WHIG PRINCIPLES. ;' 16 But, sir, these are not all the advantages and dis- coveries I have drawn from the anatomical exami- nation I have made, and thus disclosed in "this same old eoon;''^ I perceive very distinctly, by the disor- dered state of tlie various organs which I have ex- amined, that they plainly predict the entire over- throw of the federal party, and, with their over- throw, the downfall of all their high-toned federal measures. Their fate seems to be as distinctly marked in the entrails of this animal of whig adora- tion, as was the fate of Belshazzar upon the wall of his palace chamber; and all the terror that seized him, now shakes them. I think, sir, I can perceive, with the same di.s- tinctness which guided the ancient oracles, in the bowels of this emblem of whig principles, the very States which w ill cast their roles for the democratic nominee of the convention to be held in Baltimore. I predict from these si^ns, with oracular certainty, tlmt Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jer- sey, New York, New Plampshire, Pennsylvania, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Connecticut, will tri- umph in tlic election of their respective number of democratic electors, Mhich will be one of the most triumphant and glorious victories which the democ- racy of tliis country or any other ever gained. This ia my j^rediction; and let no whig pagan so profane himself and his coon religion as to repudiate it; for it is drawn from irresistible signs, displayed in the "vitals of the animal of liis most sacred and political devotion and reverence. Then I would say, in the 3pirit of all candor, Go ahead, democrats — the signs are in your favor. Unfurl your banner to the breeze. Triumph will be yours. Victory will once more perch upon the democj-atic standard. Once more you will teach the revilcra of republican gov- ernment, and the enemies of free institutions, that the people are capable of self-government. Mr. Speaker, patriotism is Uie spirit by which our political fabric i.s held together. The elec- tive franchise is the soul of our republic, and the freeman's boast. Let^t be supported, and it will support all the rest; ali will be safe. The solemnity of the legal and judicial oath is the sheet-anchor of all our mond, religiou^,' and political institutions. Let corruption pollute the ballot-box, and perjury corrupt the sacred sanctuary of truth, and all is lost. Our institutions, poliucal, moral, and religious, will all sink together, and the offspring will be as it \vas in the French revolution. Your legislati-ve halls will present but scenes of butchery. Plunder, murder, and arson, will be but Ugalized crimes. And, too, as in the French revolution, your Sabbath wUl be changed to a decade, and the hottse of God to a stable. The word of Grod and your revealed religion will be paraded through your streets on an . ass, in contemptuous ridicule, and consumed on bon- fires. Your Redeemer will be postponed to a mijr- derer, and your Maker to a prostitiue, styled the goddess of Reason. Your judiciary will be con- verted into a triumvirate; your seats of justice into a gttillotine; and your fields will be drenched in blood. Tiiese, sir, will fill the measure of such iniquity, such frauds, snch perjury, and such treason, as were practised in 1840, if persisted in, unchecked and luirestrained. • The passage of this bill will destroy the tempta- tion and the means to perjietrale such violence. Let the whirlwinds and tempests of party spirit and party passion run mountain high; the safety of the republic, tJie purity of the ballot-box,' and the secu- rity of our free institutions, will not be drawn into the vortex and wreck of ruin. Can we not lay aside all party feelings for this time, and on this occasion, and come up as one man in support of diis measure^ Now is the time — now is the day. We are on the eve of another presidential election, whic'a will elicit every feeling and every corrupt passion which party strife can engender; and is there not danger that the same scenes of 1840 will be acted over? Is there not danger that our moral, our political, our* free, and on.r religious institiUions, may receive another shock, which may palsy them beyond re- coveryr Sir, my he^art is fixed and set on the passage of this bill; and I feel as though I have a right to ap- peal to the pa.rioti.sm of this House for its support; and if I had die voice of thunder, I would ex-tend that appeal to the remotest parts of this Union. I woidd awalcen the attention of every patriot, of every lover of human liberty, and of our free institution.'* and their duration, to the support of this measure. I would invoke him, in \Sv- name of human liberty, and on behalf of his free institutions, by which he ex- jiects to perpetuate that liberty; in the name of that majesty which is his. by the rights of a freeman, to send forth his voice to this hall, and demand, and commnnd his representative to support this bill — to make lliis bill a lav/ of this land. I would extend that appeal, too, to every presc5, tii potent engine of human liberty, and the terror oi crowned heads. I would ask them to rai.se the strong arm and the loud voic* in favor of this bill. I would say to them, now is the time, and this is the occasion, which demand that influence which is theirs. I would ask that same influence in behalf and in support of this measure, which has demolished thrpnes, torn crowns from the heads of despots, broken crosiers, and redeemed naiions, i^. ■m^ SPEECH OF MR. BUCHANAN, OF PENNSYLVANIA 4 ON THE OREGON Q TION. ~J j^^M7^> DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNJ^f^D' STATES, MARCH 12, 1844. tm., The following resolution offered by Mr. Sempi.e tiolP^^^teifroBg^^y being under consideration: Resolved, That the President of the United States be re- auested to give notice to the British government that it is le desire pf the government of the tnitt-d States to annul and abrogate the provisions of the third article of tlie con- vention concluded between the government of the United States of America and his Britannic Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Biitain and Ireland on the 20th October. 181 S. and indefinitely continued by the convention between the same parties, signed at London the 6th August, 1827. Mr. BUCHANAN rose and said: Mr. Presthent: I feel deeply impressed with the importance of the question now untJer discussiion, and of the necessity wliich exists for its speedy ad- justment. My conviction is strong that a peaceful settlement of this question can only be accomplished by prompt but prudent action on the part of this government. We are all anxious that it should be settled in peace; and there i.s no senator on this floor more anxious for sucli a liappy consummation than myself. Wliilst this is the desire of my heart, I am yet firmly convinced that the mode by v.'hich senators on the other side desire to attain this desira- ble end will utterly fail. Already wc are sending numerous emigrants every year across the Rocky mountains; and we are sending them there without the protection of law, and without the restraints of civil government. We have left them, hitherto, to the unlimited control of their own passions. We must send them laws and a regular form of govern- ment. We must take them under our protection, and subject them to the restraints of law, if we would prevent collisions between them and the British oc- cupants — the servants and people of the Hudson Bay company. This we must do, if we would preserve peace between the two nations. The present is a question, not of mere theory, but of practical states- manship; and I sincerely hope that such a course may be pursued as will sustain the rights of the country to tl)e territory in dispute, and, at the same time, preserve the peace of the world. 1 care but little as to the mere form of the resolu- ^ the senator from Illinois, [Mr. Semple.] If it be not altogether perfect, it can easily be amended. This I shall say, however: we ought not to expect that the President, under existing cir- cumstances, would assume the responsibility of giving the proposed notice for the purpose of terminating the treaty of joint occupancy, without the sanction of one or both Houses of Congress. The treaties of 1818 tuid 1827 are the law of the land. They were rati- fied by the constitutional majority of two-thirds of the Senate; and their provisions have now been in force for more than a quarter of a century. It could not, therefore, be expected that the President woidd give the proposed notice on his own reponsibility alone. On the question of his abstract power to do so, I express no o]iinion. V/ithout any technical objections to the mere form of the resolution, and without further remark, I shall proceed at once to the statement and discussion of the main question. The third article of the convention of the 20th of October, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, contains an agreement that the country on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony mountains, during thjMfcm of ten years, with its harbors, bays, and creek^lwid the navigation of its rivers, "shall be free and open to the vessels, cit- izens, and sitbjects of the two powers," without prejudicing the claim of either party to the territory m dispute. The provisions of this third article were extended for an indefinite period by the con- vention of the Gth of August, 1827; subject, how- ever, to the condition, that eillier of the parties, "on giving due notice of twelve months to the other con- tracting party," might "annul and abrogate tliis convention." The question, then, is, shall we ad- vise the President to give this notice? If our government should annul the convention, *then each of the parties will be restored to its origi- nal rights. In what condition would the United Stales then be placed? The northern boundary of Mexico, on the Pacific, is the forty-second parallel of nortli latitude. By separate treaties between the United States and Riissia, and Great Britain and j whole country to themselves, and all the profits to Russia, this power has relinquished all claim to any i be derived from its possession. The Hudson Bay territory on the northwest coast of America, south company now enjoys the monopoly of the fur trade, of the latitude of fifty-four degrees and forty niin- which has poured millions nito its coffers, and has utes. Thus the territory in dispute embraces that greatly promoted the commerce and furnished a mar- vast region extending along the Pacific ocean, from I ket for the manufactures of the mother country, the forty-second degree of north latitude to fifty-four The truth is, that the present treaty of joint occupa- degrees and forty minutes north, and running east [tion, although reciprocal between the two nations m along these respective parallels of latitude to the summit of the Rocky mountains. Now, sir, to the whole of this territory — to every foot of it — I be- lieve most firmly that we have a clear and conclu- sive title. This has not been denied by any sena- tor. Under the public law of Christendom, which has regTiIated the rights of nations on such ques- tions ever since the discovery and settlement of the continent of America, the validity of our title can be demonstrated. 