38 
Indiana University Studies 
contents of the commercial convention were known. ‘‘Jona- 
than’', writing in the American Mercury as early as August, 
1815, demanded a “perfect reciprocity” between Great Britain 
and the United States, and suggested that whenever Great 
Britain undertook to place its commerce upon a different foot- 
ing, it should be countervailed in some way by the American 
Government.^- In October of the same year it was urged up- 
on Senator Rufus King that inasmuch as the new convention 
would probably have no stipulation in relation to the British 
West India trade, he should be prepared when Congress met, 
to bring forward some measure which would help place the 
colonial business on an equitable and satisfactory footing.^^ 
The provisions of such a measure were even suggested : 
No article the growth, produce, or manufacture of any Nation or Colony 
should be imported into the country from which place an American ves- 
sel could not import the same articles. ... all foreign vessels on 
leaving this Country with Cargoes should give Bonds that no part of 
their cargoes should be landed at any place where an American vessel 
could not land the same articles.^^ 
In response to these demands for retaliation, Cyrus King 
of Massachusetts maintained that Congress should justly retal- 
iate upon Great Britain some of the embarrassments which 
her rigid colonial system and her access to the triangular route 
were inflicting on American navigation. He therefore intro- 
duced the following resolution: 
That the Committee on Foreign Relations be instructed to inquire 
into the expediency of excluding from the ports of the United States all 
foreign vessels, owned in, coming from, bound to, or touching at any of 
His Britannic Majesty’s possessions in the West Indies, and in the conti- 
nent of North America, from which the vessels of the United States are 
excluded: and of prohibiting, or increasing the duties on, the importa- 
tion in foreign vessels, of any articles, the growth, produce, or manu- 
facture of such possessions.'*® 
Considerable opposition developed against this resolution, 
however, on the grounds that it was too limited in its terms ; 
that it would affect consumers and agriculturists ; that Eng- 
land had a right to regulate the trade to her colonies as she 
pleased, and any attempt to coerce her to change her policy 
would prove the commencement of a new commercial contest ; 
that the restrictive energies of the United States had had a 
■*“ American Mercury, Aug. 9, 1815. 
Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, V, 490. 
^^Ibid., V, 490, 491. 
Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., 1 Sess., 877, 878. ’ 
