Benns : British West India Carrying-Trade 149 
diplomacy, and no doubt by the desire to rid itself of this cause 
of criticism before the final campaign of the approaching pres- 
idential election, the Administration resolved to make one final 
effort to adjust the difficulty. In a long letter, dated April 
11, 1827, Clay authorized Gallatin to acquiesce in the deci- 
sion which had been taken by Great Britain to regulate the 
colonial trade only by law. The latter was instructed to com- 
municate “the President’s acquiescence” to the British Govern- 
ment, and to “ascertain the disposition of that Government 
to open the trade by separate acts of the two Governments”.^^® 
Should the British Government appear friendly to the sugges- 
tion, the “president” was willing to recommend to Congress, 
at its next session — 
first, to suspend, as to the British Government, the alien duties on ves- 
sel and cargo, and to allow the entry into our ports of British vessels, 
laden with the same kinds of British produce, or British colonial prod- 
uce, as American vessels can lawfully import, the British vessel paying 
no higher charges of any kind than American vessels are, under the 
same circumstances, bound to pay; and, secondly, to abolish the restric- 
tion contained in the act of the 1st of March, 1823, confining the trade 
to a direct intercourse between the colonies and the United States; . . . 
Should the intercourse be opened on the above conditions, the Ameri- 
can Government will have waived the demand heretofore made, that our 
produce should be received into the British colonial ports, paying no 
higher duties than similar produce pays in those ports when imported 
from other parts of the British possessions.^®^ 
In other words the Administration was willing to do now 
all that was originally necessary to do to meet the provisions 
of the British act of July, 1825. It was willing to do more 
than the British Government required in the negotiation of 
1824 when an attempt had been made to adjust the colonial 
trade by a convention. Gallatin was instructed to inquire 
whether, if Congress should pass a law to the above effect, 
the order in council of July, 1826, would be revoked, the dis- 
criminating duties operating against American vessels in Brit- 
ish colonial ports abolished, and American vessels be suffered 
to enjoy the privileges of trade and intercourse according to 
the provisions of the act of Parliament of July 5, 1825. 
The statement of a member of Congress that the Administra- 
tion, “after huckstering for an unattainable shadow till they 
Am. State Papers, For. Rel., VI, 974. 
131 /67d., VI, 974, 975. 
^^Ubid., VI, 974. 