1 shall, myself, attempt to per- form this duty on a future and more appropriate occasion, when the bill to establish a territorial gov- ernment for Oregon shall come before the Senat.;, unless, in the mean time, it shall be accomplished by some senator more competent to the task. The materials for tliis work of mere condensation and abridgment are at hand. They are all to be found in the powerful speech of the new senator from Illinois, [Mr. Breese,] which has made such a favorable impression upon the body; in the able and convincing treatise on the subject by a distin- guished citizen of Philadelphia, (Peter A. Browne;) and, above all, by the facts and arguments, the labor of years, collected and presented by Mr. Greenhow, in his History of California and Oregon, which has exhausted the subject, and left not a doubt of the validity of our title. Assuming, then, for the present, with the senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Choate,] that our title is undoubted, I shall proceed directly to discuss the question whether we should give the notice pro- jjoscd by the resolution. And, in the first place, I shall contend that, if we desire to bring the negotiation to a speedy and suc- cessful termination — if we wish to make any treaty with England at all upon the subject, — it is indis- pensably necessary that we should give the notice. And why.' From the plainest principles of com- mon sense, and from the policy which governs na- tions, it cannot be expected — nay, it ought not to be expected — that England will voluntai-ily surrender the Oregon territory, or any part of it, while the pres- ent treat}"- exists, under which she now enjoys the whole. The status in quo (as writers on public law call it) IS too favorable^ her interests to expect any such result. She nojRplds, and has held, the ex- clusive possession o^me territory for more than a quarter of a century, for every purpose for which she desires to use it at the present. The Hudson Bay company have claimed high merit from the British government for having expelled our hunters and traders from the country. We have been in- formed by the senator from Missouri, [Mr. Ben- ton,] and other western senators, that this com- pany — either directly, by their own agents, or indi- rectly, by the Indians under their control — have murdered between four and five hundred of our fel- low-citizens, who had crossed the Rocky mountains for the purpose of trading with the natives, and of hunting the fur-bearing animals which abound in those regions. They have driven away all our citi- zens whose pursuits could interfere with their prof- its. Under the existing state of things — under the present' treaty of joint occupation, — they have the point of form, has proved beneficial in point of fact to England, and to England alone. She has at pres- ent all she can desire; and any change must be for the worse. Why, then, should she ^^onsent to di- vide, the possession of this Territory with the Uni- ted States.' Why should she be willing to surren- der any part, when she now enjoys the whole? Even if we were to yield to her monstrous proposi- tion to make the Columbia river the boundary be- tween the two nations, still would she not desire de- lay, enjoying already, as she does, the practical ownership of the whole territory south, as well as north, of that river? Knowing the policy which has always actuated the British government, I should not be astonished, if we could penetrate the cabinet of Mr. Pakenham, to find there instructions to this effect: — Delay the settlement of the question as long as you can; the longer the delay the better for us; under the existing treaty we enjoy the whole of the fur trade; under it we now possess far greater advantages Uian we caa expect under any new treaty. They have already all they desire; and, my life upon it, there will be no new treaty, if the Senate should, as I have no doubt they will, lay this reso- lution upon the table for the reasons which have been urged in tlje debate. Sir, if this resolution should be laid upon the table, accompanied by the able and eloquent arguments of senators on the other side — by the argument of the senator frora Massachusetts [Mr. Choate] in favor of continu- ing the present treaty of joint occupation for twenty years longer, and tliat of the senator from New Jersey [Mr. Miller] against the policy of sending our citizens to settle in Oregon at all — in my opin- ion, it will be utterly vain even to hope for the con- clusion of any treaty. Great Britain will be glad to enjoy all the benefits of her present position for an- other quarter of a century. But if the notice were once given — if it were thus rendered certain that the present treaty must expire within a year, the British government would then be- gin to view tiie subject in a serious light. They would then apply themselves in earnest to the settle- ment of the question. We owe it to Great Britain — we owe it to our own country, to render this a serious question; not by offering threats, for these would be unworthy of ourselves, and could produce no effect upon such a power — but by insisting, in a firm but respectful tone, that the dispute which has so long existed been the two nations must now be termina- ted. When that power shall discover that we are at last in earnest and determined to urge the contro- versy to a conclusion, then, and not till then, will she pay that degree of respect to our rights and to our remonstrances "which the proud soul ne'er pays but to the proud." It is not by abandoning our rights — it is not by giving to Great Britain another quarter of a century for negotiation, that we can ever secure to ourselves our own territory now in her possession. Until the notice shall be given — judging from the selfish principles which unfortunately too much influeaoe the conduct of nationsj as well as individuals — there ■will be no adjustment of the boundary question. If, , upon the mere arrival of a British minister, (and he V^ not a special minister like Lord Ashburton, of '^nd ,been rumored, but a resident envoy extrao- ^/■We shall a second time arrest our procet^.ngs which vhad been commenced Ions: before his name was ^mentioned for this appointment, and greet him with the declaration that we arc willing- to wait for twenty years longer, then a treaty will become im- possible. My second proposition is, that to arrest all legis- lative action at llie present moment, and under ex- isting circumstances, would evince a Uime and subser- vient spirit on our part towards Great Britain, whicli, so far from conciliating, would only encourage her to persevere in her unjust demands. I would ask", when has England, in her foreign policy throughout her long aiid eventful history, ever failed to make one concession the ground for demanding another? A firm and determined spirit is necessary to obtain from her both respect and justice. The senator from Massachusetts has informed us that "this controversy had not heretofore been con- sidered as very urgent;" and has stated that "if we had waited so quietly for twenty-six years for the adjustment of this question, he did not see why we should not wait six months longer, instead of adopt- ing this measure now." But' is not the senator mistaken in supposing that we had waited thus quietly for so long a period.? The question has not slept for a quarter^of a century. So f.ir from this, that from the day when Lewis and Clark, in 1805,' crossed the Rocky mountains, uniil the pres- ent hour, we have been incessantly agitating the subject, and urging our title to tire territory in dis- pute. I requested the executive secretary of the Senate to hunt up all the volumes containing public documents on this subject. 1 am sorry that I omit- ted 10 count the numljer of these volumes; but I feel confident they exceeded twenty. Ever since I have occupied a seat in Congress, (which is now more than twenty years,) the American people, by their senators and representatives, have been con- stantly urging the settlement of this question, but urging it in vain. We were hi possession of the mouth of the Columbia before the late war; and this possession, of which Great Britain had deprived us by force, was restored to us after the peace under the treaty of Ghent. In an evil hour, under the treaty of 1818, we voluntariiy surrendered tol that power a joint occupation with ourselves of our I own territory. The British government is perfectly satisfied with this tfeaty; and whilst it remains in force, we may urge and comjilain until doomsday without effect. From the time when Governor Floyd of Virginia, who has for many years been gathered to his fathers, introduced his resolution in the other House, on the 10th December, 1821, rela- tive to the occupation of the Columbia river and ter- ritory of the United Sfetes adjacent thereto, the sub- ject has, in some form or other, been brought before each successive Congress. Since then, we have had numerous President's messages and reports of com- mittees, and other documents, in favor of asserting our title by some act of possession; but all without any successful result. But even if we had been sleeping over our rights for six and twenty years, I ask the senator, is this any reason why we should slumber over them twen- ty years longer.' Is it not rather a convincing ar- gument to urge us at last now to go to work in ear- nest, and repair the evils, consequent on our long de- I lay? Cut me effect of the argument of the senator will still be— "a little more sleep; a little moro slum- ber; a little more folding of the hands to sleep;" whilst Great Britain continues inthe actual possession of the country, and has evinced a fixed determination to hold it as long as possible. My lamented friend, the late senator from Mis- souri, (Dr. Linn,) who sat by my side in this cham- ber, for several years before his death, made the as- sertion of our claims to this territory the chief bu- siness of his useful and honorable life. He thought that, when Lord Ashburton came to the country, the propitious moment had at length arrived for the settlement of this long-agitated ancl dangerous ques- tion. His lordship was hailed as the minister of peace and as the harbinger of a new era of good feeling between the two nations. Mr. Webster himself proclaimed that this special minister was in- trusted with full power to settle all our questions in dispute with Great Britain. We all recollect with wliat enthusiasm his advent was hailed. Dr. Linn upon the advice of his friends, (myself among.st the number,) ceased to urge the Oregon question on this floor, as soon as the negotiation commenced, in the full and confident expectation that it would be finally settled by any treaty which might be con- cluded. I hope the Senate will pardon me for say- ing a few words here in reference to^my deceased friend. In him were combined the most opposite and the most admirable qualities of our nature, in more striking contrast than I have ever witnessed in any other man. Gentle as the lamb, and mild as the zephyr, he was yet brave as the lion. "He had a heart for pity, and a hand open as day for melting charity;" but yet "was like the mustering thunder when provoked." Human suffering al- ways drew from him the tear of sympathy; and his active benevolence never rested until he had at- tempted to relieve the sufferer. He was one of the ablest men who has held a seat in the Senate in my day, and yet he was so modest and unpretending that he never seemed sensible of his own ability, and would blush at thefaintestprai.se. If the first settlers who shall boldly establish themselves in Ore- gon under the ample folds of the American flag— not those who may "enter the territory prudentiy and silently" — do not call their first city after his name, they will deserve the brand of ingrat- I itude. I have never known a man — a stranger to my own blood — in the whole course of my life, to whom I was more ardently attached. In common with us all. Dr. Linn was finnly con- vinced that the Oregon que^ion would have been settled by the late treaty. There was then every reason confidently to anticipate such a result. Lord Ashburton himself proclaimed that he had been in- trusted with full powers to settle all the disputed questions; and, from the condition of England at that moment, no man could have doubted her desire to remove all causes of dissension between the two countries. Her annual revenue was insufficient for her annual expenditure; she had sufiered serious reverses in the East, where she was waging two ex- pensive and bloody wars; a large portion of her pop- ulation at home appeared to be rapidly approaching a state of open rebellion from misery and st;u-vation- and France, her ancient and powerful enemy, had indignantly refused to ratify the quintuule treaty granting her the right of search on the African coast. This, I repeat, was the propitious moment to settle all our difficulties; but it was not improved, and I fear it has passed away forever. Who could thea have anticipated that, tinder aH these favorable cir- cumstances, but a single question would be settled, and this the northeastern boundary? It was not in the confiding nature of Dr. Linn to anticipate such a catastrophe. Some of us, at least, can recollect with what astonishment and mortification we first learn- ed that the Oregon question had not been settled by the treaty. Dr. Linn instantly gave notice that he would press his bill for the organization and settle- ment of the territory; and this bill passed the Senate at the last session. Are then the United States again to strike their flag.' are all proceedings upon this sub- ject again to be arrested in the Senate, on the mere