IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I *"!IIM IIM 1.8 1-25 1.4 1.6 ■a 6" ► v] (^ /}. ' o m / ///. Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques at bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ n n D D D n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que b^eue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxe Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqudes I — I Pages damaged/ [~~| Pages restored and/or laminated/ I — I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes V V, Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'imi pression I — I Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es h nouveau de fa?on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. ^. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J ta^a^^ \>yi IfiX 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6td reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper cover!^ are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^*- (meaning "CON- TINUED "I, or the symbol V (meaning 'END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvenf dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mc THE BOUNDARIES FORMERLY IN DISPUTE BETWEEN I A LECTURE ^ BY THE ■^ ' S jf^AxU'i? unIA ^-^' THE BOUNDARIES FORMERLY IN DISPUTE BETWEEN mij iiiiii Ai m Mm mm A LECTURE BY THE HON. SIR FRANCIS HINCKS, K.C.M.G, C.B. 9th JUNE, 1885. Iltontrtal : PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL & SON. 1885. ^ 1.; ii- k tl SI ai a I w h; b. in d al a1 G in g I n si t\ tl A hi B tc fa a tc a( tl tl ei y« h oi My Lord Bishop, Ladies an'd Gkn'tlemen, When I promised several months ago to deliver a lecture for the benefit of the St. Jude's Church building fund, I fear that I did not sufficiently api)reciate the difficulty of finding a subject, which, on the one hand, I would be competent to treat, and which, on the other, would be likely to interest a Montreal audience. After much consideration, I have selected a tojjic on which I have long since formed a decided opinion, but on which I have the misfortune to differ from the views generally held, as well by Canadian autliors, as by the people at large, who have naturally imbibed the impressions, which have been sedulously inculcated during more than one generation by a number of writers. You are already aware that the subject to which I propose to invite your attention is that of the boundaries, formerly in dispute between Great Britain, and the United States, in which I have taken a deep interest during many years, and which has been treated by several gentlemen, for all of whom I entertain a very sincere respect, although I am unable to concur in the opinions which they have formed. I may add that, in regard to the most important boundary which I shall have to treat, I acknowledge the vast importance to Canada of the territory included in the State of Maine, which was confirmed to the United States by the treaty of 1842, generally known as " the Ashburton treaty.'' I do not yield to any one of the gentlemen, who have condemned the distinguished statesman, who represented Great Britain on that occasion, in my appreciation of the value of the terri- tory in dispute, but I venture to hope that I shall be able to present facts to you this evening which will convince you, that unmerited censure has been visited on two deceased statesmen. Lord Ashbur- ton and Daniel Webster, both of whom were wholly incapable of acting otherwise than in the conscientious discharge of their duty to their respective countries. The Canadian writers who have treated the subject of my present remarks are Mr. Sandford Fleming, the eminent engineer, the late Col. Coffin, who delivered a lecture in the year 1876, entitled " How Treaty-making Unmade Canada," Mr. John Charles Dent, in his " Last Forty Years," and, still more recently, our much respected fellow-citizen, Mr. R. A. Ramsay, M.A., in one of the very interesting scries of lectures delivered before the Voiing Men's Association of St. Paul's Church during the jjast winter. I assure you that I feel strongly that it is ])resuniptu<)us on my part to enter the lists in opposition to such authorities, and more especially as I am bound to acknowledge that they have given expression to opinions wliich 1 have found to prevail in Canada as long as I can recollect. I am nevertheless thoroughly convinced that the subject has never been fully treated by the writers whom I have named, and that, as regards jniblic opinion, it has been formed chiefly, if not entirely, rather from the disadvantage which Canada suffers from the position of the State of Maine than from a careful consideration of the merits of the jioint in controversy. I wish it likewise to be clearly understood that I fully admit that, after the repeated failures on the part of the two Governments to concur in a definition of the boundary under the treaty of 1783, and especially after the opinion expressed by the King of Holland, who had undertaken to act as an arbitrator, that the treaty was " inexpli- cable and impracticable," the acknowledgment by the British Gov- ernment of the claim of the United States could not have been reasonal)]y expected. My present object is to state that claim on its merits, and to point out that it was forfeited, owing to the carelessness of the American Commissioners in either substituting themselves, or in consenting to the substitution of the words, " Atlantic Ocean " for " the sea,'' which had been used in the previous definitions of the boundary of Canada, and which had not been found ambiguous. I, therefore, limit my present claim to the assertion of my strong convic- tion thatunder the circumstances which I have stated, the peojjleboth of Great Britain and of the United States should revere the memories of Alexander Baring, Lord Ashburton, and of Daniel Webster, for having agreed on a conventional boundary, and thus saved them from the calamity of war, which would have been the only alternative. My chief object therefore is to defend the deceased Statesmen from the obloquy which has been, in my opinion, most unjustly cast upon ■them. Before entering on the subject of the disputed boundaries, I think it desirable to remind you, that international treaties are in most cases entf"'-ed into, either with the object of terminating an existing war, or of preventing a resort to hostilities, by the amicable settle, ment of questions in controversy. As a rule I believe that inter- national treaties are almost invariably condemned by the people on whose behalf they have been negotiated. This is not at all surprising. In order to effect the object, which both parties must liavc in view, as they would not otherwise enter into the negotiation, mutual con- cessions must be made, and in countries where public opinion has its due weight, as it has both in Great Britain and the United States, those in opjjosition to the Government which is responsible for the treaty, will be sure to be dissatisfied. In the case of a dependency like Canada, the strong probability is that all parties will unite in denouncing a treaty, which, however fair and reasonable under existing circumstances, is not precisely what they would desire. There are probably no questions, which have been more fruitful