjects in the merchant-vessels of
the United States, the American Plenipotentiary
replied, that he had none to offer essentially
differing from those brought forward in former
negotiations. RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

u2

292 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
Protocol of the Fourteenth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 13th of April,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
After the protocol of the preceding con
ference had been agreed to and signed, the
British Plenipotentiaries stated that they had
invited Mr. Rush to an interview, in order to in
form him, that, in consequence of the inquiries
which they had made, as to the right of fishing
on the western coast of Newfoundland, they
conceived that the case, as previously described
by him, was hardly of a nature to be entertained
among the subjects of the present negotiation.
The citizens of the United States were clearly
entitled, under the Convention of October, 1818,
to a participation with his Majesty's subjects, in
certain fishing liberties on the coasts of New
foundland : the Government of the United
States might, therefore, require a declaration
of the extent of those liberties, as enjoyed by

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 293
British subjects, under any limitations pre
scribed by treaty with other powers, and pro
tection in the exercise of the liberties so limited,
in common with British subjects, within the
jurisdiction of his Majesty, as sovereign of the
Island of Newfoundland ; that such declaration
and protection, if necessary, might be applied
for in the regular diplomatic course ; but that
it was to be observed, that the question ap
peared to have been in some degree varied ;
first, by the line of argument pursued in the
correspondence between Mr. Gallatin and Vis
count Chateaubriand, the latter having rested
his claim to the right of excluding the United
States from the fisheries on those parts of the
coast of Newfoundland, to which the above-
mentioned correspondence applied, upon en
gagements contracted by the American Go
vernment towards that of France, long before
October, 1818 : according to his construction
of which engagements, the United States had
virtually rendered their exercise of the liberty
of fishing between Cape Ray and the Quirpon
Islands, conceded by Great Britain, dependent
on the compliance of His Most Christian Ma
jesty; and secondly, by the consent of the
American Government, to open discussions on

294 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
this subject at Washington, with the French
Charge d' Affaires.
The American Plenipotentiary protesting
wholly against the grounds assumed by France,
as impairing in any degree the fishing rights of
the United States, held under the Convention
of October the 20th, 1818, and not admitting
that any correspondence which had taken
place between the Governments of the United
States and France upon this subject could
affect any of those rights ; remarked, that his
main object being to bring the question which
had arisen between the United States and
France fully under the notice of the Govern
ment of his Britannic Majesty, with a view
to the objects stated in his paper marked E,
(annexed to the protocol of the tenth con
ference), he should adopt the course of address
ing an official representation upon the whole
subject to his Majesty's principal Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs. RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 295
Protocol of the Fifteenth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 4th of June,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of , the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The British Plenipotentiaries stated, that
having received the instructions of their govern
ment on the various important and extensive
questions submitted for negotiation, they were
now prepared to communicate fully and defi
nitively thereon with the American Plenipo
tentiary. Beginning with the articles of colonial inter
course, proposed by him at the third conference,
they explained at large the sentiments of their
Government, showing what insuperable objec
tions, alike in principle as in practice, precluded
Great Britain, in their estimation, from acceding
to the articles in question, except with the
omission of such parts as stipulated, in reference

296 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
to that intercourse, for a complete assimilation
of the duties on imports from the United States
into the colonies, to those levied on like
imported articles, the produce of his Britannic
Majesty's possessions.
The American Plenipotentiary stated, that
he was not authorized to sign the proposed
articles, without a full stipulation to the pre
ceding effect ; but that he was instructed to
invite the British Plenipotentiaries, in case of
the terms which he had offered not being
accepted, to bring forward counter proposals,
which he should be ready to transmit, together
with any explanations, for consideration, to his
Government. Adjourned to Tuesday the 8th instant.
RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 297

