There are, however, 2 points of hardship (as they regard them) under which they still suffer, and from which they feel warranted in respectfully asking relief from Her Majesty's Government. The provisions of the Treasury Order of the 15th of October last are, in their terms, prospective, extending only to the rice on which the duty has not yet been charged. There is a class of cases where the higher duty of 2s. 6d. the bushel was paid under protest; and another class of cases, in which the amount of the high duty, as demanded, was placed in the hands of a depositary, in Exchequer bills, to be held as security, upon condition that, on the parties eventually passing entries, and paying the duty decided to be due under the Convention, the bills should be returned to them. The importers of this class, residing in London, have passed entries, paid the low duty, and entered into bond to abide by the decision of Parliament; but the Exchequer bills formerly given by them in deposit, are still detained. The importers of the former class contend that the excess of duty paid by them ought to be refunded; and those of the latter class, that the Exchequer bills ought to be surrendered: the parties, in both cases, giving bond to abide by the decision of Parliament, which has already been done by the depositors of Exchequer bills residing in London. The Undersigned has been requested by them to submit their claims to Her Majesty's Government; and it is made his duty to do so, by particular instructions from the President of The United States.

It is known to the Earl of Aberdeen, that, although the late Board of Treasury and Board of Trade for a long time sanctioned the Customs in levying the high duty on rough rice imported from The United States, yet that Her Majesty's late Government finally yielded to the representations made on behalf of The United States; and that Mr. Stevenson was apprised by Lord Palmerston that the requisite order would be given to admit the article on payment of the low duty. It remained, however, for Her Majesty's present Government to carry this purpose into effect, which was done partially by the Treasury Order of the 15th of October last. But the Undersigned supposes that it may be assumed as certain, from the whole history of the correspondence, that this order was issued under the conviction, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that it was required by the provisions of the Commercial Treaty between the 2 Governments. It was on this ground alone that the high duty was complained of by the parties interested, and by the Government of The United States; and the prospective exemption from that high duty, by the Order of the 15th of October, has surely not been granted by Her Majesty's Government, after a protracted and earnest discussion, as a gratuitous favour to a certain class of American merchants, but as an act of justice under the Commercial Treaty between the 2 countries.

This being the case, it must follow, as a direct consequence, that

the high duty heretofore levied, has been levied against the provisions of the Treaty, that is, wrongfully; and it ought, therefore, in justice, to be restored. And, with respect to the Exchequer bills, the parties who have been obliged to deposit them are suffering a wrong which ought not to be continued. No good reason seems to exist why, at a time when other importers of the same article are allowed the benefit of the low duty, under the provisions of a Treaty, on the condition of abiding by the decision of Parliament, the importers of these classes should rest under the more onerous condition of a deposit, in cash or Exchequer bills, to the amount of the high duty; more particularly as, in the case of the Exchequer bills, the deposit benefits no one (it being stipulated that no use should be made of them,) while it is a hardship and a wrong to them.

The case of rough rice appears to rest on the same principles as that of beeswax imported from The United States; that of calf-skins imported from Sweden; and that of skins and hides from Colombia; in all of which, the high duties, which had been levied in contravention of Treaty provisions, were refunded by Treasury Orders of 29th December, 1838, 2nd March, 1841, and 4th October last, without the sanction of Parliament.

The Undersigned is well aware that, in a case to be decided on the ground of justice, the amount claimed would have no effect on the decision of Her Majesty's Government, although it might very properly have an effect on the time of payment. In the present case, the amount of duties to be refunded, though important to the individuals, can be of but little consequence to Her Majesty's Government, in a question of time. As to the Exchequer bills-being wholly locked up in the hands of the depositary-their detention is an injury to the party depositing them, without any benefit to the Government.

The readiness shown by Her Majesty's Government to adjust this long-contested question, encourages the hope that the remaining causes of complaint will also be removed by equalizing the condition of all parties concerned in the importation of this article. Should Parliament (as Lord Aberdeen, in his note above referred to, thinks beyond doubt) confirm the step taken by Her Majesty's Government, in issuing the Treasury Order of the 15th October, it will unquestionably be on the ground, exclusively, that the faith of the Treaty of the 3rd of July, 1815, required this course; and the Undersigned respectfully submits to Lord Aberdeen, that, on the same ground, there can be as little doubt that Parliament would give its sanction to the restitution of the high duty in the cases where it has been paid, and the surrender of the Exchequer bills now held in deposit; the parties coming under the usual obligation to abide by the decision of Parliament. The Undersigned, &c.

The Earl of Aberdeen, K.T.

EDWARD EVERETT,

(Extract.)

No. 2.-Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster.

Legation of The United States,
London, March 1, 1842.