in causing wars between nations than those relating to international boimdaries, which I sincerely rejoice to believe have been finally and peacefully settled between Great Britain and the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The prevailing opinion in Cinada has been expressed by Mr. Ramsay in the following words : — "All that " could on any ])retence have been given away by England on '* Canada's behalf to satisfy our grasping neighbours has been given." The most important of the treaties relating to boundaries is that which was stigmatized at the time by the late Lord Palmerston as "The Ashburton Capitulation," but for which the thanks of l\arlia- nient were accorded to the noble Lord who acted on behalf of Great Britain. Lord Palmerston was, at the time of his denunciation of Lord Ashburton, one of the leaders of the Opposition to Sir Robert Peel's Government, and was specially charged with the duty of criti- cizing the foreign jwlicy of that Government. The oi)inion formed by the Government, which selected Lord Ashburton, was expressed by Sir Robert Peel in the following language : " The Hon. gentleman " (one of the Opposition members) on referring to that portion of tl;e " Queen's speech, which alluded to the treaty with the United States " relative to the difference ui)on the Maine boundary question, said " that the consideration of a few square miles, more or less, of terri- " torial advantage was of very little importance, as regarded the " adjustment of differences, which had now existed for nearly half a <' century between two great nations — differences which, from their " long continuance, and from their peculiar nature, were calculated, " unless speedily and definitely adjusted, to leave but little hope that " peace could be preserved between two mighty nations. I was glad " to hear the Hon. gentleman's frank and fair admi-^sion with respect ** to the settlement of the boundary question, and I feel satisfied that " I shall be able, when the occasion offers, to show to the House and " to the country generally, the extent of the obligation under which n 6 " tlicy lie to the noble Lord, by whom that adjustment has been " effected. The noble Lord had almost retired from the turmoil of " public life, but, influenced by a high sense of duty, he abandoned '* the rei)()se of private life, and quitted his country to enter upon a " task, in which he has so hai>pily succeeded. I could show if the " i)oiicy of that noble Lord had been called in question in this House, •' as it has l)een out of doors, that the treaty which has been effected " by him affords to the country everything, which can be considered " essential to the security of our North American possessions, not " perhaps, as much as we were justly entitled to, and had a right to " expect ; but, considering the uncertainty attached to the interpreta- '• tion of the old treaty, considering the great length of time which *' had since elapsed, taking into account that the geography of the *' country was in a great degree unknown at the time of first assigning '• the boundaries, and considering the difficulty, not to say the im- '* possibility, of exactly ascertaining the intentions of those, by whom " the assignment was made, we should feel satisfied to accejjt, not, it " is true, all that we claim or all that we are entitled to, but such a divi- " sion of the disputed district as secures our British possessions in North " America, and at the same time preserves our military communica- ** tions intact. 'J'he adjustment of the question by Lord Ashburton is " far more favourable to this country than that formerly proi)Osed by " the King of the Netherlands, and in which we were willing to '* concur. * * The same ta mts which were applied to an Ashburton " here were levelled at a Webster there. Both were accused of " abandoning the interests of their respective countries ; but, fortunate- " ly, Mr. Webster was not to be moved by those taunts, and by a '' moderate course, in which the two countries mntually consented to *' al)andon the assertion of their extreme demands, without diminish- " ing the honour of either, a peaceful settlement was'effected by which " two people, kindred in descent, kindred in language, and, rightly " understood, kindred in interests, were united in peaceful relations." During the debate Lord Stanley, afterwards the Earl of Derby, in replying to Lord John Russell, spoke as follows : " But then the " noble Lord objects to what I thought had been universally admitted ** by all persons of whatever political principles they might be — ** the fitness of the selection of Lord Ashburton as the negotiator. I " thought that, if ihere were a point on which a doubt had never been " entertained, upon which all human beings were agreed, it was that, *' if there were any hope of coming to the solution of the difficulty, '* the selection of the Minister to effect that great object was one I (< " main chance of success." Lord John Russell had remarked : "Although you think you have a very good treaty, and it is one in " which I think the interests of Canada are not compromised, yet I " think that, with a little discretion and negotiation, you might have ** made a much better treaty, and have settled this matter upon a "better foundation." Replying to this Lord Stanley said: "I " ask the noble Lord why he did not do so in the ten years he was in office. If it were so easy a matter to get a *' better treaty what have the noble Lord and the noble Lord " the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Palmerston) been about "all the time? Why, they had been negotiating with the United " States upon this very subject, and could not get a better treaty ; " but up to the period at which they left office the chances of " coming to an amicable arrangement were more remote than ever, *' and the chances of a collision between America and Canada more " formidable than ever." I have given you the opinions of Lord Ashburton's contemporaries as to his qualifications for the important mission which was confidecv to him, but it appears that Mr. Ramsay holds that *' he had no diplomatic training or experience. He was a good- •' natured but weak man." Mr. Dent admits that " Lord Ash- *' burton was in some respects well-fitted to undertake such a negotia- *' lion, but then, although personally a man of honour and fair-mind- " edness, there his fitness for his mission ceased. He had had little or " no experience in conducting diplomatic negotiations. He was far " too complaisant and yielding, too ready to make any man a present *' of his opinions, too ready to surrender those opinions for the sake " of amity and good-fellowship, even when he knew that he was in the " right." I am now going to submit for your consideration an extract from Miss Martineau's History of England, reminding you that, although Sir Robert Peel and Lord Stanley may be considered pre- judiced witnesses in the case, the political sympathies of Miss Martineau were much more in accordance with Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston though more liberal than either, and that she wrote of what passed during her own observation , while both Mr, Ramsay and Mr. Dent must have formed their opinions from those of others. Lord