Protocol of the Sixteenth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 8th of June,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The British Plenipotentiaries, after further
discussion in relation to commercial intercourse
between the United States and certain of the
British Colonies, gave in the annexed counter-
projet on that subject, in reference to what had
passed at the preceding conference, observing,
at the same time, that the first two articles of
the proposal communicated by the American
Plenipotentiary in their third conference with
him, had, in their opinion, no necessary con-?
nexion with the third, relating to the naviga
tion of the river St. Lawrence, and that they

298 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
conceived it would be more convenient to treat
of them separately.
Adjourned to Tuesday, the 15th instant.
RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

Protocol of the Seventeenth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 15th of June,
1824. Present— Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol ofthe preceding conference was
read over and signed.
The British Plenipotentiaries stated, that, in
pursuance of the proposals of the American

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 299
Government, they were ready to enter into sti
pulations for settling, by compromise, the
several questions which had arisen under the
fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent ; and that,
agreeably to the disposition which they had
expressed in a former conference, to treat of the
navigation of the river St. Lawrence by vessels
of the United States, on principles of accommo
dation and mutual concession, they now pro
posed to negotiate on that subject in connexion
with the said questions which affect the
boundary of the British and American territo
ries, throughout the region contiguous to that
part of the St. Lawrence which flows exclu
sively through his Majesty's dominions. They
intimated, at the same time, that the course
which they proposed in this manner to pursue,
was founded on the understanding, that the
navigation of the St. Lawrence, throughout his
Majesty's territories, was not to be claimed by
the United States as a right ; and this intima
tion they accompanied with an exposition of
the very decided opinion entertained by their
Government against such an absolute, inde
pendent claim.
The American Plenipotentiary said, that he

300 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
was not able to go into the proposed negotia
tion, as relating to the St. Lawrence, on the
principle of concession; but, on the contrary,
that his instructions imposed upon him the
obligation of pressing the claim of the United
States to the entire navigation of that river,
expressly on the ground of independent right;
and that he conceived it would be his duty,
in asserting that claim, to enter it so grounded
on the protocol of the conferences.
It was agreed, however, that it would be
convenient, on the whole, to postpone any
decided step thereupon, until the ensuing
conference.

Adjourned.

RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 301

Protocol of the Eighteenth Conference of the
x4merican and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 19th of June,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The American Plenipotentiary, referring to
that conference, stated, that he felt himself
bound to present the claim of the United
States to a concurrent enjoyment of the navi
gation of the river St. Lawrence, from its
source to the sea, on the express ground of
independent right. He said that he had in
deed been left at liberty to exercise his judg
ment as to the time and manner of presenting
that claim; but he was positively instructed
to urge it, in the course of the negotiations,
in the above decided sense of right; that
otherwise he should have been obliged to
prefer the same claim by direct application
to the foreign department. It was in dis-

302 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
charge of the duty thus imposed upon him,
that he gave in the annexed paper, marked
B, containing a distinct exposition of the
views and principles on which the above-men
tioned claim of the American Government was
sustained. The British Plenipotentiaries, on receiving
this declaration and written argument from Mr.
Rush, observed, that it became their duty to
deny, and they did therefore deny, in explicit
terms, the right so claimed on behalf of the
United States to navigate, in common with
British subjects, that part of the river St.
Lawrence which flows exclusively through his
Majesty's territories ; they added, that they
could not conceal the surprise which they felt
at learning that such a right was to be asserted
by the American Government, especially as it
must necessarily have the effect of tying ,up
their hands with respect to the instructions
which they had received from their Govern
ment on a very different apprehension of the
subject, and which they had no hesitation in
describing as founded on a most liberal and
comprehensive view of the wishes and interests
of the United States, with respect to the dis
puted points of the boundary line under the

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 303
fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, no less
than as touching the navigation of the St.
Lawrence, which they had considered, on the
principle of accommodation and mutual con
cession, as supplying additional means for the
satisfactory adjustment of those disputed points
by negotiation and compromise.
The American Plenipotentiary, in sup
porting the claim of his Government, averred
that it was not put forward in any unfriendly
spirit, but with reference to such of the national
interests as were immediately concerned in the
question, and that it was subject, of course, to
the operation of further discussion between the
two Governments, and a frank communication
of their respective sentiments.

