682 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



act of Parliament was deemed satisfactory, and a proclamation was accord- 

 ingly issued and the trade commenced. Unfortunately for our commerce, and 

 I think contrary to justice, a Treasury circular issued directing the collectors to 

 charge British vessels entering our ports with the alien tonnage and discrimi- 

 nating duties. This order was remonstrated against by the British minister 

 (I think Mr. Vaughau). The trade, however, went on uninterrupted. Congress 

 met, and a bill was drafted in 1823 by Mr. Adams, then Secretary of State, 

 and passed both Houses, with little, if any, debate. I voted for it, believing 

 that it met, in the spirit of reciprocity, the British act of Parliament. This 

 bill, however, contained one little word. " elsewhere," which completely defeated 

 all our expectations. It was noticed by no one. The effect of that word 

 " elsewhere " was to assume the pretensions alluded to in the instructions to 

 Mr. McLane. The result was that the British Government shut their colonial 

 ports immediately and thenceforward. This act of 1822 gave us a monopoly 

 (virtually) of the West India trade. It admitted free of duty a variety of 

 articles, such as Indian corn, meal, oats, peas, and beans. The British Gov- 

 ernment thought we entertained a belief that they could not do without our 

 produce, and by their acts of the 27th of June and 5th of July, 1825, they opened 

 their ports to all the world, on terms far less advantageous to the United States 

 than those of the aet of 1822. 



President Adams alluded to the subject, in his annual message for 

 1827-'28 in these terms : 



At the commencement of the last session of Congress they were informed of 

 the sudden and unexpected exclusion by the British Government of access, in 

 vessels of the United States, to all their colonial ports, except those imme- 

 diately bordering upon our own territory. In the amicable discussions which 

 have succeeded the adoption of this measure, which, as it affected harshly the 

 interests of the United States, became a subject of expostulation on our part, 

 the principles upon which its jurisdiction has been placed have been of a 

 diversified character. It has at once been ascribed to a mere recurrence to the 

 old long-established principle of colonial monopoly, and at the same time to a 

 feeling of resentment, because the offers of an act of Parliament, opening the 

 colonial ports upon certain conditions, had not been grasped at with sufficient 

 eagerness by an instantaneous conformity to them. At a subsequent period it 

 lias been intimated that the new exclusion was in resentment because a prior 

 act of Parliament, of 1822, opening certain colonial ports, under heavy and 

 burdensome restrictions, to vessels of the United States, had not been recipro- 

 cated by an admission of British vessels from the colonies, and their cargoes, 

 without any restriction or discrimination whatever. But be the motive of the 

 interdiction what it may, the British Government have manifested no disposi- 

 tion, either by negotiation or by corresponding legislative enactments, to recede 

 from it ; and we have been given distinctly to understand that neither of the 

 bills which were under the consideration of Congress at their last session would 

 have been deemed sufficient in their concessions to have been rewarded by any 

 relaxation from the British interdict. The British Government have not only 

 declined negotiation upon the subject, but, by the principle they have assumed 

 with reference to it, have precluded even the means of negotiation. It becomes 

 not the self-respect of the United States either to solicit gratuitous favors or to 

 accept as the grant of a favor that for which an ample equivalent is exacted. 



The affair aroused so much emotion in the country that it entered 

 as an element into the Presidential election which came on soon after- 

 ward and resulted in the choice of General Jackson. The oppo- 

 nents of the administration of President Adams insisted that the 

 concerted legislation, and the subsequent negotiations attempted at 

 London by that administration, miscarried because an entrance of 

 our vessels into British Colonial ports was demanded as a right and 

 not as a privilege. It is that distinction which has led me to empha- 

 size the doings of a half century ago. 



407 When President Jackson came to power, Mr. Van Buren 



instructed Mr. McLane, our minister at London, to endeavor to 



reopen negotiations on the basis -of our willingness to accept as a 



" privilege " the entry of our vessels into British colonial ports, and 