Ashburton died in 1848, and Dent's history was published about 40 years after the treaty. After describing the various complications with the United States — all of which, I may observe,were of a very grave character, such as the Right of Search, the Creole affair, in which the negro captives rose and, after capturing a slaver bound i I 8 for a port in the United States, carried her into a British port and were allowed their freedom ; the Caroline tvAair, which Mr. Dent himself has condemned, and the Extradition question — Miss Martincau ]iro- ceeds as follows : " In this perplexity Sir Robert Peel's Government " chose the fittest man in Great Britain for the business, and sent him *' out as a s])ecial ambassador to Washington, fully empowered to settle " all matters in dispute between the two Governments. Lord " Ashburton (late Mr, Baring^, a thorough Englishman in mind and " manners, was yet so connected with America by commercial and " family relations as to have much sympatliy with American feelings, " and full knowledge of American institutions, customs, and modes •' of thought. He went out in February, 1842, was courteously and " even joyfully received, and brought matters round presently. A treaty " which settled the boundary question was signed on the 9th August " following. It was not to be supposed that everybody was satisfied. " Lord Palmerston, for one, was sure to be displeased ; and his pro- " phecies of the dissatisfaction that would be felt, and the mischief " that would arise, were very strong. But no difficulties have as yet ** been heard of; and the inestimable good of peace and national " amity appears to have been obtained without sacrifice. The agree- " ment gave 7-i2ths of the disputed ground, and the British setde- " ment of Madawaska — to the United States, and only 5-i2ths of the " ground to Britain, but it secured a better military frontier to Eng- " land, and it included heights commanding the St. Lawrence which " the award of the King of Holland had assigned to the Americans. " The best testimony to the equality of the arrangements was the " amount of discontent among American politicians being about " equivalent to that declared in England. But in both countries the " vast majority were satisfied and gratified, and the chances against " war appeared to be stronger than for several years past. Lord '* Ashburton, after having been honoured throughout every step of his " travels in the United States, received the thanks of Parliament on his " return home." I may here state that I was myself in public life, during the excited times, which preceded the nission of Lord Ashburton, and that my sole objection to Miss Martineau's statement is the assertion that the treaty gave any British territory to the United States. With regard to the state of opinion in Maine, I had an opportunity of gaining reliable information from a highly-valued, rec-iitly-deceased friend, whose loss has been deeply deplored by his fellow-citizens. I refer to Mr. Thomas Cramp, who had occasion, in connection with 9 his business transactions, to pay frequent visits to Portland, and who, by personal intercourse with leading citizens of the State of Maine, had become acquainted with their views. What Mr. Sandford Fleming has ])ronounced " undoubted British territory," on grounds which are incomprehensible to me, the people of Maine are firmly con- vinced at the present time, as they were in 1842, was "undoubted American territory." That the treaty of 1842 was a compromise between those extreme opinions cannot be denied, but 1 own that it seems to me a strange argument to advance that the land was more valuable on the American than on the British side of the new border. Mr. Ramsay tells us thac the relinquished part "was for most part sterile waste," while that gained by Maine was "in great part fertile and well timbered." The new boundary line of the river St. John was most assuredly not settled with any reference to the quality of the land, any more than to the prospective requirements of the Intercolonial Railway, the lenrecisely as before the war. I ask you, then, to consider what were the boundaries of Quebec and Nova Scotia ])rior to the revolutionary war. It is of course necessary to treat them separately, and, as Nova Scotia is the most important, as bearing on the disputed boundary with Maine, I shall consider it first. Long prior to the revolutionary war there had been repeated wars between Great Britain and France, with the object of obtaining possession of Aca,dia, or Nova Scotia as it was called by the British. In the first grant by James I. to the Earl of Sterling, made in 1621, the boundary on the west is stated to be the river commonly known as the St. Croix. It was then what was known as a proprietary Government, as were nearly all the British Provinces in America. After changing hands several times it was confirmed to Great Britain by the treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It was again taken in 1745, but finally confirmed to England by 13 the treaty of 176;?, when all the French josscssions in America vere ceded except the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. During the repeated wars the French extended their conquests as far west as the Penobscot, but the Province of Massachusetts in 1755 sent from Boston an ex[)edition which succeeded in defeating die Acadian French. During all the contests between the two great nations which at that period divided North America, the St. Croix river was the recognized boundary of Massachusetts, out of which Slate Maine was subsecjuently formed. In Bancroft's flistory it is itated, on the authority of a communication from Lord Halifax to the Board of Trade, of the date 27th September, 1863, when all the territories in North America were British : " The boundary of Massachusetts was clearly " defined both on the east and on the north, extending on the east *• to the St. Croix and on the norJi leaving totheProvnice of Quebec "the narrow strip only from whence the water Hows into the St. Law- " rence." When this description was given, the Government was aboui to issue the proclamation defining the boundaries of Quebec, and the department of the Board of Trade was in consultation with the Agent of the Province of Massachusetts on the subject. At that time Massachusetts claimed the St. Lawrence river as its boundary, while on the other hand there was no precise line of boundary on the Atlantic. The result of my investigation has been to satisfy me that Massachusetts consented to the boundary of the highlands which were the watershed of the rivers falling into the St. Lawrence, while her Fastern boundary was confirmed at the St. Croix. In confirma- tion of this I may mention that in the first commission issued after the proclamation of 1763 there is a declaration that by right the boundary should be fixed at the Penobscot, but that it is fixed at the St. Croix. \\'hen, after the termination of the revolutionary war, the Commissioners undertook to define the boundaries there cannot be a shadow of doubt that their intention was that Massachusetts should retain her old boundaries and Nova Scotia her's. One of the American Commissioners was John Adams, a distinguished statesman from Massachusetts, who