Adjourned.

RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

304 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.

Protocol of the Nineteenth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 26th of June,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
wa sread over and signed.
• The British Plenipotentiaries stated, that,
having considered the declaration made by Mr.
Rush in that conference, concerning the inde
pendent right of the United States to the
entire navigation of the river St. Lawrence, and
the written argument which he had annexed
to the protocol in support of that right, they
felt themselves called upon to communicate, in
a manner equally explicit and formal, the
ground on which their Government denied a
right of the description asserted on the part of
the United States. They added, that, although
the opinions which they had already declared

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 305
on that point, were unchanged, they thought it
due to the gravity and importance of the
question, not to give in their reply to the
American argument until it had received the
full sanction of the highest professional au
thorities in the country, on matters relating to
the law of nations. For the accomplishment
of this object, an interval of some days was
obviously requisite, and therefore, to delay as
little as possible the progress ofthe negotiations,
they proposed to pass on for the present to the
questions of boundary on the North-west coast
of America.
The American Plenipotentiary said, that any
delay as to the question of the St. Lawrence,
did not, in his opinion, affect the points to be
adjusted under the fifth article of the Treaty of
Ghent, and that he desired to proceed at once
to the conclusion of an agreement by which
those points should be referred to a direct
negotiation between the two Governments, as
before proposed by him. But, as it appeared
on discussing these matters, that Mr. Rush was
authorized only to take ad referendum any
counter-proposals of the British Government
on the above-mentioned points, (whether those
SECOND SERIES. — II. X

305 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
counter-proposals conveyed any positive terms
of compromise, or only such arrangements as
the British Plenipotentiaries conceived must
necessarily accompany the mere agreement to
settle the points at issue by compromise, and
that his instructions would not allow of his
concluding any thing at present with the
British Plenipotentiaries as to the various
preparatory steps indispensable for carrying
the disputed points of the fifth article of the
Treaty of Ghent before an arbitrator, if arbitra
tion should be found after all to be inevitable
— it was finally agreed that the Plenipoten
tiaries should meet again on the 29th instant,
in order to communicate definitively on the
subject of the North-west boundary.
Adjourned. RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 307

Protocol of the Twentieth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 29th of June,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush,
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The British Plenipotentiaries stated and
explained at length the sentiments of their
Government, with respect to the conflicting
claims of Great Britain and the United States
to the territories in North America, lying be
tween the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific
Ocean. They declined the proposal made on
this subject by the American Plenipotentiary,
and annexed to the twelfth protocol, because it
would substantially have the effect of limiting
the claims of their Government to a degree
inconsistent, as they thought, with the credit
and just interests of the nation. After much
discussion and mutual explanation of the
x 2

308 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824-
claims on each side, when taken in their full
extent, it was agreed that, following the
example given by the American Plenipoten
tiary in his proposal, it would be advisable
to attempt a settlement on terms of mutual
convenience, setting aside for that purpose the
discordant principles on which the respective
claims were founded. Whereupon the British
Plenipotentiaries stated, in general terms, that
they were ready, either to agree on a boundary
line, to be drawn due west from the Rocky
Mountains, along the 49th parallel of latitude, to
the North-easternmost branch of the Colombia
or Oregon River, and thence down the middle
of that river, to the ocean, or to leave the third
article of the Convention of 1818 to its natural
course. The American Plenipotentiary in
remarking upon this boundary, declared his
utter inability to accede to it ; but finding that
the line offered in his former proposal was
considered wholly inadmissible by the British
Plenipotentiaries, said, that in the hope of ad
justing the question, he would so far vary his
former line to the south, as to consent that it
should be the 49th instead of the 51st degree
of north latitude.

