This important declaration (whether or not Mr. Bancroft had any authority for making it in all its fulness) became at a future period the subject of incessant comment and controversy. It is important, therefore, that the facts, as they occurred, should be clearly stated. There can be no doubt that this conversation took place in the month of October 1847, but what Mr. Bancroft meant must probably ever remain a matter of conjecture. If, however, language is of any value in conveying the views or intention of the person who speaks, it may fairly be presumed that the _positive_ expression “little” had reference to the carriage of European produce, indifferently, in either American or British ships to the ports of the United States, and the general produce of the world from American ports in the like manner to ports of Great Britain. The equivalent the Americans could give in return for the _comparative_ “much,” presuming this to mean unrestricted trade with British colonies, is difficult to conjecture; seeing that the Americans have no colonies, and, in point of fact, no equivalent whatever to give. As regards the _superlative_ “_all_, in return for _all_,” it could only have had reference to the coasting trade so jealously guarded at that time by _both_ countries; and, in the sequel, it will be evident how far this magnanimous offer corresponded with the tenacious policy then and to this day adhered to by the United States Government. Lord Palmerston, entertaining a strong feeling in favour of the repeal of the Navigation Laws, at once perceived what use could be made of the concurrence of the United States Government in a LARGE measure of reform. He accordingly requested Mr. Bancroft to put his views in a formal communication, which was done as follows:— [Sidenote: Official letter from Mr. Bancroft to Lord Palmerston, November 3, 1847.] “American Legation, 3rd November, 1847. “The undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, has the honour to inquire of Viscount Palmerston, her British Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if her Majesty’s Government is inclined to remove existing restrictions on international commerce. “_Universal reciprocity, in the widest sense_, is held by the American Government as the only thoroughly appropriate basis for intercourse between two great nations. The prohibition of the indirect trade has but restrained enterprise: it has done good to neither country. To abrogate it would at once set free dormant commercial wealth without injuring any one.