succeeded General Washington as second President of the United Slates. The only question as to the East- ern boundary was which river should be selected, and the choice fell on the St. Croix, from the source of which rWcr the boundary was to be a due north line by the treaty of 1783. In 1784 the Province of New Brunswick was formed out of part of Nov? Scotia, and there were soon disputes as to which river was the true St. Croix of the treaty : the United States contended for the Magaguadavic, a river still 14 P further east, while British settlements were made on the Schoodic, the western branch of the river finally decided on by the Commissioners appointed under "the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation' made in 1794. The Commissioners differed in opinion, but finally made an unanimous award, the umpire holding, on what I tiiinlc suffi- cient grounds, that the river Chiputnaticook, which runs from a north- erly source, was the St. Croix of the treaty ; and Mr. Fleming holds that this was "the first false step," and that " from this fatal error arose " all the subsequent difficulties." If Mr. Fleming had expressed his conviction that the boundary hue for which he contends, which is a line drawn from the source of the Sclioodic to the Highlands between the Penobscot and the Ciiaudiere, was the old boundary of Nova Scotia I would have considered that he h.id some ground for his ojjinion ; but, unfortunately, he, like all the other writers on the subject, did not look beyond the vague language of the treaty of 1/83, and did not consider the actual boundaries which existed in 1774 between Canada, Nova Scotia and Maine — Uien a dependency of MassachusjUs — and which I maintain were the boiuidaries intended by the negol'ators of the treaty of 1783, althougii, by the accidental use of the term " Atlan- tic Ocean" when "the Bay of Fundy " or " the sea " should have been employed, there was a doubt created, which very nearly led to war between the two nations. It is beyond dispute that, prior to the revolutionary war, the Province of Massachusetts was bounded on the east by the Province of Nova Scotia, and on the north by Quebec, I have already stated the eastern boundary, as understood at the time, and I now proceed to state the southern boundary of Canada. I deem it important to call your attention in the first place to the boundary of Canada jjrior to the conquest, and therefore cite the description in the commission of the Sieur de Lauzon, Covernor and Lieutenant of the King of France in 1651, which was : " over the " whole extent of the river St. Lawrence in New France, the isles, " and lands adjacent on both sides of the river, and the other rivers ** that discharge therein as far as its mouth." The description in the commissionof another Governor, about twenty-five years later, defines his jurisdiction as over " the Provinces watered by the St. Lawrence " and the rivers which discharge into it, and the places that depend " thereon, in New France." After the conquest there was a pro- clamation, in 1763, defining the boundaries of the Province of Quebec commencing at the river St. John on the Labrador coast, passing by Lake St. John to Lake Nepissing, thence in a direct line to the jt. Lawrence, which it crossed in latitude 45, thence " along the high- 13 " lands wliich divide the waters that empty themselves into the river " St. Lawrence from those which fall iiuo the sea, and along the " North Coast of the Bay of Chaleurs to Cape Rosieres, thence " crossing the mouth of the St. Lawrence by the west end of the " Island of Anticost' *o the place of beginning." The next defin- ition was that in the Act of Parliament of 1774, which is not mate- rially different from that in the proclamation of 1763. It, however, commences on the south-east instead of the north-east, ami defines the boundary on the south to be a line from the Bay of Chaleurs along the Highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves •nto the river St. Lawrence from those which fixll into the sea, to a point iri 45 degrees North latitude, on the east bank of the river Conner ticut, keeping th" same latitude directly west through the Lake Chamijlain, until, in the samelatitudc; it meets the river St. Law- rence. I need not trouble you with the boundary through the river and Lake Ontario, and thence by the Niagara, into the Upper I^ikes, as it has no bearing on what is known as the Maine boundary con- troversy. You will perceive that the language of the proclamation and of the Act is similar in regard to the Highlands dividing the rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those that fall into the sea. The chief alteration is in defining the boundary ju the 45th parallel of latitude to be as far as the eastern bank of the river Connecticut, and on that point there has been no serious contro- versy, although, as Mr. Ramsay has pointed out, there were some errors committed I surveyors. Having now stated the boun- daries of Quebec and Nova Scotia, generally acknowledged in 1774, and regarding which there was no dispute, you will perceive that Massachusetts was bounded en the east by the St. Croix river and on the north by the Highlands separating the rivers falling into the St. Lawrer -.e from those falling into the sea, which must have been north of the river St. John, and running westward as already described. Assuming that the negotiators of the treaty of 1783 had no other intention than to confirm the old boundaries I can readily understand the meaning of the language which they use, which I shall here cite : " From the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that angle " which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. " Croix river to the Highlands, along the said Highlands which divide " those rivers that empty themselves mto the St. Lawrence from those " which fall into the Atlantic Ocean to the north-westernmof^t head of " Connecticut river ; thence down along the middle of that river to IG ii .15: " the forty-fifth degree of North latitude ; from thence in a line due " West on that latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois orCataraqui ; " thence along the middle oi the said river into Lake Ontario, " cast hy a line to he drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix " from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its " source directly north to the a/oresaid Highlands which divide the " rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into *' the river St. Lawrence." Had the term " Sea " been used in the foregoing description, as in that in the Act of 1774, there could have been no dispute whatever as to the constructioh of the treaty, and I entjrtain n>.,t the slightest doubt that it was not intended to alter the old boundary. It is quite possible that, as the St. John falls into the Bay of Fundy very near its entrance, the term " Atlantic Ocean" may have been deemed a proper desc/iption. Be that as it may, the use of that term was nearly the cause of war between the two nations, and has led to the heart-burning which is so apparent in the words of the authors to whom I have referred. The Highlands due north of the St. Croix separate rivers falling into the St. Lawrence from the St. John and its