.1824. COURT OF LONDON. 309
In the course of the conference, -the Ame
rican Plenipotentiary stated, that he was in
structed to insist on the principle, that no part
of the American continent was henceforward to
be open to colonization from Europe. To ex
plain this principle, he stated, that the inde
pendence of the late Spanish provinces pre-
eluded any new settlement within the limits of
their respective jurisdictions ; that the United
States claimed the exclusive sovereignty of all
the territory within the parallels of latitude
which include as well the mouth of the Co
lumbia as the heads of that river, and of all its
-tributary streams ; and that, with respect to the
whole of the remainder of that continent not
actually occupied, the Powers of Europe were
debarred from making new settlements, by the
claim of the United States, as derived under
their title from Spain.
The British Plenipotentiaries asserted, in
utter denial ofthe above principle, that they con
sidered the unoccupied parts of America just as
much open as heretofore to colonization by
Great Britain, as well as by other European
Powers, agreeably to the Convention of 1790,
between the British and Spanish Governments,

310 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
and that the United States would have no right
whatever to take umbrage at the establishment
of new colonies from Europe in any such parts
ofthe American continent.
The British Plenipotentiaries added, that
they felt themselves more particularly called
upon to express their distinct denial of the
principle and claims thus set forth by the Ame
rican Plenipotentiary, as his claim respecting
the territory watered by the river Colombia and
its tributary streams, besides being essentially
objectionable in its general bearing, had the
effect of interfering directly with the actual
rights of Great Britain, derived from use, occu
pancy, and settlement. RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 311

Protocol of the Twenty-first Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 3d of July,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The questions of maritime law were taken
up. The British Plenipotentiaries stated, with
reference to Mr. Rush's communication on
this head, as recorded in the protocol of the
thirteenth conference, that the sentiments of
their Government, respecting the impressment
of British seamen in time of war, were un
changed; and that, however anxious they
were to reconcile the eventual exercise of that
right on the high seas with the convenience
arid feelings of other nations, they could not,
consistently with their duty, agree to waive it,

312 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824'.
with respect to the vessels of the United States,
except on receiving a full and efficient security
that the end for which it was occasionally re
sorted to should be substantially attained by
other satisfactory means. That, having been
informed by the American Plenipotentiary that
he had to propose no measures for effecting this
important object essentially differing from those
which, in former negotiations, had been found
inadequate, they could not but concur with him
in the opinion, that any discussion of the ques
tion, at the present moment of general tranquil
lity, would be altogether unadvisable.
With regard to the other maritime questions
affecting the relations of neutral and belligerent
powers, the British Plenipotentiaries observed,
that, as the American Plenipotentiary was not
prepared to enter into stipulations respecting
them, except in conjunction with the subject of
impressment, which subject was not to be en
tered into, for the reasons above-stated, the dis
cussion of these questions, under the present
circumstances, would obviously be attended
with no practical utility.
They expressed themselves willing, at the
same time, to treat on other points, not falling

1824. COURT OF LONDON, 313
under this head, but connected with the im
provement of friendly intercourse and good
neighbourhood, already subsisting between the
two countries, if the American Plenipotentiary
felt himself at liberty to entertain proposals
founded on this principle. The American Ple
nipotentiary expressed his readiness to receive
and transmit to his Government any suggestions
of this description ; but stated that he was not
prepared to propose or definitively accept any
stipulations of such a nature, except in con
junction with an arrangement as to the maritime
questions. Adjourned. RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
' STRATFORD CANNING.

314 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.

Protocol of the Twenty-second Conference of
the American and British Plenipotentiaries,
held at the Board of Trade, on the 9th of
July, 1824 :—
Present, — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over, and, after some discussion,
signed. The American Plenipotentiary stated that
the question of abolishing private war, and all
capture of private property at sea, was con
sidered by him as standing apart from the other
questions of maritime law which had been
heretofore discussed between the two Govern
ments, inasmuch as it was perfectly new, and
had been proposed by his Government to other
European Powers as well as to Great Britain ;
and he wished it to be understood that he was

