Benns: British West India Carrying-Trade 101 
duties on both sides, and particularly the removal of the duties 
levied by Great Britain as a protection to its own colonial prod- 
uce. In other words, the American Government wanted its ves- 
sels and cargoes admitted into the British colonial ports on the 
same terms as British vessels with similar cargoes from Brit- 
ish territory. If the British Government preferred, it might 
embody these terms in an act of Parliament upon the passage 
of which the President's proclamation removing the discrim- 
inating duties on British vessels would immediately be issued 
in accordance with the American act of 1823. The United 
States Government, however, preferred to have the terms em- 
bodied in a commercial convention.^^ 
Huskisson and Stratford Canning were appointed to nego- 
tiate for Great Britain,^® and after considerable delay on the 
part of the latter, negotiations were opened late in January, 
1824.^^ Early the following month a draft of two articles 
was submitted by the American minister.^® The first was gen- 
eral in nature, stipulating that no other or higher duties of 
tonnage or impost, and no other charges of any kind should be 
levied upon vessels of the United States admitted into the colo- 
nial ports than upon British vessels, ‘‘including all vessels 
of the colonies themselves", or upon goods imported from any 
other port or place whatever, “including Great Britain and 
the colonial ports themselves". Thus the United States per- 
sisted in pushing its claim to have American produce placed 
on precisely the same footing as that of Great Britain or her 
dominions, a claim which the British Government had dis- 
tinctly informed the United States was considered “wholly in- 
admissible".^® The second article was specific : duties levied 
by the British acts of Parliament on goods imported from the 
United States into the British American colonies should be 
removed ; the American tonnage and imposts existing against 
British vessels coming from colonial ports should likewise be 
removed. 
As might have been predicted with a reasonable degree of 
certainty by anyone acquainted with the situation, this pro- 
posal was rejected by the British plenipotentiaries. They 
were willing to consent to everything but the clause stipulat- 
Am. State Papers, For. ReL, V, 520. Richardson, Messages and Papers, II, 209. 
Rush, Court of London, 446, 447. 
^‘^Ibid., 446, 447, 466, 467, 475, 476, 477. 
Am. State Papers, For. ReL, V, 566. 
“6 /bid., VI, 245. 