tributaries which fall into the Bay of Fmidy instead of the Atlantic Ocean. Tiiose who, like Mr. Fleming, have insisted on the literal construction of the language of the treaty^ held that the only Highlands answering the description were those separating the river Chaudiere from the head waters of the Penobscot, while the Maine contention was that the line ran north to the sources of the rivers Metis and Rimouski and westward by the sources of the tributaries of the St. Lawrence. The practical effect of Mr. F'leming's interi)retation would have been to deprive the State of Maine, formed out of the old Province of Massachusetts, of a large portion of her undisputed territory. It is not surprising that the attempt to take possession of the disputed territory, or rather the indication that such an attempt was contemplated, should have caused great irritation in Maine. Mr. Fleming in his " Intercolonial " gives a history of the survey in the year 1835 of a line of railway between St. Andrews, N.B,, and Quebec, passing through the valley of the Etcheniin River to Mars Hill, in the State of Maine. It does not appear that, although the Imperial Government had granted £10,000 sterling in aid of the work, and that surveys and esti- mates had been made, any communication had taken place with the Government of the United States, notwithstanding the abortive attempts which had been previously made to settle the point in con- troversy. Such, then, was the state of the boundary controversy. trd clj to| tic 7-1 tol 17 when Lord Ashburton was selected l)y Sir Robert Peel and Lord Aberdeen to act as an Ambassador I'Atraordinary to the Ihiited Stales, to endeavour to settle a number of im])ortant questions, which were causing much irritation, and to which I have already referred. The Riglit Hon. Alexander Baring — who was created Lord Ashburton, in recognition of his services to the State — had, ])'"evious to his entrance into jjublic life, taken an active part in the management of the eminent firm of liaring Brothers \: Co., who had large trans- actions with the United States. He had married the daughter of Mr. Hingham of Philadelphia, a Senator of the United States, and had frequently visited that country. It is evident that the Cana- dian critics of the Ashburton t -eaty hoi 1 a widely different ojiinion from that of Sir Robert Peel, .and tiiink thai a more satisfactory treaty would have been obtained by sending out a fire-eater, with instructions to name his terms and to threaten war unless they were promi)tly accepted. Sir Robert Peel having, from his knowledge of Lord Ashburton as a colleague, an implicit reliance in the soundness of his judgment and on his devotion to the interests of his own country, believed that the respect entertained for liim in the (Jnited States, would not be prejudicial to the success of his mission. The allega- tion that Lord Ashburton was a -"ik man who had no opinions of his own, has been made by person^ holly unn-cquainted with his character, and is at complete variance with the estimate formed of him by those who knew him well, both in Great Britain and the United States. I have never been able to comprehend the ground on which the Ashburton treaty has been so severely attacked. Neither of the eminent negotiators was responsible for the ambiguous language used in the treaty of 1783, which, as Col. Coffin and Mr. Ramsay have pointed out, was found " inexplicable and impractica- ble." The solution of the difficulty had been found impossible by the King of the Netherlands, and by the Commissioners appointed by the treaty of 1794. There was really no option between war and a com- promise. The United States had justice on their side, as they only claimed the boundary which had been understood to be guaranteed to them by the treaty of peace, while Great Britain relied on a defini- tion which was found impracticable Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster, after conferring together, decided on the ado])tion of the natural 1: imdary of the river St. John and its tributary the St Francis as the northern boundary of Maine, the effect of whicli was to give 7-i2ths of the disputed territory to the United States and 5-i2ths to Great Britain. It would have been hardly possible to have found I 18 ^1 any other boundary that would have been a compromise between con- flicting claims. All the other points in controversy were satisfactorily settled, and both the negotiators of the treaty earned the gratitude of the i)cople of both countries. I have already given a cpiotation from Sir Robert I'eel's spcecli, in whicii he referred to Mr. \Vel)ster in most com[)limentary terms. The picture of Lord Ashburton is exhibited at Washington among those entitled to the gratitude of the American people. 1 can readily conceive that those who have written of him in the most contemptuous terms, would cite this as a proof that he had earned this gratitude at the cost of his own country, but I have already noticed that the thanks of Parliament were voted to him for his eminent services, a comi)liment which has been rarely paid to a civilian. I cannot take leave of this branch of my subject without drawing your attention to the celebrated map discovered in the Archives at Paris by Mr. Jared Sparks, and which was said to have been enclosed by the Count de Vergennes, the French Minis- ter, to Dr. Franklin, on the 6th Dec, 1782, with a reciuest that he would mark on it the boundary which had been agreed to, and which was returned by Dr. Franklin with a strong red line indicating the limits of the United States as settled in the preliminaries between the British and American plenipotentiaries. It appears that Mr. Sparks discovered this map, as well as Dr. Franklin's note to the Count dc Vergennes, and that he commended both to the authorities at Washington with the following remark : " In " short, it is exactly the line now contended for by Great Britain, "except that it concedes more than is claimed by her. It is evident that the line from the St. Croix to the Canadian Highlands is intended to exclude " all the waters running into the St. John." I have no reason to doubt that such a map was discovered, and such a statement made by Mr. Sparks, and both Mr. Dent and Mr. Ramsay have arrived at a most unfavourable conclusion as to the part taken by Mr. Webster in concealing from Lord Ashburton the existence of the map, which he subsequently used to influence the United States Senate to ratify the treaty, which that body was very unwilling to do. Mr. Sandford Fleming has not noticed the map, but Col. Coffin, who holds as strong opinions in favor of the British claim as Mr. Dent and Mr. Ramsay, differs with them materially as to Mr. Webster's duty under the circumstances. Col. Coffin thus wrote in 1876, of the map: " It afforded strong presumption, but not absolute proof, of the "correctness of our claims under the treaty — claims, however, which " we had abandoned when we abandoned the treaty itself, and t. i( u (1 ^1 19 " accepted an arl)itrati()n — nor could a jniblic minister, or a private "advocate, be expected to make out his adversary's case ; but one " thing is now certain, that the presumi)tion raised by tlie 'red hne " map ' was emi)loyed by Daniel Webster in secret conclave