arrival of another minister from England? Although her subjects had been in the exclusive possession of the whole territory from the day when the Hudson Bay company first set foot upon it until 1842, yet Congress at once ceased to prosecute our claim on the arrival of Lord Ashburton. Should we pursue a similar course on the arrival of Mr. Pakenham, is it not morally certain that the new negotiation will produce similar results? This is not the best mode of treating with England. She ought not to expect any such concessions from us. If we desire to ob- tain justice from her or any other nation, we must assert our rights in a proper manner. If we do this, she will have little encouragement to hope for longer delay;if we do not, judging from her course in the Ashburton negotiation, there is not the least probabili- ty of the settlementof the question. We have already surrendered to her our ancient highland boundary for which our fathers fought; these highlands which overlook and command Q,uebec, the seat of her empire in North America. We have placed her in possession of the highland passes which lead into the very heart of our own country. We have yielded to her the very positions on our frontier, which the Duke of Wellington and a board of British officers deemed indispensable for the defence of her' North American possessions. She has obtained all this from our government; and what is worse than all, — what disgraces us more than all before the world — no, sir, I will not apply the term disgrace to my country, — Lord Ashbiirton had in his pocket Mitch- ell's map of 1753, taken from the private library of George the Third, which proved the justice of our claim. On that map was traced, Vjy the hand of the sovereign himself, the treaty line according to our claim; and the factwas thus conclusively established, that England was not entitled to a foot of the terri- tory in dispute. Mr. B. here read from a newspaper the following extracts from the speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Lord Brougham — the first delivered in the House of Commons on the 28th March, 1843, and the second in the House of Lords on the 7th April following: Sir Robert Peel. But there is still another map. Here, in this country — in the library of the late King — was depos- ited a map by Mitchell, of the date 1753. That map was in the possession of the late King; and it was also in possession of the noble lord; but he did not communicate its contents to Mr. Webster. [Hear, hear.] It is marked by a broad red line; and on that line is written "Boundary as described by our negotiator, Mr. Oswald;" and that line follows the claim of the United States. [Hear, hear.] That map was on an extended scale. It was in possession of the late King, who was particularly curious in relation to geographical inqui- ries. On that map, I repeat, is placed the boundary line — that claimed by the iJnited States — and on four dillerent places on that line, "Boundary as described by our negotia- tor, Mr. Oswald." Lord Brougham also spoke upon this question, and treated the idea with ridicule and scorn, that Lord Ashburton was bound to show this map to Mr. Webster. His lordship thinks tliat, from the handwriting along the red line on the face of the map, describing the American, and not the British claim, "it is the handwriting of George III him- self." And after slating that the library of George III, by the munificence of George IV, was given to the British Museum, he says: This map must have been there; but it is a curious cir- cumstance that it is not there now. [Laughter.] I suppose it must have been taken out of the British Museum for the purpose of being sent over to my noble friend in America; [hear, hear, and laughter;] and which, according to the new doctrines of diplomacy, he was bound to have taken over with him, to show that he had no case— that he had not a leg to stand upon. And again: But, somehow or otlier, that map, which entirely de- stroys our contentions, and gives all to the Americans, has been removed from the British Museum, and is now to be found at the Foreign Office. "The late King (says Ptobert Peel) was particu- larly curious in relation to geographical inquiries." No doubt he had received from Mr. Oswald himself (the British negotiator of the provisional treaty of peace) the information necessary to enable him to mark the boundary line between his remaining provinces in North America and the United States according to that treaty. Justly has Lord Brougham declared, that if this map had been produced, the British government would not have had a leg to stand upon. It would have entirely destroyed all contentions, and given all to the Americans. I shall not apply any epithets to such conduct. The sub- ject is too grave for the use of epithets. But this I shall say, that, at one moment during the northeast- ern boundary dispute, that government was ready to apply the match to the cannon, and go to war in de- fence of a claim which they themselves knew, under the hand of their late sovereign, was totally destitute of foundation. I shall repeat, without comment, what Lord Ash burton said in reference to the British title, during the negotiation. He stated that he was the friend of the United States — that he had endeavored to avert the late war with England; which was true, and was highly creditable to him. But, after all, with the map in his pocket, he declared, in his letter to Mr. Webster of the 21st June, 1842, as fol- lows : 1 will only here add the most solemn assurance, which I would not lightly make, that, after a long and careful exam- ination of all the arguments and inferences, direct and cir- cumstantial, bearing on the whole of this truly difficult question, it is my settled conviction that it was the intention of the parties to the treaty of peace of 1783, however imper- fectly those intentions may have been executed, to leave to Great Britain, by their description of^oundaries, the whole of the waters of the river St. John. — Page 40. And yet, after all this, we are admonished by sen- ators to be again quiet and patient, as we were whilst the negotiations with Lord Ashburton were pending, and await the result. If we should continue to fol- low this advice, the question will never be settled. But, says the senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Choate,] it would be disrespectful to the govern- ment of Great Britain to give the notice, immediate- ly after the arrival of their minister in this country. Disrespectful to give a notice expressly provided for by the terms of the treaty itself! Disrespectful when this notice will produce no sudden and abrupt termination of the treaty, but will leave it in force for another whole year! I asli, is not this period long enough to complete a negotiation which was commenced twenty-five years ago? My feelings may be less sensitive than those of other gentlemen; and this may be the reason why I cannot conceive ho^r the British government could, by possibility, con- sider the notice disrespectful. Their sensibility must be extreme to take offence at a measure which, by their own solemn agreement, we might have adopted at any time within the last sixteen years. If, however, ihey should take offence at our adop- tion of the very course pointed out by their own solenm treaty, let them, in Heaven's name, be of- fended. I siiall regret it; but much more shall I re- gret the long delay in the adjustment of this ques- tion, which will inevitably result from our refusal to give the notice. It will never be settled until we convince Great Britain that we are in earnest. She will proceed in extending and engrossing the trade of the territory so long as we shall consent to leave her in qaiet possession, patiently awaiting the results of a negotiation. The longer the delay, the more essentially will her interests be pron»oted. Here, sir, I might with propriety close my argu- ment, having already said all which appropriately belongs to the resolution under discussion; but I feel myself bound to examine some of the positions taken by the senator from Massachusetts. In the opinion of tliat senator, even if no treaty should be concluded by Mr. Packenham, it would be wise to continue the existing convention, unless circum- stances shall change. He believes that, "in the course of twenty years," an agricultural popula- tion from tlie United Stales would gradup.lly and peacefully spread itself over tlie Territory of Ore- gon — "the hunters of the Hudson Bay com- pany would all pass off to the desert, where their objects of pursuit were found, and the country would, without astruggle, be ours." England liad no inten- tion of colonizing Oregon, and the senator saw noth- ing in her policy which would incline her to inter- pose obstacles to this natural course of events "No doubt, if we provoked and made war upon her, she would do it; but if we would but enter the territory prudently and silently, with the plough- share and the pruning hook, he could not see the least probability that she -M^ould interfere to prevent us." If we should send hunters or trap]iers there to interfere with their monopoly, the Hudson Bay company might take offence. "But shovdd we go there bonaftde as farmers, wishing only to till the soil, he had no doubt that, in twenty years, that great hunting corporation, like oneof Ossian'sghosts would roll itself off to the north and northeast, and seek that great desert which was adapted to its pur- suits and objects." England had no intention of colonizing tlie territory; and, to use his own strong figure, "no more idea of establishing an agricultu- ral colony in Oregon than she had of ploughing and planting the dome of St. Paul's." I shall briefly examine these positkms of the honorable senator; and when subjected to the scru- tiny of sober reason, to what do they amount' What is their intrinsic value.' They are poetry, and nothing but poetry — expressed, to be sure, with that splendor of diction for which the senator is so highly distinguished, and v.'hich, in itself, possesses so much of poetic beauty. But, aficr all, they are mere poety. What, in fact, has the senator recom- mended? A policy which will not stand the test of the slightest examination — a policy to which such a corporation as the British Hudson Bay company will never submit. We are to steal into Oregon quietly, with the ploughshare and the pruning hofik; and then, notwithstanding by our agricultural set- tlements we shall most effectually destroy and drive away all the game vvliich forma the very sub- stance of that company's we^th, the company will take no offence, and interpose neither resistance nor obstacle to our proceeding ! Not at all; we may progr«?ss peacefully aud prudently, until we .shall have converted all their hunting grounds into fruit- ful fields; and then that ancient and powerful monop- oly will reliie like one of Ossian's ghosts, roUing itself off into its kindred deserts of the North ! It is true that this mercenary and blood-stained corpo- ration has already murdered between four and five hundred of our citizens, who ventured into Oregon for the purpose merely of sharing with them the hunting aud trapping of the beaver; yet they wdl not take the least umbrage, if we shall enter the territory Vvith plough and pruning hook, in such numbers as to destroy their hunting and trapping altogether! These unfortunate men did but attempt to hunt the beaver, as they had a right to do under the treaty of joint occupation, and it cost them their lives; but yet, if all the beaver and other game shall be driven from the country by our settlements, this will all be very well, and the company will never raise a finger to prevent its own destruction! Should this be its course, the Hudson Bay company will prove itself to be the most disinterested and magnanimous moiiopoly of which I have ever heard or read in all my life. Trading companies are almost universally governed by an exclusive view to their own interest. To suppose for a mo- ment that this vast trading association, with all its hunters and dependants, will gradually retire, with their faces, I presume, to our advancing settlements, is one of the most extraordinary notions that I • have heard in this chamber. And this is the mode whereby the senator will preserve the peace between the tv/o nations, and at the same time acquire pos- session of the territory ! Now, Mr. President, I assert that Great Britain has never manifested a more determined purpose, in the whole course of her