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 315
ready to treat on that question alone, notwith
standing the decision already taken upon the
other questions of maritime war.
The British Plenipotentiaries said, in reply
to this statement, that, under the circumstances
which prevented any present discussion of the
questions of maritime law discussed in former
negotiations, there would be manifest incon
venience in now going into a question of the
same class, which, besides being totally new as
an object of discussion, involved the most ex
tensive change in the principles and practice of
maritime war, as hitherto sanctioned by the
usage of all nations.
The British Plenipotentiaries, adverting to
the other points not falling under the head of
maritime law, but connected with the improve
ment of friendly intercourse and good neigh
bourhood between the two nations, on which,
in the preceding conference, they had offered
to treat independently, communicated the sub
stance of nine articles, which they had been
prepared to give in, if the American Plenipo
tentiary had felt himself at liberty to conclude
an arrangement on them, and on which they
declared themselves still ready to enter into

316 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
stipulations with the Government of the United
States. RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING,

Protocol of the Twenty-third Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
at the Board of Trade, on the 13th of July,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The British Plenipotentiaries, in more com
plete explanation of the statement made by
them, in the twentieth conference, gave in an
article, comprising the counter-proposals of
their Government, as to the North-west Bound-

1824) COURT OF LONDON. 317
ary, in America, from the Rocky Mountains to
the Pacific Ocean. They observed, at the same
time, that, if their article were accepted, in
substance, by the American Government, it
would be necessary, on framing it into a con
vention, to give its details and accompanying
arrangements a more distinct and expanded
shape. They added that, in making the
annexed proposal, they had departed con
siderably from the full extent of the British
right, agreeably to the readiness which they
had before expressed to settle the North-west
Boundary on grounds of fair compromise and
mutual accommodation.
The American Plenipotentiary, in receiving
the above article from the British Plenipo
tentiaries, remarked, that he wished it also to
be understood that, in proposing a modification
of the article originally submitted by him on
this subject, he had been governed by the same
view. The American Plenipotentiary introduced the
question of allowing United States Consuls to
reside in the British Colonial Ports, and re
quested to be made acquainted with the senti
ments of the British Government thereon.

318 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824.
The British Plenipotentiaries referred, in reply
to the counter proposals which they had already
given in, on the subject of colonial intercourse ;
of which proposals the reception of American
Consuls formed a distinct part.
Mr. Rush observed, that the residence of
foreign Consuls in any country did not appear
so much to depend on any particular set of com
mercial regulations, as to belong essentially to
trade, under whatever form it might be carried
on ; and he supported this observation by argu
ments connected with the protection of mer
chants trading under any lawful circumstances
with a foreign country.
The British Plenipotentiaries agreed to take
this suggestion into consideration before the
next Conference.

Adjourned,

RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 319

Protocol of the Twenty-fourth Conference of
the American and British Plenipotentiaries,
held at the Board of Trade, on the 19th of
July, 1824.
Present— Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed. The British Pleni
potentiaries gave in the annexed paper, in reply
to the argument relating to the free navigation
of the river St. Lawrence, given in by the Ame
rican Plenipotentiary at a preceding conference,
and, in like manner, annexed by him to the
protocol. The British Plenipotentiaries, referring to
what had passed at the preceding conference, on
the subject of receiving United States Consuls
in his Majesty's open Colonial Ports, stated that,
although they saw no objection to the admission

320 RESIDENCE AT THE 1824;
into those Colonies of foreign Consuls, subject
to the usual exceptions and reservations, while
foreign vessels were in the practice of carrying
on a lawful trade with the Colonial Ports, they
conceived that there would be inconvenience in
actually recognising such appointments there,
so long as it was uncertain, not only whether
the proposals which they had given in on the
subject of colonial intercoursewould be accepted
by the American Government, but even whether
the trade now carried on between the United
States and his Majesty's Colonies, would not
be so clogged with additional burthens as to
lead to its total interruption.
Adjourned. RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

