Benns: British West India Carrying-Trade 147 
would have been considered closed by the American Govern- 
mentd^^ But he had brought forward what the latter con- 
sidered to be '‘new principles” to which they could not sub- 
scribe, and had attempted to cast upon the United States the 
blame for the situation as it existed.^^^ Consequently both 
Gallatin and Clay had felt called upon to reply to Canning’s 
opening notes, with the result that the exchange of notes con- 
tinued on thru January, 1827. This, may be considered the 
first period of the negotiation under Gallatin. 
During this period the discussions, aside from the fact that 
each party tried to ascribe to the other the blame for the situ- 
ation and to defend its own course, revolved chiefly around 
the question of the "right” of Great Britain to break off so 
suddenly the negotiation regarding the West India trade. In 
justification of the failure of the United States Government 
to legislate on the subject of the British colonial trade follow- 
ing the British act of July, 1825, Clay maintained that the 
colonial trade was a fit subject for the adjustment by friendly 
negotiation, that it had been long and often a subject of nego- 
tiation between the two countries, and that the American 
Government was bound to conclude "that both parties enter- 
tained the expectation that it was to be arranged by negotia- 
tion and only by negotiation”. ^^4 Canning this presented an 
opportunity to claim that the American diplomat questioned 
the "right” of Great Britain to regulate her colonial trade and 
to negotiate or not negotiate regarding it. Forthwith he 
launched into a long discussion of the abstract "right” of Great 
Britain or any country to monopolize or regulate at her pleas- 
ure the commerce of her colonies, a right which, in the 
abstract, Gallatin had explicitly admitted. Gallatin believed 
that Canning’s purpose from the first was thus to divert the 
former’s attention from the real intentions of the British Gov- 
ernment, and from the just reasons which the former thought 
the United States had to complain of the action of the British 
Government.^^'^ Whatever may have been Canning’s aim, cer- 
tain it is that Gallatin was able to secure no modification in 
the attitude of the British Government in regard to the ques- 
tion of reopening the negotiation. 
^“2 Am. State Papers, For, Rel., VI, 254, 259. 
VI, 251-253, 254. 
VI, 265. 
Senate Docs., 22 Cong., 1 Sess., Ill, No. 132, pp. 20, 21. 
