was confirmed by a tabular comparison of the exports to either country during a fiscal year, ending in September seventeen hundred and ninety. Those to Great Britain were double in value to those to France-and this and the two succeeding years showed an annual average excess to Great Britain of more than three and a half millions of dollars.-Viewing these exportations, in detail, or in the aggregate, Great Britain was a more important customer in the ratio of two to one.

To weaken the influence of this important difference, Jefferson, it is seen, had urged, that a very large proportion of the exports were for re-exportation.

The accuracy of this statement, it was declared, might be boldly questioned; as no data were furnished by him, as it was not probable any satisfactory data were possessed by him; and, as a reference to existing documents showed, that one-third for re-exportation would be an ample allowance; that with this allowance she consumed

of any moment. In the British, it was free, and that of the United States had a monopoly.

WOOD had decided advantages in the British over the French system."In Great Britain it was and is free, while other foreign rival woods are subject, not to some small, as the Secretary of State represents, but to considerable, and, in some instances, high duties.-Some of the Northern nations could afford to undersell us, but for the protections these high duties give our woods. -In the French West Indies-wood pays one per cent.-In the British, it is free. This is a small difference, but in the British other foreign wood was prohibited. As to the FISHERIES-the comparison was in favor of France.Each country sought a monopoly of her market to her own Fisheries, and the exclusion of others.-If," it was observed, "in the conduct of Great Britain towards us, in this particular, we discern the spirit of a selfish rival;—in that of France, in the same particular, we cannot but see the machinations of an insidious friend."

POT and PEARL ASHES-NAVAL STORES and IRON were received on more favorable terms by Great Britain, than by France.

As to LIVE STOCK and FLAXSEED, the provisions of each country were, in effect, the same.

two millions worth more than France. But this objection "was founded on false principles. Her intervention might be considered as a mean of extending, not of abridging our Commerce; and might be no less beneficial, than if she were the actual consumer.-Her being an intermediary, being the result of the natural course of trade, showed, that it was our interest she should stand in that relation."-This was fully proved.

That three-fourths of our Imports were from Great Britain and her dominions, was "considered as a grievance. To an unbiassed mind, this demonstrated the great importance and utility of our trade with her; nor can any alteration be made, but by means violent and contrary to our interests, except in a way which is not the object of the Report-an efficacious system of encouragement to home manufactures. Every effort to turn the tide of trade from her to other countries will amount to a premium upon their manufactures and productions, at the expense of the people of the United States."

Two causes produced this extent of trade.-She was "the first manufacturing country in the world, and can supply the greatest number of articles we want, on the best terms; and she had the largest mercantile capital and most extensive credit.-Nothing had tended more to nourish the industry, agriculture and commerce of the United States than foreign capital.-France, it was said, could supply us with many articles better than Great Britain. This term better ought to include credit as well as quality. The merchants of France are unwilling, and unable to give us competent credit; and they can supply us with but few articles cheaper than the British. As trade has hitherto been left to find its own channels, the presumption is, that it has flowed in those, where its natural relations and best interests have led it.

"To divert it from them can only be effected by ad ditional duties or prohibitions, which would be to charge our own citizens with a positive expense, to support, not their own industry and manufactures, but those of other countries.

"As to the NAVIGATION of the Country. In the immediate trade with Great Britain, our ships are on the same footing with those of England, and upon a better than other foreign powers; they not paying alien duties. This is a departure in our favor from the principle of her navigation act. With France, they are on the same footing with the most favored nations, not better. Thus far the comparison was in favor of the system of Great Britain. But, from the British West Indies our vessels are strictly excluded, while France admits all foreign vessels of sixty-four tons, and under. In this respect, the comparison is in favor of France. Yet the effect as to our tonnage is very different from that suggested in the Report of the Secretary of State, who, in estimating the tonnage, has pursued a very erroneous guide; his statement not being according to the number of ships employed, but to the number of inward entries made by each.

"Thus a Vessel making two voyages to and from Great Britain in a year, would be counted twice, while one of equal burthen making four voyages to the West Indies, would be counted four times. This error had led to the call for the statement of the actual tonnage.* view it appeared, that the system of Great Britain, instead of bearing an

Upon a comprehensive and impartial

* Jefferson computed the tonnage to France and her Colonies at 116,410 tons, and with Great Britain and her Colonies at 4,358. The actual official returns showed, the tonnage to France and to her colonies to be 82,510, with Great Britain and her colonies, 66,582. The excess to France being 15,928 tons, instead of 72,850 tons. So deceptive was his statement.

aspect particularly unfriendly, had, in fact, a contrary aspect. Compared with other foreign nations, it makes numerous and substantial discriminations in our favor, secures a preference in her markets by means which operate as bounties to the greatest number of our principal productions; and, that in the system of France, there is but a single and unimportant instance of a similar kind.*

"If the system of France is somewhat more favorable to our navigation, that of Great Britain is far more favorable to our agriculture, to our commerce, and to the due and comfortable supply of our wants. She is a better furnisher of what we have to buy, and a better customer for what we have to sell. Where then is the ground for extolling the liberal policy of France, the superior importance of our commercial connection 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 in utility? There is none. "Tis altogether a deception, which has been long successfully practised upon the people, and which it is high time we should unmask.

"Passing from the facts to the principles and motives of their respective systems, there was as little room for eulogium on the one, as censure on the other. Candor will apply the same station to both, in our good or bad opinion.

"The alterations of the French system, since the Rev. olution, were known to have placed our trade rather on a worse footing, than it was before." A brief review of the Colonial policy of France showed that "its general principle was like that of Great Britain, a system of monopoly, the temporary deviations from it being made from

* Fish Oil.

necessity, or the force of circumstances. "In the same manner the force of circumstances had induced a departure by Great Britain from the system of her Navigation Act as to supply. By the unprejudiced, in neither system was to be seen either enmity or particular friendship. In both, a predominant principle of self-interest, the universal rule of national conduct." A Review of the systems of other Nations followed, showing that those of the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, and Portugal were less favorable, than those of Great Britain. Several misstatements in the Report as to these were also indicated.

"As to the Colonial trade, monopoly being the prevailing system of most Nations, there was no room for acrimony against any particular one that pursued it.

"The United States ought to avail themselves of every just and proper influence to gain admission into it, but should pursue this object with moderation, not under the instigation of a sense of injury, but on the ground of temperate negotiation and reasonable equivalent.'

Hamilton next considered the remedies indicated by Jefferson. "The reason of the thing and the general observations of his Report would extend these remedies to all the nations in commerce with us, 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." This allegation was shown not to be warranted by the correspondence, and it was asked why, "Spain having a right by the secret article in the treaty with France to become a party to our commercial treaty with her on the same terms and not availing herself of it; and a similar effort having failed with Portugal, why was