1*24. COURT OF LONDON. 321

Protocol of the Twenty -fifth Conference of the
American and British Plenipotentiaries, held
. at the Board of Trade, on the 22d of July,
1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.
The American Plenipotentiary, referring to
the reply given in by the British Plenipoten
tiaries to his argument on the navigation of the
river St. Lawrence, and annexed to the pro
tocol of the preceding conference, made obser
vations tending, in his opinion, to sustain the
view which he had before presented of that
subject. It was agreed, in consideration ofthe numer
ous and complicated questions on which the
conferences had turned, that the Plenipoten
tiaries should meet again, and communicate
with each other, prior to sending in to their
SECOND SERIES. — II. Y

322

RESIDENCE AT THE

1824.

respective Governments their final reports of
the present state of the negotiations, suspended
by the necessity of referring to Washington on
some of the subjects that had been presented
for discussion.

Adjourned.

RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

Protocol of the Twenty-sixth Conference of
the American and British Plenipotentiaries,
held at the Board of Trade, on the 28th of
July, 1824. Present — Mr. Rush.
Mr. Huskisson.
Mr. Stratford Canning.
The protocol of the preceding conference
was read over and signed.

1824. COURT OF LONDON. 323
The Plenipotentiaries, after communicating
with each other in pursuance of the agreement
taken at the preceding conference, and per
suaded that they had sufficiently developed
the sentiments of their respective Governments
on the various subjects of their conferences,
separated, under the circumstances which ne
cessarily prevented for the present any further
progress in the negotiations. RICHARD RUSH.
W. HUSKISSON.
STRATFORD CANNING.

324 RESIDENCE AT THE 1825.

CHAPTER XXVII.
LEVEE AT CARLTON PALACE.  INFORM MR. CANNING OE
MY RECALL, AND ASK AN INTERVIEW WITH THE KING,
A TIME FOR WHICH IS APPOINTED.  THE MISSION
CLOSES WITH AN AUDIENCE OF LEAVE OF THE KING.
April 20, 1825. Attended the levee. Gave
Mr. Canning information of my recall, having
been invited home by President Adams, to pre
side over the Treasury Department at Wash
ington. I asked, when I might hope for the
honour of an audience of the King, to deliver
my letter of recall, and take leave of his Majesty.
He appointed the 27th instant.
Mr. Canning congratulated me in friendly
terms on the home trust to which I was called,
and proposed that we should correspond after
I returned to the United States ; to which I
cordially assented.
I had half an hour's conversation with Sir
John Copley,* and the Bishop of London, on
* Afterwards Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst.

1825. COURT OF LONDON. 325
our late Presidential election. Both agreed,
that its quiet termination, considering the
number of candidates in the beginning, (Mr.
Crawford, Mr. Adams, General Jackson, Mr.
Clay, and Mr. Calhoun,) spoke well for our
constitution, and the political habits of the
people. April 23. Dined at Mr. Canning's with all
the foreign ambassadors and ministers, it
being St. George's day, and the dinner given
in celebration of the King's birthday. Mr.
Canning was not at table, being suddenly
unwell. Mr. Planta and Lord Howard de
Walden did the honours of the table for him.
April 27. Had my audience of leave of the
King. I said, that having been called home
by my Government, I had the honour to deliver
to his Majesty a letter from the President,
mentioning his intention of recalling me ; in
delivering which I was charged by the President
to say, how sincerely it was his desire to
maintain, in all respects, the good under
standing which had subsisted between the two
countries, during the period I had resided at
his Majesty's Court.
The King reciprocated fully the President's
desire, and thought proper to say that he was

326 RESIDENCE, &c. 1825.
sorry I was going away, though, having under
stood the cause, it was to be expected ; and
he added other kind words. Lord Bathurst
was present at the interview. I thanked his
Majesty for the many tokens of kindness with
which he had honoured me during so long a
residence at his Court. He inquired as to the
time of my embarkation, probable duration of
the voyage, health of my family, and so on ;
the conversation lasting fifteen or twenty
minutes, when I took my leave.

FINIS.

3Pv

m.

r

••'.V%'