eventful history, than to hold and retain the northern bank of the Columbia river, with a harbor at its mouth. Why, sir, she already affects t» consider the northern bank of this river as her own, whilst she graciously concedes the southern as belonging to the United States. In Ore- gon, these banks of "the stream are familiarly and currently spoken of as "the British side" and "the American side." Let any of our citizens attempt to make a stittlement north of that river, and we shall soon learn his fate; we shall soon hear, if noth- ing worse, tliat he has been driven away. I be- lieve that but one American settlement has ever been attempted north of the Columbia; and this is a small Catholic establishment which nobody would ever think of disturbing. In this course, Great Britain displays her decp'policy and her settled purpose. Thrice has she offered to divide the territory, and make the Columbia the line between the two na- tions, and thrice has her offer been rejected. It is now evidently her design to make the possession of the territory conform to her proposition for its di- vision, yielding the southern bank to us, and re- taining the northern for herself; and every moment tliat we submit to this allotment will but serve to strengthen her claim. . Even when Astoria was restored to the United States, in October, 1818, imder the treaty of Ghent, Great Britain, in opposition to this her own .solemn act. protested that she had the title to the territory, though it does not apjiear that this protest was ever, in point of fact, communicated to our government. During the progress of the negotiation in 1818, which preceded the existing treaty of joint occu- pancy, our government proposed that the parallel of forty-nine degrees of north latitude, which is the boun- dary of the two countries east of thfe Rocky moun- tains, should be extended as their boundary west to the Pacific ocean. What was the answer? "The British negotiators did not make any formal proposi- tion for a boundary, but intimated that the river it- self was the most convenient that could be adopted; and that they would not agree to any that did not give them the harbor at the mouth of the river in common with the United States." Has Great Brit- ain ever departed from this declaration? No, sir, never. On the contrary, the assertion of her claim has become stronger and stronger with each suc- C€eding year. This subject was again discussed in the negotia- tion of 1824. Mr. Rush again asserted our title to the 49th degree of latitude, in strong and decided terms; but it was as strongly and decidedly opposed by the British plenipotentiaries. All that they would consent to do was to run the 49th parallel of "latitude west, from the summit of the Rocky mountains, until it should strike the northern branch of the Co- lumbia, and from thence down the course of the river to the ocean. This proposition was prompt- ly rejected by Mr. Rush; and in writing home to the Department of State, he stated that they had de- clared more than once, at the closing hours of the negotiation, "that the boundary marked out in their men jrroposal, teas one from ivhich the government of the United Stales 7nusl not expect Great Britain to de- ■ part.''^ Again, for the third time, previously to the treaty of 1827, we repeated our offer to divide the country •witli Great Britain by the forty-ninth parallel of lat- itude; and she again rejected our proposition; and again offered to make the river the boundary, the navi- gation of it to remain forever free and common to both nations. In making this offer, lier negotia- tors declared that there could be no reciprocal with- drawal from actual occupation, as there was not, and never had been, a single American citizen set- tled north of the Columbia. In refusing our prop- osition, they used laiiguage still stronger than they had ever done before; again declaring that it must not be expected they would ever relinquish the claim which they had asserted. Thus it appears that, in 1818, we offered to es- tablish the 49th degree as our northern boundary; in 1824, we repeated the offer; and in 1827, we again repeated the same proposal; but on each occasion, it was absolutely refused. Our minister, in obedi- ence to his instructions, after this last refusal, sol- emnly declared to the British plenipotentiaries that the A.merican Government would never thereafter hold itself bound to agree to the hne which had been proposed and rejected; but would consider itself at liberty to contend for the full extent of the claims of the United States. The British plenipotentiaries made a similar declaration, in terms equally strong, that they would never consider the British govern- ment bound to agree to the line which they had pro- posed; and these mutual protests were recorded in due form on the protocols of the negotiation. Thus, tliank Heaven, we are now relieved from the embar- rassing position in which we had placed ourselves, and are no longer trammeled by our former proposi- tions. We shall hereafter assert our claim to the full extent of our right. We shall no longer limit ourselves to the 49th parallel of latitude; but shall insist upon extending our boundary north to 5i'^ 40'; which is the treaty line between Russia and the United States. To suppose that Great Britain, after these solemn assertions of her title, and these strong declarations that she would never abandon it, will voluntarily and quietly retire from the possession of the whole northwest coast of America; that she will surrender the straits of De Fuca, the only good harbor on that coast, between the 49th degree of latitude and Saint Francisco, in latitude 37° 48'; that she will yield up this entire territory, the possession of which can alone secure to her the command of the north Pacific and tlie trade of eastern Asia, and, through this trade, her influence over China; that she will aban- don her valuable fur trade, and all this fertile and salubrious country, and fly to the northern deserts, before the advance of our farmers, with their ]Mough- shares and pruning hooks, whom we are afraid to cover with tlae protection of our flag, lest this might give her offence; — to suppose all this, is surely to imagine the most impossible of all impossibilities. From the day that Sir Alexander McKenzie first set his foot upon the territory, until this very day, the proceedings of Great Britain in regard to the re- gion west of the Rocky mountains have been uni- form and consistent. She has never faltered for a single moment in her course. She has proclaimed before the world her right to .settle and colonize it; and from this claim she has never varied or depart- ed: and yet we are now to be told that she will, all of a sudden, change her policy, and retire before th", American squatters who may find their way into Oregon without law, without a government, and without protection! And all this, too, in the very face of what occur- red during the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty. Our northwestern boundarj' not only forms no part of this treaty; but that iirjportant subject is not even alluded to throughout the whole correspondence. We had a correspondence between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster on the Creole question, on the Caroline question, on the- doctrine of impressment, and on the right of search; but it appears that this Oregon question was found to be so utterly mcapa- ble of adjustment, that even the attempt was entirely abandoned. We are told by the President, in his message transmitting the treaty, that, "after sundry informal commimications with the British minister upon the subject of the claims of the two countries to territory west of the Rocky mountains, so little probability v.-as found to exist of coming to any agreement on that subject at present, that it was not thought expedient to make it one of the subjects of formal negotiation, to be entered vipon between this government and the British minister, as part of his duties undei^liis special mission." Thus it appears that, at so late a period as the year 1842, the claims of Great Britain were found to be so utterly irrecon- cilable with the just rights of the United States, that all attempts to adjust the question by treaty were abandoned in despair. Had 1 been the negotiator of the late treaty, I should have endeavored to melt the iron heart of his lordship. 1 would have said to him: "You have obt.ained all that your heart can desire in the adjust- ment of the northeastern boundary; will you, then, return home without settling any of the other im- jMrtant questions in dispute? Nay, more, will you leave even the boujidary question but half settled? At least, let us adjast the whole question of boun- dary — that in the northwest as well as the northeast. Permanent peace and friendship between the two nations is the ardent desire of us both; why, then, leave a queetion unsetlled which ia of much g;reater importance, and consequently of a much more dan- gerous character, than the northeastern boundary — a question which contains within itself elements tliat may produce war at no distant period. This is tlie propitious moment for ending all our difficulties, and commencinj^ a new era of good feeling between the two countries. Let us not suffer it to escape un- improved — to pass away, it may be, never to re- turn." What the nature of these "informal commu- nications with the British minister" may have been in relation to the Oregon Territory, will probably never be known to the people of thi." country. No protocol — no record — was made of the conferences of the negotiators. Their tracks were traced upon tlie sand, and the returning tide has effaced them forever. We shall never know what pa.sscd be- tween them on this subject, xmless Lord Ashbur- ton's despatches to his own government shall be published, which is not at all probable. 1 have no doubt they contain a full record of the conferences; because it is the duty of every responsible foreign minister to communicate to his own government a perfect history of all that occurs throughout his negotiations. I should be exceedingly curious to know what were these extravagant pi-ctensions of the British government in regard to Oregon, which rendered all negotiation on the subject impossible. It is more than probable that Mr. Webster again offered to Lord Ashburton to establish the forty- ninth parallel of latitude as the boundary between the two nations west of the Rocky mountains. I infer this from the fact tliat the senator from Massa- chusetts, [Mr. Choatf.,] in i-eply to the senator from Missouri, [Mr. Bfnton,] at the last session of Congress, had as'sured him that Mr. Webster had never "offered a boundary line s^uth of the parallel of forty-nine;" that he [Mr. Ciioate] "was authorized and desired to declare tliat, in no com- munication, fonnal or informal, was such an offer made, and none such was ever meditated." When it had thus been authoritatively and solemnly de- clared that Mr. Webster had never offered to es- tablish any boundary south of forty-nine, (which I was glad to hear,) it appears to me to be a legiti- mate inference that he had offered to establish that parallel as the boundary. The senator from Massa- chusetts can, however, doubtless explain w'hat is llie true state of the case. Here Mr. Choate asked whether Mr. Buchanan desired him to explain now, or wait till the senator should have concluded his remarks. Mr. Buchanan preferring the latter course, Mr. Choate promised to make the explanation, and re- tained his seat. But the honorable gentleman has assured the Sen- ate that Great Britain does not intend to colonize in Oregon — no, no more than she intends to colonize the dome of St. Paul's. And what are the arguments by which he has attempted to support this position? Why, the senator has carefully examined all the British projects for colonization since the year 1826; and he finds that whilst they have been establishing colonies every where else around the globe, not a word has ever been hiiited in relation to a colony in Oregon. And does not the senator perceive how- very easy it is to answer such an argument.' Great Britain could not have colonized in Oregon without violating her own plighted faith to the Hudson Bay company. In December, 1821, she had leased to that company the whole of this territory for the term of twenty-one years, and she could not have set her foot upon it without infringiiig their charter- ed rights. What, sir! Great Briuiin