to " moderate the formidable oi)position of the Senate, and to overcome "the intractable violence of Maine; and tliat it secured jieace " between the two countries at a moment when harmony was addi* " tionally endangered by the Canadian revolt and its consetjuences, " by the cases of the Caroline and the Creole, l)y the Right of Search "question, and by the hostile attitude of the French press and the " French people, in those days periodically affected with Anglophobia," I have been chielly led to notice Col. Coffin's opinion because Mr. Dent and Mr. Ramsay have both made most severe remarks on Mr. Webster, the latter stating that " when all that has been sj'd in his defence is read one fails to find that he ciime from that negcjtia- tion with any honour left." My opinion on the Maine boundary question has been formed, as I hope I have conveyed to you, on grounds that cannot be lightly shaken. The southern boundary of Quebec was settled in 1774 by Act of Parliament, and was clearly north of the St. John River. I am equally certain that the Province of Nova Scotia did not extend west of the St. Croix. I am convinced that it was never intended, when the independence of the United States was acknowledged in 1783, to contract the boundaries of any State, but, on the contrary, very extensive territories in the west and north-west were surrendered to the new republic. Holdnig such opinions it is inconceivable to me that the American Commissioners could have intended to surrender a considerable portion of the State of Massachusetts to Great Britain, and 1 cannot believe it jjossible that they were even asked to do so. What, then, I may be fairly asked, is your opinion as to the map? My reply is that, after reading the accounts given of that map by Canadian writers, and after investigat- ing the subject, with reference to United States authorities, I had formed a very strong opinion that when Dr. Franklin sent that map to the Count de Vergennes, his object was to throw dust in his eyes. I would remind you that the Government of the F^arl of Shelburne was looked on by the American Commissioners as having been always friendly to their cause. The negotiations were conducted by Mr. Oswald, as a special Commissioner on the part of Great Britain, with Dr. Franklin and his colleagues, Messrs. Adams and Jay. The nego- tiations between Great Britain and France were conducted by Mr. Fitzherbert, the accredited minister and the Count de I 20 Vergcniios. 'I'lie treaty of Paris was only ratifictl at Paris on ^rd S'jpt.. 17S3, while Dr. iManklin's letter with the map was dated Olh. Dec, 17S2, sill). fi|, lent tu the agreement between the IJritish and American C Jinmi.^.iiDners as to the preliminaries, wiiich wasconclnded 30th Nov., 17S2. The result of my invesiiyations has been to con- vince me that diroughout the negotiations the Count de Vergennes, acting. I have no doubt, in the interest of France, was employing his influence to prevent Great Britain and the United .States coming to an amicable settlement of the questions at issue. He was doing all in his power to induce the American Commissicjners to make exces- sive demands in regard to their claims, while he was at tlie same time pressing tlie English Minister to refuse his consent to them. I may here remark that I do not rely entirely on Englisli historians for my assertions as to the duplicity of the Count de Vergennes. I can refer any. wiio doubt the correctness of my statement, to the history of l'\ C. .Schlosser, Professor of History in the University of Heidelburg, translated into English by I). Davidson, M.A. Such a writer may at all events be considered impartial. The preliminary articles of peace with the United States were not only signed some time before the conclusion of the negotiations with France, but were by mutual agreement to be kept secret from the Count de Vergennes. Under such circumscances, when the Count de Vergennes wrote to Dr. Franklin a few days after the secret agreement between the British and American negotiators, requesting him to mark on a map tlie limits as settled by the pre- liminaries — a matter in which France had no interest, but in which the Count de Vergennes had been actively interfering for his own purposes — 1 can readily conceive that Dr. F'ranklin may have thought it expedient to baffle the French intriguer by throwing him off the scent. Firmly convinced as I am that Dr. Franklin never could have intended to sanction such a boundary as that described by Jared Sparks, I had ventured to surmise the motive which I have just stated, but I have reason to believe that the celebrated map of Sparks' was a very old French one, of which there were many copies, and that it was never used by Dr. Franklin. It is worthy of notice, in connection wiUi the "red line map" that it is rather inconsistent in those who believe in its authenticity, to condemn Mr. Oswald as they have done, Mr. Ramsay calling him '■ a man of no merit," where- as, if he had succeeded in obtaining from '• the astute F'ranklin, Adams, and Jay " not only all contended for by Great Britain but even more than she had ever claimed, which is Mr. Jared Spark's )kS 21 all assertion, he ought at least to he spared censure. IVfore dismis- sing the subject of the Aslibuiton treaty, I niayobser\e that, in order to secure the consent of the Senate, it was not only necessary to pro- duce " the red line map " and to jjoint out that, if it 1)i'( ame publicly known to have been discovered in Paris, Clreat llritain would make use of it in future negotiations to obtain better terms, but it was like- wise foimd necessary to pay the State of Maine for the lands of which it was deprived by tiie Ashburton Treaty, as wi'll as the cost of the military operations which had been undertaken by Maine without the authority of the l-'ederal (lovernaient. 15elore leaving this branch of my subject, I feel tliat I ought, in order to prevent misconception, to state that I liave read with care the report of Messrs. l-'eatherston- haugh and Mudge, Commissioners a] pointed in 1.S39 by the JJritish Government to e\]»lore the disputed territory, aiul have likewise examineel the maps accompanying their report. The impression produced on my mind was precisely the same as the argument of a highly talented lawyer pleading a bad case. I may like- wise notice the fact that after the Ashburton treaty had been ratified a lively controversy arose between the Provinces of Canada and New IJrunswick as to their respective boundaries, which bad not previously, so far as I can learn, been in dispute. The chief bone of contention was the Madawaska settlement which was almost entirely west of the due north line from the monument at the source of tiie St. Croix. The controversy raged almost as fiercely as that between Great Pritain and the United States, and was only terminated by the award of Arbitrators, two of whom decided in favour of New Brunswick, the Canadian Arbitrator dissenting. Holding the view that I do, I am not surprised at the controversy or the award. Neither of the I'arties had the least claim to the territory, which was originally jiart of Maine. When examining the i)roceed'ngs of the Arbitrators, on the respective claims of Canada, and New Bruns- wick, 1 found an oi)inion