policy of France, the superior importance of our commercial connexion with her, and for exclaiming against the illiberal and oppressive policy of Great Britain, and for representing our intercourse with her as secondary in consequence and utility? There is none. 'Tis altogether a deception which has been long successfully practised upon the people of the United States, and which it is high time we should unmask.

If we pass from the fact of the footing of our commerce with France and Great Britain to the principles and motives of their respective systems, we shall find as little room for eulogium on the one as censure on the other. Candor will assign to both the same station in our good or bad opinion.

Both (like other nations) have aimed at securing the greatest possible portion of benefit to themselves, with no greater concession to our interests than was supposed to coincide with their own.

The colonial system of France is the great theme of the plaudits of her partizans. The detail, already entered into respecting it, will now be further elucidated by a concise view of its general principles and progress.

An ordinance of the year 1727, like the British navigation act, had given to the mother country a monopoly of the trade of the colonies, and had entirely excluded foreigners from it.

Experience having shown, as we learn from an ordinance of 30th August, 1784, that it was necessary to moderate the rigor of that system, small relaxations from time to time accordingly took place, and by the ordinance just mentioned, more important alterations were made.

That ordinance establishes several free ports in the French islands, one at St. Lucie, one at Martinique, one at Guadaloupe, one at Tobago, and three at St. Domingo, and grants permission, "till the king should please otherwise to ordain," to foreign vessels of at

least sixty tons burthen to carry to those free ports wood of all kinds, pit coal, live animals, salted beef, but not pork, salted cod and fish, rice, Indian corn, vegetables, green hides in the hair or tanned, peltry, turpentine and tar, and to take from the same ports, molasses, rum and merchandizes which had been imported from France, charging the articles which are permitted to be imported, with the duties stated in the table.

The steps which succeeded that ordinance, calculated to narrow its operation in regard to the article of fish, have been already noted so particularly as to render a recapitulation unnecessary.

It is sufficient to repeat that they manifested on this point a decided disposition to exclude as far as possible foreign fish, from a competition with their own.

It appears then that the general principle of the colony system of France, like that of Great Britain, was a system of monopoly, and that some temporary deviations from it were, from time to time, made from necessity or the force of circumstances.

In like manner, the navigation act of Great Britain gives the mother country a monopoly of the trade of her colonies, not only as to navigation, but as to supply; but the force of circumstances has led to some de

viations.

The deviations of France have extended partially to navigation, as well as to supply. Those of Great Britain have extended further than those of France, as to supply, but have been narrower as to navigation. Neither however has deviated further than particular situation dictated. Great Britain has been less relaxed on the article of navigation than France, because the means of navigation possessed by the former were more adequate than those possessed by the latter. France has been more restrictive on the article of exports than Great Britain, because her home market was more adequate to the consumption of the productions of her islands than that of Great Britain to

those of her islands, and because the latter found advantages in allowing a freer export to the United States as an article of exchange. France permitted the introduction of salted beef and fish into her islands. because she could not sufficiently furnish those articles herself: she prohibited flour and pork, because she thought herself competent to the supply of them: Great Britain prohibited fish, because she knew herself able to furnish it, and like France, was jealous of an interference with her fisheries, as a main support of her navigation. She permitted flour, because she knew herself unable to supply it. As far as the measures of France may have had a conciliatory aspect towards this country, she was influenced by the desire of sharing more largely in our trade, and diverting it more from her ancient rival. As far as the measures of Great Britain may have made any concession to us, they have proceeded from a sense of our importance to her as a customer, from the utility of our supplies to her, from a conviction that it was necessary to facilitate to us the means of re-exchange, that it was better to take our commodities, which were paid for in commodities, than those of other countries, which she might have to pay for in specie, that it was good policy to give us some douceur, as well to hinder our commerce from running into another channel, as to prevent collisions which might be mutually injurious.

These are the true features of the systems of both countries, as to motives. If we are unprejudiced, we shall see in neither of them either enmity or particular friendship; but we shall see in both a predominant principle of self-interest, the universal rule of national conduct.

Having completed my comparison of the two systems of France and Great Britain towards this country, I shall now extend it to those of other countries, in order to mark the principal differences.

[Here Mr. Smith described the situation of our commercial relations with the United Netherlands, Sweden,

Spain, Portugal and Denmark, and drew the conclusion that the system of Great Britain, not only as compared with that of France, was entitled to our preference, but that it was also greatly to be preferred to that of all the beforementioned nations, except perhaps the United Netherlands. He then continued his speech as follows:]

From the view which has been taken, this general reflection results, that the system of every country is selfish according to its circumstances, and contains all those restrictions and exclusions which it deems useful to its own interests. Besides this, a desire to secure to the mother country a monopoly of the trade of its colonies, is a predominant feature in the system of almost every country in Europe. Nor is it without foundation in reason. Colonies, especially small islands, are usually maintained and defended at the expense of the mother country, and it seems a natural recompense for that service, that the mother country should enjoy, exclusively of other nations, the benefit of trade with its colonies. This was thought reasonable by the United States, while colonies, even after their disputes on the point of taxation had begun : and however the question may stand between the mother country and its colonies, between the former and foreign nations, it is not easy to see how the equity of the exclusion can be contested. At any rate, its being the most prevailing system of nations having colonies, there is no room for acrimony against a particular one that pursues it. This ought not to dissuade the United States from availing itself of every just and proper influence to gain admission into the colony trade of the nations concerned; but this object ought to be pursued with moderation, not under the instigation of a sense of injury, but on the ground of temperate negotiation and reasonable equivalent.

These observations ought to produce two effects, to moderate our resentments against particular nations and our partialities for others, and to evince the im

practicability and Quixotism of an attempt by violence, on the part of this young country, to break through the fetters which the universal policy of nations imposes on their intercourse with each other.

Our moderation in this respect ought to be excited by another reflection-does not our own system present a number of exclusions and restrictions similar to those of which we complain? Let us look into our impost and tonnage acts; do they not exhibit a number of instances of duties prohibitory in their principle and extent? Do they not by additional duties on foreign vessels and on goods brought in foreign vessels, secure a decided superiority to our ships in the navigation between this country and all those to which they are permitted to go? If duties on goods of one country, imported into another, are oppressions and grievances, (as the Secretary of State seems frequently to suppose,) how few are the foreign articles brought into the United States, on which considerable duties are not laid.

The Secretary of State, after pointing out the exclusions, restrictions and burdens which prevent our enjoying all the advantages which we could desire in the trade with foreign countries, proceeds to indicate the remedies; these are counter-exclusions, restrictions and burdens.

The reason of the thing and the general observations of the Secretary of State, would extend the regulations to be adopted to all the nations with whom we have connexions in trade; but his conclusion would seem to confine them to Great Britain, on the suggestion that she alone has declined friendly arrangements by treaty, and that there is no reason to conclude, that friendly arrangements would be declined by other

nations.

The suggestion with regard to Great Britain, appears not to be well founded, if we are to judge from the correspondence with the British minister, Mr. Hammond, communicated by the president to the