not colonize.' She must colonize. This is the indispensable condition of her existence. She has utterly failed to impress upon other nations her theoretical doctrines of free trade; whilst she excludes from her own ports every for- eign article which she can herself produce 'in suffi- cient quantities to supply the demand of her ovjn peof)le. The nations of the continent of Europe are now all manufacturing for themselves. Their mar- kets are nearly all closed against her. She now en- joys nothing like free trade with any of these natrons. We are now, I believe, the only civilized people on earth where free trade doctrines prevail to any great extent. The Zoll-Verein, or commercial league of Germany, have recently adopted a tariff of duties which must effectually exclude her manu- factures from their ports. The whole world are fast adopting Bonaparte's continental system against her; and all the nations of Christendom seem determined to encourage ttieir own labor and to manufacture for themselves. Under these circumstances. Great Britain, in her own defence, must colonize. She must provide- a market of her own for lier manufac- tures; or inevitable destruction awaits them. Wherever she can acquire earth" enough to plant a man who who will purchase and consume her pro- ductions, — her cotton, her woollen, and her iron fabrics, — there she must acquire it for the purpose of extending her home market. She cannot exist with- out coMnization. This is the very law of her po- litical bein?. To imagine, therefore, that she is about to abandon the claim to colonize Oregon without a struggle, is to imagine what" seems to me to be very strange, not to say impossible. It is very true that she has not yet, on her own account, com- menced the process of colonization in that region; but judging from the most authentic facts, we can no longer doubt what are her intentions. I have already stated that, in 1821, Great Britain had leased to the Hudson Bay company the Ter- ritory of Oregon for the term of twenty-one years. On tiie .30th May, 1838, this lease was extended by a new lease for another period of twenty-one years from its date. The existence of this last grant was entirely unknown to ftie until within the last few days. When I mentioned the subject in conversa- tion to the senator from Massachusetts, he informed me that he had seen the new lease, and kindly offer- ed to procure it for me, remarking at the same time that he had intended to mention the fact in the course of his remarks; but had omitted to do so in the hurry of speaking! That such was his intention I have not the least reason to doubt. The corrc-^pondence of the com]iany's agents with the British government immediately previous to the hist lease, is in the highest degree wortliy of the at- tention and solemn consideration of the Senate. In this correspondence with Lord Glenelg, they recounted all that the company had done for the British government as a rea.son why their license ought to'be extended. They boast of having s.uc- ceeded, "after a severe and expensive competition, in establishing these settlement?, and obtaining a de- cided superiority, if not an exclusive enjoyment of the trade — the Americans having almost withdrawn from the coast." They inform his lordship that "the company now occupy the country between the Rocky mountains and the Pacific by six perma- s nent establishments on tlie coast, sixteen in the in- terior country, besides several migratory and hunt- ing parties; and they maintain a marine of six armed vessels — one of them a steam vessel — on the coast." At each of these estabhshments, I believe, indeed I may say that we know, they have erected stockade forts; although if this fact be mentioned in the correspondence, it has escaped my observation. In the neighborhood of Fort Vancouver, which is their pi-incipal establishment, they state the fact, that "they have large pasture and grain farms, af- fording most abundantly every species of agricul- tural produce, and maintaining large herds of stock of every description; these have been gradually es- ta.blished; and it is the intention of the comjiany still further, not only to augment and increase them, to establish an export trade in wool, tallow, hides, and other agricultural produce, but to encourage the settlement of their retired servants and other emi- grants under their protection." They represent "the soil, climate, and other circumstances of the country" to be "as much, if not more, adapted to agricultural pursuits than any other spot in Ameri- ca." And they express the confident hope that, "with care and protection, the British dominion may not only be ]yresen'ed in this country, which it lias been so much the wish cf Russia and Jlmerica to occnjnj to the txchision of British subjects, but British interest and British influence 7)tay be maintained as paramountin this interesting part of the const of the Pacific.'''' The extracts which I have just read are from the letter of J. Pelly, esq. governor of the Hudson Bay company, to Lord Glenelg, the Eriiish colonial Sec- retary of State, dated at London on the Iftth Feb- ruary, 1837, applying for an extension of their lease Among the papers submitted to the British government upon this occasion, is a letter from George Simpson, esq. to Governor Pelly, dated at London on the 1st Februaiy, 1837. Mr. Simpson is the superintendent of the company's affairs in North America; a]id, from his knowledge of the country, any information which he communicates is entitled to the highest consideration. 1 beg the Senate to ponder well what he says in this letter in regard to that portion of Oregon be- tv,-een the Columbia river and the 49th degree of north latitude, which the British government have so often expressed their determination to hold; and then ask themselves whether they can, for a m»o- ment, suppose that Great Britain will vohmtarily recede from its possession before our agricultural population: The country (says Mr. Simpson) situated between the northern bank of tlie Columbia river, which empties itself into the racifle, in latitude 4() dev;. 20 min., and the souihern bank of Frazer's river, ^vhich enipti^ itself into the Gulf of Georgia, in latitude 49 deg., is remarkable for the salubrity of its climate and excellence of its soil, and possesses, with- in the straits of De Fuca, some of the finest harbors in th.? world, being protected from the weight of the Pacific by Vancouver's and other islands. To the southward of the straits of De Fuca, situated in latitude 48 deg. .37 min., there is no good harbor nearer than the bay of St. Francisco, in latitude o7 Ceg. 48 min., as llie broad, shifting bar ofi' the mouth of the ('olumbia, and the tortuous channel through it, render the entrance of that river a very dangerous navi- gation even to vessels of small draft of water. The possession of tliat country to Great Britain may be- come an object of very great importance, and we are strengthening their claim to it (independent of the claim of prior discovery and occupation for the pui-pose of Indian trade) by forming the nucleus of a colony through the es- tablishment of famis, and the settlemeni of some of our re- tiring officers and servants as agriculluiists. These communications, from the governor and superintendent of the Hudson Bay company, urging an extension of their license or lease, were favora- bly received by the British government; but Lord Glenelg informs them, in his reply, that the gOT- eri'fment must reserve to itself, in the new grant, the privilege of establishing colonies on ajiy portion of the territory. To use his own language, "it will be indispensable to introduce into the new charter such conditions as may enaljle her Majesty to grant, /or the purpose of settlement or colonization, any of the lands comprised in it." This'was the express con- dition of the grant; and, upon these terms, the com- pany accepted its new license. The reservation of the right to colonize is written in the clearest and strongest terms upon the face of this charter. 'Need I add another word for the purpose of proving that the British government do not intend to abandon this country, but that it is their purpose to establish colonies in it? This is an important fact, which proves beyond a doubt that we must speedily mani- fest a determination to assert our rights, and make a stand for the portion of this territory north of the Columbia, in a difierent manner from that proposed by the senator from Massachusetts, or consent to abandon it forever. But the senator from Massachusetts has informed us that the present treaty of joint occupation may continue for an indefinite ])€riod — "ten thousand years" — without being in the least degree prejudicial to our title; but that the moment we shall give no- tice, and break up the convention, the adverse pos- session of Great Britain will then commence, and her claims will grow stronger with each succeeding year. I admit, in theory, the soundness of the prop- osition, that whilst the treaty continues, British pos- session cannot injure our title. But does England admit the correctness'of this our interpretation of the treaty.' Far, very far from it. Their construction of this treaty, and their conduct under its provis- ions, have always been widely different from our own. We have understood it in one manner, and they in another entirely opposite. Previous to the treaty of 1818, Messrs. Gallatin and Rush, in their correspondence with the plenipo- tentiaries of the British government, proposed that the country on the northwest coast of America claimed by either party should "6c opened for the pur- poses of trade to the inhabitants of both countries." Now, if these words "for the purposes of trade" had been inserted in the treaty itself, no room would have been left for British cavil; but unfortunately tliey were omitted; and the treaty declares generally that the country shall be open to the vessels, citi- zens, and subjects of the two powers, without defi- ning or limiting the purposes for which it shall be opened. And how have the British government in- terpreted this treaty.' Precisely as though it had been expressly agreed that both parties, instead of being confined to hunting, fishing, and trading with the natives, were left at perfect liberty tp settle and colonize any portions of the country they might think proper. Immediately after its conclusion, the British govei-nment fell back upon their Nootka- sound convention of 1790 with Spain; and, un- der it, (most unjustly, it is true,) claimed the right not only for themselves, but for all the na- tions of (he earth, to colonize the northv.est coast of America at pleasure. "Great Britain," say her plenipotentiaries, "claims no exclusive sov- ereignty over any portion of that territory." What, then, does she claim.' To use the language of these plenipotentiaries in 1824, "they consider the unoccu- pied parts of America just as much open as heretofore to colonization by Great Britain, as well as by other European powers, ao;reeably to the [Nootka-aound] convention of 1790, between the British and Spanisli governments, and that tlie United States would have no right whatever to take umbrage at the cstabhsh- ment of new colonies from Europe in any such parts of the American continent." And they felt them- selves more imperatively bound to make this dec- laration, as the claim of the American minister "respecting the territory watered l.)y tlie river Co- lumbia and its tributary streams, besides being es- sentially objectionable in itsgenenil bearing, had the effect cf inttrfering directly with the actual' i-igiits of Greai Bntain, derived from tise, occupancy cJiJ settle- ment.''