given by an eminent English Jurist, Dr. Travers Twiss, one of the arbitrators, which I deem conclusive, and which I shall cite in nis own words: — "On examining the maps, " which have been submitted for the inspection and information of " the Arbitrators, it appears that the result of the treaty of Washing- " ton has been that a very considerable district, lying between the " frontier of the United States, on the one hand, and the legal " boundaries of the two Provinces of Canada and New Brunswick, " on the other, is a ]iosscssion of the British Crown, and remains as " yet unassigned to any Provincial Government." Is not Dr. Twiss' k 22 opinion clear that Canada and New Brunswick had legal boicndarics, before tlic treaty, and that the new utiassignci/ possession was what Lord Asliburton obtained by the treaty, for which he has ])een so much viilified? If the territory outside of the legal boundaries oi Canada and New IJrunswick did not belong to the State of Maine to what Province or State did it belong ? I have now to consider tlie other treaties with the United States which have been the subject of con- demnation by Canadian writers. The treaty of 1794 had for its chief object to determine the western boundary of Canada which had been fixed by the treaty of 1 783 at the Mississijipi river, at a point due west of the North-western Angle of the Lake of the Woods. It established the boundary on the 49th parallel of North latitude, very little north of the source of the Mississippi, and it settled the dispute as to the St. Croix of the treaty of 1783. The next treaty was that negotiated at Ghent at the close of the war which commenced in 1812. Advert- ing to this treaty Mr. Ramsay expresses his belief that Great Bri- tain " might have avoided all the troubles of the Maine boundary had " she retained her conquests, for she had taken Castine and other " posts in ALvine down to the Penobscot, and should have then " settled in a practical manner the Maine boundary at that river, but, " no I back she went to the old unsettled and disputed and unfair '' lines. 'I'he boundaries were to be as before the war." I may offer a remark or two on the foregoing opinion. 'I'he war of 181 2 was declared by the United States on a question which had no reference to boundaries. A considerable portion of the citizens of the LTnited States disapproved of it, and moreover some of the Northern States, notablv Massachusetts, refused their aid. The treaty of Ghent was signed on 24th December, 1814, while the victory gained by General Jackson at New Orleans was on 8th January, 1S15, about a fortnight later. Had the demand been m^ade and insisted on, that Gicat Bri- tain .hould retain all conquered posts, it is tolerably certain that the treaty would not have been signed, and that the effect of the victory at New Orleans would have been a demand on the ]>art of the United States for better terms. Moreover, on the ist March, 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte landed in France from Elba, and there cm be no doubt that but for the peace concluded at Ghent about two months pre- viously Great Britain would have had difficulty in obtaining the con- ditions which she did. I am fully persuaded in my own mind that the United States would not have consented to a surrender of territory, and that the demand of such surrender would have united the entire population in a vigorous prosecution of the war. In his criticism on 23 iif was neral night Bri- Lt the tory nited )leon oubt pre- con- that itory, entire m on the treaty of 1814 Col. Coffin, while censuring Great Britain for restoring its conquests in the State of Massachusetts, made a most important admission, which I shall cite in his own words : " It may " be well also to remind the men of Canada that in this same month " of December, 1814, England held not by force of arms alone, but " by the eager adherence of the people of the country, the 7vhoIe of " that part of Massachusetts, now Maine, lying between New Bruns- " wick on the east, Canada on the north, and the Penobscot on the "west. In the months of July and September, 18 14. expeditions " organued by Sir John C. Sherbrooke, Governor of Nova Scotia, "occupied 100 miles of territory west of New Brunswick, />/^///^////i,'-M channel and for the Uuited States, and 26 " again the United States got the better of England, and has a " boundary within sight of Victoria." It would have been interest- ing to have learned from Mr. Ramsay the grounds on whicli Great Britain, after agreeing to a treaty fixing the 49th parallel of latitude as the international boundary, could sustain its claim to the posses- sion of the Island of San Juan, which is situated considerably to the south of that latitude. The portion of Vancouver Island south of the 49th parallel was conceded, solely l)ecause it would have been inconvenient to have had such an island under two different Govern- ments, but no such ground existed in the case of San Juan ; and, as Mr. Ramsay calls attention to the fact that " the boundary is within sight of Victoria," I must infer that he considers that, ])y selecting tiiat site for the capital of British Columbia, Great Britain established a claim to a territory which is clearly within the estab- lished boundaries of the United States. I cannot dispute Mr. Ram- say's assertion that "with regard to each treaty, the Canadian feel- ing has been that on each England was too yielding," but I cannot agree with him that " the value of the territory was not appreciated, and her diplomatists were outmanoeuvred on every occasion." My own belief is that all of the treaties referred to were negotiated in a fair spirit by statesmen, anxious to settle disputes, regarding which each believed in the justice of the claim of his own nation, while all were desirous to avoid an appeal to arms, which would liave been specially disastrous to Canada, and which would not have promoted the final settlement of the questions in conttoversy. Mr. Ramsay refers very briefly to the treaty of Washington in 187 1, in t-lie following terms : — "The celebrated Alabama claims, which were paid " for by England on such a liberal scale, and the Canadian Fenian " clainij which was tossed aside so lightly at Washington in 187 1." It is to be inferred that Mr. Ramsay is of opinion that the Treaty of Washington in 1871 is another instance of Great Britain being outmanoeuvred by the United States. I am wholly unable to con- cur in that opinion. After protracted negotiations on the stibject of claims made by the United States, on the ground of Great Britain's violation of neutrality, the whole subject was referred to arbitration, it being understood by Great Britain that the United States had abandoned its claim for consequential damages, founded on the Queen's proclamation of belligerency. A fairer mode of settling the dispute could not have been devised. When the Arbitrators met, the consequential claims, a portion of which were estimated by the Hon. Charles Sumner at $110,000,000 were pre- 27 sented, ])ut Sir Alexander Cockburn, the Arbitrator on the part of Great Britain, refused to entertain them, and proposed the adjourn- ment of the arl)itration, which would have led to a dead-lock, but for a declaration by the Arbitrators to the