Benns: British West India Carrying-Trade 49 
middle of rivers or lakes^ but excluding from the right of navi- 
gation wherever both sides of the lake or river belonged to 
the same party. Here again there were one or two objection- 
able points from the American standpoint. The article itself 
was practically identical with the third article submitted by 
the British commissioners in the negotiation of the commercial 
convention of July, 1815/^^ and which was rejected by the 
American plenipotentiaries because American vessels were de- 
nied the right to take their produce down the St. Lawrence to 
Montreal and down the river Chambly to the St. Lawrence, 
without which rights the article was useless to Americans and 
unequal in its practical operation. An additional proviso that 
the importation of American produce into Canada should not 
be prohibited unless the prohibition extended generally to all 
similar articles, afforded the United States no security, as no 
similar articles were imported into Canada from any other 
foreign country. On the other hand, the corresponding pro- 
viso respecting the importation into the United States thru 
Canada of produce and manufactures of Great Britain effect- 
ually prevented the American Government from prohibiting 
such importations, since this could not be done without ex- 
tending the prohibition to the importation of all similar arti- 
cles, either of British or other foreign growth or manufacture, 
into the Atlantic ports of the United States.®^ 
These slight concessions, containing so many questionable 
features, were transmitted to the Government at Washington, 
which, believing that they could not under any modification be 
made the basis of an arrangement between the two govern- 
ments regarding the commercial intercourse, and understand- 
ing that Great Britain would concede nothing more in the 
way of relaxation of her colonial system, decided it would be 
useless to enter into a discussion when there was no prospect 
that it would terminate in agreement, but might tend to irri- 
tation. Richard Rush, who succeeded Adams at the British 
court, was therefore authorized in his instructions to make this 
determination known to the British Government in a personal 
interview with Lord Castlereagh. This Mr. Rush did in his 
first conference with Lord Castlereagh on January 3, 1818, 
when, without using the term rejection, he 
Am. State Papers, For. Rel., IV, 14. 
IV, 11. 
4—23811 