^ Thus, sir, you perceive that the British govern- ment openly and boldly, twenty years ago, notwith- standing the existing treaty, claimed tlie right to settle and colonize the country as though it were en- tirely without an owner; and, if tiiis claim had been well founded, then it would follow irresistibly that they have a right to retain the possession of the colonies which they had a right to establish. It is upon this principle that they speak of the actual rights which they had acquired so long ago as lb24, by "use, occupancy and settlement." What, then, becomes of the senator's ai-gumenl, that the present treaty may continue for an indefinite period, with- out being prejudicial to our title.' I admit that it is an ai-gument true and just in theory, but the opposite party, so far from admitting its force, entirely repels It. Under their interpretation of the treaty, they claim the right to plant colonies; and if this right existed, it could not be said that Great Britain would ac- quire no title to the colonies which she had cstab lished. It is true, tliat under any fair and just con- struction of the existing treaty, she has no right to colonize the country; but she claims this right. She insists upon it; and, in the face of all our protesta- tions, she has gone on, through the agency of the Hudson Bay company, to colonize to a considerable extent. And what has been our miserable policy in rcturnr We had a clear right to re-establish our ancient fort at the mouth of the Columbia ; but this might violate the treaty, and oiTend England; and although she has erected some thirty forts within the territory, we thought it best to abstain. It waa proposed to establish five military posts on the way to Oregon, for the purpose of protecting and facilitating the passage of otjr settlers over the Rocky mountains; but no; this must not be done; it would be bad feiith; and this, although England, through the agency of the Hudson Bay company, has been ma- king settlements all over tlie country. Whenever we propose to do anything for the purpose of meet- ing and countervailing her advances, it is decried as a violation of the treaty; and now, at the last moment, the same doctrine is not only held, but, ac- cording to some senators, it is deemed wholly inex- pedient for us to settle Oregon; and, aS a necessary consequence, I suppose we should permit Great Britain to retain her possession, without a struggle. We liave been sleepmg over our just rights; whilst she has been pushing her unjust claims with the ut- most energy. It is a strange spectacle to witness how we are forever holding back, for fear of viola- ting the treaty; whilst England is rushing forward to obteiin and to keep the country. She has establish- ed a government there; she has commissioned jus- tices of the peace; she has erected civil tribunals; she has extended the juiisdiction of her laws over the whole territory; she has established forts; she has built ships; erected mills; commenced permanent set- tlements, and cultivated extensive farms; and, during this whole period, has openly proclaimed her right to do all this, notwithstanding the treaty. And yet, al- though we have witnessed all these things, we must not move a step, or even lift our hand, because it would be a violation of the treaty! They consider the country as open to settlement; and in 1824, refused to accept our proposition to make the 49ih degree of latitude the boundary; because this would con- flict with their actual rights derived from use, occupation and settlement; whilst we have carefully refrained from performing any act whatever to en- courage the settlement of the country. Her claim to it rests upon settlement and colonization; whilst Congress refuses altogether to settle or to colonize, lost this might violate the very treaty under which she has been all the time acting. In the face of these claims so boldly asserted by Great Britain, it has appeared to me wonderful that the treaty of joint occupation should have been con- tinued in 1827. In the conferences previous to this treaty of 1827, the British plenipotentiaries made a still bolder declaration than tliey had ever done be- fore; — whilst they admit, in express terms, our equal right with themselves to settle the country — a right which we have refrained from exercising notwith- standing this admission, lest, forsooth, it might vio- late the treaty. They inform us of the numerous settlements and trading posts establislied by the sub- jects of Great Britain within the Territory; and, as if to taunt us with our want of energy, they say that in the whole territory, the citizens of the United States have not a single settlement or trading post. They again referred to their right to settle and colo- nize under the convention of Nootka Sound, and say- that this right has been peaceably exercised ever since the date of that convention, for a period of nearly forty years. "Under that convehtion," say they, "valuable British interests have grown up in those countries. It is fully admitted that the United Stales possess the same rights, althcv.gh they have been ex- erciscd by Hum only in a single instance, and have not, since the year 181.3, been exercised at all. But beyond, these rights, they possess none." And yet wc have been ever since deliberating in cold debate, whether we could make settlements in Oregon without vio- lating the treaty and giving offence to Great Britain! They inform us further, that "to the interests and establishments which British industry and enterprise have created, Great Britain owes protection. That protection will be given, both as regards settlement and freedom of trade and navigation, with every in- tention not to infringe the co-ordinate rights of the United States." Thus, sir, you perceive that Great Britain rests her claims to tlie country solely upon the exercise of the assumed right to settle and colonize it, and her duty to afford protection to the establishments which have been made by British subjects under this claim. And yet, in tlie face of all this, senators gravely express serious doubts whether we can, in "like manner, send our people to Oregon and afford them the protection of a government and laws, without a violation of the treaty! I think I have proved conclusively that the senator from Massachusetts is entirely mistaken if he supposes that England will ever admit that her possession, during the continuance of the treaty of joint occupation, would have no effect in strengtlien- ing her title to the territory in dispute. She haa maintained Uie contrary doctrine on all occasion*, 10 and in all forms, as if she intended a solemn noti- fication to us, and to the whole world, that she would hold on to her alleged right of possession, and never consent to abandon it. I am glad to say that I now approacli the last point of my argument. The senator from Massachu- setts [Mr. Choate] has contended that as certainly as we give the notice to annul the existing conven- tion, so certainly is war inevitable at the end of the year, unless a treaty should, in the mean time be concluded; and he would have us at once begin to prepare for war. I suppose the senator means that we ought now to be raising armies, embodying western volunteers, and sending our sharp shooters across the mountains; and he thinks it not impossi- ble that Great Britain, in anticipation of the event, may now be collecting cannon at the Sandwich Islands to fortify the mouth of the Columbia. Yes, sir, war is inevitable! Now I am most firmly con- vinced that, so far from all this, the danger of war is to be found in pursuing the opposite course, and refusing to giye the notice proposed. What can any reasonable man expect but war, if we permit our people to pass into Oregon by thousands annually, in the face of a great hunting corporation, like the Hudson Bay company, without either the protec- tion or restraint of laws? This company are in pos- session of tlie whole region, and have erected forti- fications in every part of it. The danger of war re- sults from a sudden outbreak, under such circum- stances. The two governments have no disposi- tion to go to war with each other; they are not so mad as to desire it; but they may be suddenly forced into hostilities by the cupidity and rash vio- j Icnce of these people, thrown together under cir- ] cumstances so inauspicious to peace. To prevent this, our obvious course of policy is to send over the mountains a civil government — to send our laws j • — to send the shield and protection of our sove- reignty to our countrymen there, and the wholesome restraints necessary to prevent tliem from avenging their wrongs by their own right arm. This is the j course which prudence dictates to prevent those sudden and dangerous outbreaks, which must other- ' ■wise be inevitable. The danger lies here. If you ! leave them to themselves, the first crack of the rifle j lawlessly used, may be the signal of a general war 1 throughout Christendom. Nothing else can produce i ■war; and this is the reason why I am so anxious for ' the passage of a bill which will carry our laws into { Oregon. Such a bill will be the messenger of peace, ' and not the torch of discord. My voice is not for ! war. My desire — my earnest desire is for peace; | and I sincerely believe that the course which we, on i this side of the house, are anxious to pursue, is the only one to insure peace, and, at the same time, to preserve the honor of both nations. The senator from New Jersey [Mr. Miller] be- lieves that an hundred years must roll round before the valley of the Mississippi will have a population equal in density to that of some of the older States of the Union; and that for fifty years at least our peo- ple should not pass beyond their present limits. And in this connexion, he has introduced the Texas question. In regard to that question, all I have now to say is, "that sufficient unto the day is the evil tliereof." I have no opinion to express at this time on the subject. But this I believe: Providence has given to the American people a great and glorious piission to perform, even that of extending the bless- ings of Christianity and of civil and religious liber- ty over the whole North American continent. Within less than fifty years from this moment, there will exist one hundred millions of free Ameri- cans between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. This will be a glorious spectacle to behold; — the distant contemplation of it warms and expands the bosom. The honorable senator seems to suppose that it is impossible to love our country with the same ardor, when its limits are so widely extended. I cannot agree with him in this opinion. I believe an American citizen will, if possible, more ardently love his country, and be more proud of its power and its glory, when it shall be stretched out from sea to sea, than when it was confined to a narrow strip between the Atlantic and the Alleghanies. I believe that the system of liberty, of law, and of social order which we now enjoy, is destined to be the inheritance of the North American continent. For this reason it is, that the Almighty has im- planted in the very nature of our people that spirit of progress, and that desire to roam abroad and seek new homes and new fields of enterprise, which char- acterizes them above all other nations, ancient or modern, which have ever existed. This spirit can- not be repressed. It is idle to talk of it. You might as well attempt to arrest the stars in their courses through heaven. The same Divine power has given impulse to both. What, sir! prevent the American people from crossing the Rocky moun- tains? You might as well command Niagara not to flow. We must fulfil our destiny. The question presented by the senator from New Jersey is, wheth- er we shall vainly attempt to interpose obstacles to our own progress, and passively yield up the exer- cise of our rights beyond the mountains on the con- sideration that is impolitic for us ever to colonize Oregon. To such a ciuestion I shall give no answer. But, says he, it will be expensive to the treasury to extend to Oregon a territorial government. No mat- ter what may be the expense, the thing will eventu- ally be done; and it cannot be prevented, though it may be delayed for a season. But again: Oregon, says the senator from New Jersey, can never become a State of this Union. God only knows. I cannot see far enough into Uie future to form a decided opinion. This, however, I do know; that the extension of our Union thus far has not weakened its strength; on the contrary, this very extension has bound us together by still stronger bonds of mutual interest and mutual de- pendence. Our internal commerce lias grov/n to be worth ten times all our foreign trade. We shall soon become a world within ourselves. Although our people are widely scattered, all parts of the Union must know and feel how dependent each is upon the other. Thus the people of the vast valley of the Mississi])pi are dependent upon the northern Atlantic States for a naval power necessary to keep the mouth of the Mississippi open, through which their surplus produce must seek a market. In like manner, the commercial marine of the EasterH States is dependent upon the South and the West for the very productions, the transportation of which all over the eartli affords