cffert that, upon the princii)les of international law, such claims should be wholly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal. The claims were then entered on, and damages were claimed for losses sustained by nine vessels, including the Alabama. In six cases there was an unanimous opinion that Great Britain had not failed to fulfil t're duties imposed by the new rules, which it had been agreed should be in future adopted but made ajiplicable to the cases, which had occurred during the civil war. In the cases of the Alabama, Florida, and partially the Shenandoah, Great Britain had to pay damages, but on the whole there was no pretence, under the circumstances, for Mr. Caleb Cushing's statement that die United States had gained the enforcement of her rights, as she signally failed in obtaining com- pensation for the consequential damages, which she had persistently claimed. The fishery arrangement could not have been more satisfactory. As to Fenian claims, there was some remissness on the part of Great Britain in not referring' them to the Joint High Com- mission. The fact is, that there was a good deal of haste in making the arrangements. It was thought desirable that the dispute as to the fishery rights should be terminated without delay, and when overtures were made with that view the United States declined to treat unless the Alabama claims were also referred to the Commissioners. When the Commissioners met the British members pressed the consideration of the Fenian claims, but were met by the objection that they had not been referred to the Com- mission. As, Iiowever, Mr. Ramsay evidently labours under what I admit to be a general misapprehension in Canada, I may point out that the Canadian Government succeeded, before it consented to propose to the Dominion Parliament the ratification of the treaty, in obtaining what it considered to be a satisfactory settlement of the Fenian claims. I was at the time Minister of Finance, and as the question was one with which it was my special duty to deal, I shall cite from my budget speech during the session of 1872 a brief extract which will show clearly that compensation was obtained. Of course it must be a matter of ouinion whether it was or was not adequate, but I feel assured that under the circumstances the course adopted was the wisest that could be taken. It was the opinion of the Canadian Government that the Imperial flit I la ir - n 28 Government should not have neglected the i.i'erence of the Fenian claims to the High Commission, and yet there were grave difficulties in the way of ol)taining direct compensation from Great Britain for losses caused by neglect, on the part of the United States, of her international duties. The consent of the Canadian Parliament to the ratification of the treaty was necessary, and unless the Fenian claims were settled the Administration was not dis])osed to apply to Parliament for such consent. In n.y budget speech in 1872 I said, after some introductory remarks : — " I refer, of course, to the " Treaty of \\'ashington, but especially to the arrangement made with " the Imperial Government for an Im]K'rial Guarantee for a i)ortion " of our anticii)ated loan. It 's now apjiarent to the House and the " public that the Imi)erial and Canadian Governments were not for " many mont' in • siate of acco d on the subject of the Treaty of " Washington." The Canadian ] rojjosal was that, in consideration of the abandonment of the Fenian claims, the Imperial Ciovernment should guarantee a loan for the construction of the Pacific Railway, and that Canada should be relieved from the construction of fortifi- cations for the protection of Montreal, to which she was pledged, and for which she was entitled to an Imperial guarantee. We were of opinion that it would be much more satisfactory to effect a large annual saving of interest during the currency of the loan than to have to present a bill for losses consequent on the Fenian raids, which would have led to much irritating discussion. We succeeded in obtaining the consent of the Imperial Government to our proposal, and I am convinced that the arrangement was the most satisfactory mode of settling a very complicated question. I fear, my Lord, Ladies and Gentlemen, that I must have exhausted your patience, but I have been anxious to obtain a calm consideration for views which I lunclong entertained, which I believe to be sound, and which will, I hope, contribute to remove the erroneous impressions that have prevailed as to the policy of the British Government during a period of rather more than a century. J shall now briefly recapitulate my points : I hold that Maine, representing Massachu- setts, was bounded, prior to the revolution in 1774, when all the terri- tories in North America were British, on the east by the St. Croix and on the north " by the narrow strip only from which the waters flow into the St. Lawrence." This is a British official descrijnion. I hold that it was not contemplated by the treaty of peace in 1783, when the independence of the United States was acknowledged, to deprive any one of those States of its recognized territory. I hold that the 29 expression " Atlantic Ocean " in the treaty was an accidental error on the i)art of the American Commissioners, wliich rendered tlie mean- ing of the treaty so obscure that it became indispensably necessary to agree on a conventional jjoundary. I claim that those who take a contrary view should not shrink from a discussion of all the points which I liave stated. It has been the invariable practice for Cana- dian writers to rejjresent the British diplomatists as outmancjuuvred, but it is nevertheless the fact that all the difficulty experienced in regard to the Maine boundary was caused!) i use ijf the term " Atlantic Ocean "in the treaty of 1783 negotiated by the ''astute Franklin, Adams and Jay." Again, the claim to San Juan was based on the language of the treaty which, instead of defining the boundary to be the channel between the Island of Vancouver and the territories of the United Slates, which clearly was the proper description, defined it to be the middle of the channel separating Vancouver Island from the continent, the United States negotiators being apparently unaware of the existence r' the Islands in the channel, all of which, being south of the 49th ])arallel of latitude, were in American territory. I will merely observe, in conclusion, that the subject which I have brought before you is one of great historical interest, and that there can be no doubt whatever that Mr. Webster gave expression to the ])revailing opinion in the United States when he stated to Uord Ashburton that :" few questions have ever arisen under the Government in regard to which a stronger or more general conviction was felt that this Country was in the right, than this question of the nortli-eastern boundary." Under the circumstances, Sir Robert Peel's Government adopted the wisest policy it could have done in selecting Lord Ash- burton to endeavour to settle the various disputes then unadj;isied, and I shall only add that I am surprised that any one who has read, as I have done, the various letters and minutes of Lord x\shburton could write of him otherwise than with the most profound respect. I;