WITH my despatch I transmitted to the department copies of a note of the 30th December, addressed to Lord Aberdeen, on the subject of the duties on rough rice, and another of the 23rd December, on the subject of the application of the State of New York for permission to make copies of documents in the British archives, relative to the history of that State. Having received no answer to either communication, and being desired by the parties interested in the former importations of rough rice, and by Mr. Brodhead, the agent of the State of New York, to obtain, if possible, the decision of the Government on these subjects respectively, I requested Lord Aberdeen to afford me an interview in reference to these 2 matters; which he did on the 8th of January. With respect to the rough rice, he informed me that it had been decided to recommend to Parliament to pass a law laying a uniform duty on the article, from whatever foreign quarter imported; but that, with respect to the restoration of the high duty, in cases where it had been already levied, he was not able to say that anything would be done. It was considered a doubtful point at the Treasury at the time, and they were not prepared to say that the duties could be refunded. I argued the point at some little length, urging the obvious considerations in favour of the restoration; but I did not obtain anything decisive from his Lordship. I have addressed the parties, before renewing a written application on the subject to this Government, to wait till the project for the new duty is brought forward in Parliament. I have little doubt that, in the proposal and debate, it will be admitted that the discriminating duty had been wrongfully levied against the provisions of the Treaty of the 3rd July, 1815. With this admission in Parliament, we can press with great force for a restoration of the duty. I have, however, expressed to the parties my willingness to address another note to the Government, if it is desired.

March 3.

Since the preceding part of this despatch was written, I have received a communication from the Earl of Aberdeen, in answer to mine of the 30th December, on the subject of the duty on rough rice. You will, I think, infer, from the manner in which it is worded, that Lord Aberdeen does not feel himself fully satisfied with the decision of the Treasury. The Lords of the Treasury seem to overlook the sole ground on which the restitution of the high duties is demanded, viz. that they were levied in contravention of the Treaty of 1815. They speak of the equalization of duties, which it is proposed to make, by Act of Parliament, as a "concession," made from "a desire

to meet the wishes of The United States." I shall be careful, when in reply to his Lordship's note I restate the argument, to place it on the proper ground of Treaty stipulation.

The Hon. Daniel Webster,

EDWARD EVERETT.

(Inclosure.) The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Everett.

Foreign Office, March 1, 1842.

THE Undersigned, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Mr. Everett, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, dated the 30th of December last, in reply to the note which the Undersigned addressed to Mr. Everett's predecessor on the 20th of October, in answer to his representations respecting the admission into this country of rough rice imported from The United States, at the same low rate of duty as that brought from the western coast of Africa.

Mr. Everett, in this note, remarks upon the provisions of the Treasury Order of the 15th of October last, being in their terms prospective, extending only to the rice on which duty has not yet been charged; and he represents that there are, consequently, still cases of hardship, from which the American importers of rice seek to be relieved, and which Mr. Everett classes under 2 heads: the 1st, where the higher duty was paid under protest, and the 2nd, where the amount of the higher duty demanded was placed in the hands of a depositary, in Exchequer bills, to be held as security, upon certain specified conditions. With respect to the 1st class, Mr. Everett contends that the excess of duty paid ought to be refunded; and with respect to the 2nd, that the Exchequer bills ought to be surrendered.

The Undersigned has not failed to communicate Mr. Everett's representation to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury for their consideration; and he now proceeds to inform Mr. Everett of the substance of the answer which he has received from that Board.

Their Lordships state that the Board has, during a protracted discussion upon this subject, uniformly resisted the claim advanced by The United States, on the ground that it was not conformable to what they considered the proper interpretation of the Treaty of Commerce between the 2 countries; that from a sincere desire, however, to meet the wishes of The United States' Government, the Board subsequently consented to equalize the duties on all rough rice, not the actual produce of a British possession; but that they do not feel, under these circumstances, that there is any ground for acceding to the claim for repayment of duty to those who, before the concession [1844-45.]

H

was made to The United States, imported produce under the law previously in force.

Their Lordships add, that, in their opinion, it would have a prejudicial effect upon commercial arrangements between friendly States, if concessions, in respect to duties, made with a view to reconcile conflicting interests or opinions, were supposed to carry with them the repayment of all the duties levied before such concession was made.

The Undersigned regrets that, in this view of the case, Her Majesty's Government are unable to meet the wishes of The United States' Government, as set forth in Mr. Everett's note of the 30th of December. The Undersigned, &c.

Edward Everett, Esq.

ABERDEEN.

(Extract.)

No. 3.-Mr. Everett to Mr. Webster.

Legation of The United States,
London, March 23, 1842.

I INFORMED you in my last despatch, that I had received a note from Lord Aberdeen, dated 1st March, relative to the claim for duties improperly levied on rough rice imported from The United States, in answer to mine, on the same subject, of the 31st December last. You will have perceived that it furnishes no reply whatever to the argument contained in my letter. The parties interested in the matter, and represented by Mr. Charles Barry, being very desirous that it should be pressed upon the Government, in order to some action at the present session of Parliament, I am preparing the draught of a note to Lord Aberdeen, to be sent in a day or two, and of which a copy will be found among the documents accompanying this despatch. I ascribe the omission of Lord Aberdeen to engage in the argument, to a consciousness that the British ground is wholly untenable. There is evidence in the debates of the House of Commons that the gentlemen composing the present Ministry were satisfied, when the subject was discussed 2 years ago, that the discriminating duty on rice from the coast of Africa is inconsistent with our commercial Treaty; and some of them expressed themselves to that effect. This being the case, I have little doubt of eventually procuring the payment of the claim. The only thing that will retard, and may possibly defeat it, is the largeness of the sum demanded; for I am informed by Mr. Barry that it probably amounts to 80,000%. The Hon. Daniel Webster.

EDWARD EVERETT.