it employment. Besides, the Southern and Southwestern States are protected by the strength of the Union from the invasion of that fanatical spirit which would excite a servile war, and cover their fair land with blood. This mutual dependence of all the parts upon the whole, is our aggregate strength. I say, then, let us go on whith- ersoever our destiny may lead us. I entertain no fears for the consequences, even should Oregon be- come a State. I do not pretend to predict whether 11 it ever will or not; bat if, in a manly and temper- ate tone, we adhere to our rights, we shall at least spread over hermountainn and valleys a population iaentified with ourselves in religion, liberty and law. We shall at least bestow upon them the blessing of our own free institutions. They will be kindred s()irit.s of our own; and I feel no apprehension that they will ever excite the Indians of Oregon to att;ick our remote and defenceless frontiers. They and their fathers have sufRrcd too severely from such a policy on the part of the British government to per- mit them to pursue a similar policy. They will at least be ffood neighbors. Has it never occurred to the senator from Mas- sachusetts how inconsistent his arguments arc with each other.' In one breath, he tells the Senate that Great Britain will go to war for Oregon; and in the next that the Hudson Bay company will voluntari- ly retreat before the advancing tide of our agricul- tural population, and abandon it without a struggle. Rest assured, sir, England is too wise to risk a war for such a possession, valuable as it may be, on such a claim of title as she presents. She is wise as she is fiowerful. Look at her position in regard to Ire- and. What is that island at this hour hut a maga- zine of gunpowder, ready to explode at any instant^ A single spark may light in a moment the flames of a civil war. Look at the discontents which so ex- tensively prevail throughout the island of Great Britain itself, springing from the wunt and misery of millions of her subjects, and from other danger-' ous causes which I shall not now enumerate. "Al- though in profomul peace with all the world, in ad- dition to all the other taxes on her subject.s, she has been compelled to resort to a heavy income tax to support her government. She is dependent upon us for the most valuable foreign trade which she enjoys with any civilized nation; nor can she sup- ply the demands of China for her cotton fabrics, and thus realize the visions of wealth which she sees in the perspective, without first obtaining the raw material from our fertile fields. England, as I have already said, is wise as well as great and pow- erful; and she will never go to war with us unless upon a question in which her honor is involved. It is a moral impossibility that, at this day, in the nine- teenth century of the Christian era. Great Britain will go to war for Oregon; when the facts and argu- ments in favor of our title are so clear, that they would prove at once to be conclusive before any impartial, independent, and enlightened tribunal. There is no danger of a war, unless it may be from our own pitiful and pusillanimous course — unless, without making any serious efl'ort to adjust our con- flicting claims, we timidly stand by and suffer her to settle the territory to such an extent that it will be out of her power to abandon her subjecl.-N there, without violating her faith to them. The present is the propitious moment to settle the-whole ques- tion; and 1 conscientiously believe that the mode proposed by my friends and myself would prove the best means of attaining the object. I admit, with regret, that some very dangerous symptoms exist in both countries at the present mo- ment. The whole press of Great Britain — her maga- zines and quarterlies, and all, without distinction of sect or party — for the last two years, has teemed "with abuse of America, and all that is American. Our institutions, our literature, and everything con- nected with us, have been subjects of perpetual Tfituperation. Such abuse is unexampled at any former period £>( her history. Thus the minds of the British people hare been inflamed into national hostility against us. And, on the other liand, what is the state of pub- lic feeling among ourselves.' Although there are many, especially in our large cities, who entertain an affectionate feeling towards England, (insomuch that, on a great public occasion in the largest of these cities, the health of "the President of the United States" was drunk in silence, whilst that of "GLueen Victoria" was received with thunders of apjjlause,) yet, among the great mass of our people, a very different feeling prevails. They still remem- ber the wrongs they have endured in days past; they remember these, perhaps, with too deep a sensibili- ty. And although senators on this floor may please tlicir ears with terms of mutual endearment by styl- ing the two nations "the mother" and "the daughter," yet a vast majority of our countrymen are penetrated with the conviction that, towards us, England has ever acted the part of a cruel step- mother. It is this deep-wrought conviction, these arssocialions of former scenes with the universal abuse at present poured out upon us by the British press and people, which lie at the foundation of the national cnmily which now too extensively pre- vails. It is these injuries on the one side, and their remembrance on the other, which keeps up the ill blood between the two countries. There is surely nothing in the existing relations between them which will cau.^e our people to forget that there is one calamity still worse than war itself, and that is the sacrifice of national honor. I repeat the declaration, that, for myself, I am deeply anxious to preserve peace. There is noth- ing like blustering in my nature; and the use of lan- guage of such a character would be unworthy of ourselves. Besides, it could produce no possible effect upon the power witli whom we have this con- troversy, and would injure rather than advance our cause. I am, notwithstanding, in favor of asserting our rights in a manly tone, and in a fearless manner. The time has, I believe, come, when it is dangerous any longer to tamper with the Oregon question. So far as my voice may go, I shall refuse longer to de- lay the settlement of this question. I shall not con- sent to its postponement. 1 would send our people west of the Rocky mountains whenever they may choose to go; but I would send them there under the protection and restraint of law; and if I did not in my heart believe this to be the best mode of in- suring to us the possession of our own territory, and preserving the national peace in company with the national honor, I should not so long have de- tained the Senate in presenting my views on thia important subject. Is Senate, March 20, 1844. Extract frmn the remarks of Mr. Buchanan in reply to Mr. Rives, on the subject of the map of George III. After (at the request of Mr. Buchanan) extracts from the speeches of Sir Robert Peel :ind Lord Brougham had been read by the secretary from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, containing all they had said on the subject of this ma]) — which will be found in tlie appendix — Mr. Buchanan proceeded to say, that after the readingofthe.se extracts, it would require but few observations from him to establish his first position; which was, that the British gov- ernment, at the time when they sent Lord Ashburton here to negotiate a treaty, were in possession of a map of such high authority, and such undoubted authenticity, that in the opinion both of Sir Robert 12 Peel, the prime minifiter of England, and Lord Brougham, its production woukl have settled the northeastern boundary question, beyond all further controversy, in favor of the United States. In order to illustrate the conchisive character of this map, it might be necessary to make a very few observa- tions. Richard Oswald was the . sole negotiator, on the part of Great Britain, of the provisional articles of the treaty of peace, concluded with the United States at Paris, on the 30th November, 1782. He, Mr. B., had carefully compared the article of this treaty de- fining the boundaries of the United States, with the corresponding article in the definitive treaty of peace concluded on the 3d September, 1783, and found them to be identically the same, — word for word. It was cleai-, therefore, that Mr. Oswald's treaty had fixed the boundaries of the United States; and that, in this respect, the subsequent treaty of 1783, nego- tiated by David Hartley, on the part of Great Brit- ain, v/as but a mere copy and ratification of the treaty of 1782. It was well known that George the Third prized his North American colonies as the most precious jewel in his crown. He had adhered to them witji the grasp of fate; and even when, at one time, Lord North was willing to bring the war to a conclusion by acknowledging their independence, the King, still hoping against hope, that he might ultimately be able to .subdue them, insisted on its continuance a little longer. It was notorious to the whole world that he felt the deepest interest in the question. Was it not, then, highly probable — nay, was it not abso- lutely certain, that when Mr. Oswald returned from Paris, after concluding the provisional treaty, the very first inquiry of his sovereigii would be, — where is tlie boundary line of my dominions in America.' Show me on the map what portion of Ihem the treaty has retained, euid what portion it has surrendered. Besides, such an inquiry would fall in with one of the King's peculiar tastes, for he "was (says Sir Robert Peel) particularly curious in respect to geographical inquiries." George the Third, as history represented him, was probably, to a certain extent, a man of narrow prejudices; but he was a sovereign of sound judg- ment, and incorruptible personal integrity. Those best calculated to judge of his abilities had spoken of them in the most favorable terms. Mr. B. here referred to the account which had been given by Mr. Wesley and Dr. Johnson of their interviews with him. When Mr. Adams, our first minister to Great Britain, after the treaty of peace, was pre- sented to the King, his declaration was character- istic and honorable: "I have been the last man in my dominions to accede to this peace which sepa- rates A,"nerica from my kingdom: I will be the first man, now it i.s made, to resist any attempt to in- frmge it." It now appeared that there had been found in his private library a map, on v.'hich was marked a boundary line between his North Ameri- can provinces and tlie United States, which gave us the whole of the disputed territory; and if this had been all, the fact might possibly have been explain- ed consistently with the claims of Great Britain. But, according to the testimony of Sir Robert Peel, on this "broad red line" there was marked, in four different places, not merely the words "boundary of the United States," nor yet "boundary of Mr. Os- wald's treaty;" but these emphatic word — "Boun- dary, as desciibed by our negotiator, Mr. Oswald." Was not this convincing — conclusive proof, that either Mr. Oswald had marked this boundary line, or that it had been done by some person under his direction, at the request of George III himself.' But even this was not all: Lord Brougham had express- ed the opinion in the House of Lords, from the in- formation he had received, that the words, "Boun- dary, as described by our negotiator, Mr. Oswald," was in the proper hand-writing of that sovereign. After all this, well might Sir Robert Peel declare that he did not believe "that that claim of Great Britain was well founded; that it is a claim which the negotiators intended to ratify;" and well might Lord Brougham say, in his characteristic manner, that the production of this map by Lord Ashburtoii would have shown "that he had not a leg to .stand upon," and that it "entirely destroys all our conten- tion, and gives all to the Americans." Here, then, was the highest and most conclusive evidence against the British claim. Here was the acknowledgment of the British sovereign himself, under his own hand, from whose kingdom the American colonies had been wrested, that the boun- dary described by his own negotiator in the trea- ty of peace gave the whole of the disputed territo- ry to the United States. Here was the confession against him.self, of the individual interested, above all others, in the question, and made long before any controversy had arisen