NOTE ON TRADE RELATIONS. 137 



The report to their Government of the American commissioners 

 (20th October, 1818) contained a long account of the negotiations; 

 part of it is as follows (British Case, App., p. 95) : 



" Commercial intercourse. The subject of the intercourse with the 

 West Indies was fully discussed, and, not thinking ourselves author- 

 ised to accede to the last proposals of the British plenipotentiaries, 

 which are annexed to the protocol of the eighth conference, an entry 

 was made that we had taken them ad referendum to our Govern- 

 ment. The negotiation being kept open, in that respect, we agreed, 

 in conformity with our instructions, to an article continuing in force 

 for ten years the commercial convention of 1815. It was fully under- 

 stood, on both sides, that if no agreement should be ultimately con- 

 cluded with respect to the colonial intercourse, no ground of com- 

 plaint would arise on account of any restrictive measures whatever 

 that the United States might adopt on that subject; and we stated, 

 expressly, that such measures would, in all probability, be extended 

 to the intercourse with Bermuda and with the British northern 

 colonies; that, if the direct trade with the West Indies was not al- 

 lowed, the United States would not be disposed to suffer it to be car- 

 ried on through any other intermediate British port." 



The character of the treaty was indicated in a letter of instructions 

 sent by Lord Bathurst to the Governor of Newfoundland (21st June, 

 1819), in which he said (British Case, App., p. 99) : 



157 " You will in the first place observe that the privilege 

 granted to the citizens of the United States is one purely of 

 fishery and of drying and curing fish within the limits severally 

 specified in the convention. It is the pleasure of His Royal Highness 

 that this privilege as limited by the convention should be fully and 

 freely enjoyed by them without any hindrance or interference. But 

 you will at the same time remark that all attempts to carry on trade 

 or to introduce articles for sale or barter into His Majesty's posses- 

 sions under the pretence of exercising the rights conferred by the 

 convention is in every respect at variance with its stipulations." 



1819. The United States declined to accede to the proposals made 

 by the British treaty commissioners above referred to. A counter- 

 proposal was made by the United States, but it was not agreed to. A 

 letter of Mr. Rush (United States Ambassador at London) to the 

 United States Secretary of State (17th September, 1819) shows by 

 what distance the conflicting views were separated. Referring to 

 an interview with Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Rush said (British Case, 

 App., p. 98) :- 



" Our proposals, therefore, could not be accepted. Such were his 

 remarks. 



" I observed, that to break down the system was not our aim. All 

 that we desired was, that the trade, as far as it was gone into at all, 

 should be open to the vessels of both nations upon precisely equal 

 terms. If the system fell by such an arrangement, it was as an 

 incident, and onlv showed how difficult it seemed to render its long 

 continuance consistent with a proper measure of commercial justice 

 towards us. 