on the subject. It was highly probable — nay, almost certain — that this map, found in the library of George III, was the very map from which Mr. Faden, the British royal ge- ographer, drew his map of 1783, mentioned by Sir Robert Peel, which also gave to the United States all the territory in dispute. But the Senator from Virginia had contended that there was no evidence to prove that Lord Ash- burton, when he concluded his treaty, had any knowledge of the existence of this map; had declared that if it v.'ere in his possession, when he assured Mr. Webster, in the most solenm manner, that it was his belief that the negotiators of the treaty of 1782 meant to throw all the waters which were tributary to the river St. John within the Briti.sh territory, it was impossible he could, with honor, have made such an asseveration; and that, admit- ting the map to be as he (Mr. B.) had descrilied it, "no epithet in the language would be strong enough to express the infamy which must brand any gov- ernment which could conduct its high diplomatia intercourse in such a manner." Now, sir, let me, in the first place, do justice to myself, as v/ell as to Lord Ashburton. After a careful examination of the debate as reported by Hansard, the highest authority, and which he had never before seen, he most cheerfully admitted that the reference in the following sentence of Sir Robert Peel, was to Lord Palmerston and not to Lord Ash- burton: "That map was in possession of the late King, and it was also m possession of the nobie lord; but he did not communicate its contents to Mr. Webster." From the newspaper reports of the de- bate which he had read, he had never doubted — he had never heard it doubted by any person, but that the reference was to Lord Ashburton. He had been convinced of his error, however, by Hansard's report of the debate, and it afforded him great plea- sure to retract it. But, did it not require a mantle of charity broader than had ever been cast over any individual, to be- lieve that the British government, being in posses- sion of such a map — a map with such marks of au- tlienticity and sucli claims to the most conclusive- 13 authority — ^would have sent out Lord Ashburton to negotiate a treaty in relation to the very boundary which it described, and yet have left him in igno- rance of its existence? Would they not, at least, have furnished him a copy of it? for he supposed the original was too precious to be suffered to leave the Foreign Office, it was possible Lord Ashburton's character stood so high, as a man of honor and in- tegrity, that the British ministry might have deemed it unsafe to intrust him with such a secret, so fatal to their claims, from an apprehension that he might prove unwilling to exert himself in a cause which ne would then have known to be so bad. Mr. B. hoped this might nrove to be the fact; and declared that if it should be made clearly to appear, or if Lord Ashburton himself woiild disclaim tliat he had any knowledge of the existence of sucli a map, his opmion of that gentleman was so high he would rise instantly in his place and do him justice. There 'nas one sentence in Sir Robert Peel's speech, in which he observed that Lord Ashburton "liad a ri|ht to presume that he was sent abroad in possessioc of all the elements of information on which a satisfactory conclusion could be come to." Undoubtedly he had a right thus to presume ; and if this map had been concealed from him, he would have had just cause of complaint. If Lord Ashburton was not present at the debate, (and gentlemen informed him that he wa."? not,) he was undoubtedly one of the first persons who read the report of it the next morning in the London jour- nals. Now, if the government had left him in igno- rance of the existence of a document so impt)rtant in relation to hi.s mission — a map from the King's own library — should we not have heard some explanation from him? Would he not, at once, on the floor of the House of Lords, have in- dignantly denounced the concealment from him of such a proof of the justice of our claims — a con- cealment which had caused him erroneously to give to Mr. Webster t've most solemn personal assu- rances of his deep conviction of the justice of the British claim? Would not the speeches of Sir Rob- ert Peel and Lord Brougham, and the fact of the ex- istence of this map which they disclosed, have so nearly touched his sense of honor, that he could not have remained silent? Would he not at once ha.ve explained to us and to the whole world the position in which he had been left by the British ministry? Mr. B. said, it miglil be that he did not know of the existence of the map; but he was greatly afraid that Lord Ashburton entertained the same views of the duty of a negotiator which had been avowed by Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons, and Lord Brougham in the House of Lords — that he was no more bound to produce any evidence which might ■operate against the interest of his own government, no matter how unfour.ded their claim might be, than a lawyer was bound to disclose testimony which might injure his client. It was for this reason that, in referring to Lord Ashburton's conduct, he had studiously confined himself to the facts alone, Euid had avoided the use of all epithets. But the senator from Vn-ginia had gone further, and expressed his doubts as to whether the present British ministers themselves had any knowledge of the existence of this map of George the Third, when they sent Lord Ashburton upon his mission. He would examine this position for a few momenta^. How had this map been removed from the King^s library? It was stated that the entire library of his father had been given by the muoificence of George IV to the British Museum. From thencd it was re- moved to the Foreign Office during the time when Lord Palmerston was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and placed among the archives of that department. Could it then be possible that the present British ministry were not aware of its existence ? A map of such liigh miportance, transferred from the British Museum, where it was public, (doubtless lest the eye of some prying American might rest upon it,) to the Foreign Office, and yet the sueces.sor of Lord Palmerston remain ignorant of its existence! A doc- ument the most important of any on Uie face of the earth for its bearing on the proposed treaty with this country, and yet the Eriti.sh Minister for For- eign Affairs know nothing concerning it while pre- paring the instructions for Lord Ashburton! It was impossible to imagine that some one of the offi- ciids in the Foreign Office, when Lord Aberdeen was investigating the subject, should not have brought this all-im]>ortant document to his notice, even if we could suppose he had before been ignorant of its ex- istence. If Lord Palmerston luid removed it from the Foreign Office on his own retirement, this fact would heve been stated by Sir Robert Peel, and he would have declared that it had never come to his knowledge. Yet, throughout his remarks, he spoke of it as he would have done of any other well known document, without the slightest intimation that the oresent ministry had been ignorant of its existence. Now, in the face of all that had transpired, both in the House of Cofhmons and the House of Lords, tlic senator from Virginia had produced an anony- mous note appended to a pamphlet containing Mr. Gallatin's memoir on the northeastern boundary, in which the unknown author says: "We have author- ity for stating that Lord Aberdeen has said that he was not personally aware of the existence of this map till after the conclusion of the treaty; and that Lord Ashburton was equally ignorant of it till his return to England." This v/as said; but by whom? Not by Lord Ab- erdeen — not by Lord Ashburton. Neither of them had ever made such a declaration in the House of Lords. Had any person ever disputed the tact that this map was in the Foreign Office when Sir Robert Peel and Lord Aberdeen came iiito power, more than a year before the date of Lord Ashburton's mission? It was impossible that this map shoidd have escaped the notice of Lord Aberdeen, imless it had been criminally kept a profound .secret from him, for some mysterious and imaccountable reason, by the officials whose duty it was to place in his hands all the information relative to this most important ne- gotiatioii- Lord Aberdeen had never accused them of any such concealment. The time to have dis- claimed cdl knowledge of the existence of the map was when the whole subject was under debate in Parliument, and when Sir Robert Peel acknowledged before the world that the claim which the British government had set up tigainst us for a portion of our territory was unfounded. The assertion in that note might be true: it was possible; but it was sc^arcely within the limits of the most remote proba bility. But this anonymous writer had gone still further, and had even cast doubts upon the correctness of Han sard's report of flie debate in the House of Commons — stating that, according to another report. Sir Rob- ert Peel, instead of asserting that he did not believe the British claim was well-founded, had stated his belief that it was well-founded. What report this could have been, was not stated. But could such 14 an aKserlion in an anonymous note weigh a feather against the report in Hansard's Parhamentary De- bates? A man writing under no responsibility, might make any assertion he pleased. Mr. B. did not Ijnow whether these speeches in Hansard were or were not revised by the speakers themselves; but he knew that they were considered the most authentic reports of any that were published. The senator from Virginia, impelled by his own high sense of honor, had declared that no epithet in our language could be strong enough to express the infamy of any government which conducted the high intercourse of its diplomacy in such a manner as would justly be inferred from the concealment of a map like this by the British ministry. But can doubt longer remain as to the fact of concealment on their part.' In the House of Lords, Lord Aberdeen had been sitting by Lord Brougham when he made the speech from which extracts had been read to the Senate, and when he had ridiculed the idea with scorn that the British government were under any obligation to produce this map. Nay, more: Lord Aberdeen had several times been appealed to by Lord Brougham in the course of his address; and yet he expressed no dissent, but sat in silence. Now Mr. B., whilst he agreed with the senator from Virginia as to the immorality of such conduct, could not think that it deserved such severe censure as had been applied to it. But did not the honora- ble senator perceive that all the severity of his lan- guage now applied, in its fullest force — in all its length and breadth — to the present British ministry.' He agreed with the senator that diplomacy was now conducted in a fairer and franker manner than it had been in ancient times; and he could never con- cur in the doctrine put forth by Lord Brougham, as to the lawfulness of concealing all evidence which made against our own side of the question in a na- tional dispute. According to the maxims of the ancient diplomacy and the doctrine of Lord Brough- am, a negotiator was bound to act for his country, in conducting a negotiation, just as a lawyer acted for his client, in conducting a cause. He must take all advantages he could obtain, and conceal everything which might weaken his own side of the question. His lordship had even ridiculed, in the bitterest and most scornful manner, the idea of showing one's hand in such a game. Here Mr. B. quoted Lord Brougham's language. There was one view of the case, however, which presented a still more serious aspect against the Brit- ish ministry than the concealment of this maj), highly improper as that may have been. It was this: that in the days of Lord Palmerston's ministry the British government was willing to press this claim to the point of actual war between the two na- tions, knowing, at the same time, as it now clearly appeared they did, that their claim was false ard unjust. Nothing but an overruling Providence had averted this calamity from the two nations, and prevented an actual collision between their forces on the northeastern boundary. ARPENDIX. Extract from Hansard'' s Parliamentary Debates, {3d series, vol. 67, pages 1247, '48, '49, and ^50,) of a speech, delivered by Sir Robert Peel in Ike House of Commons, on the 21s< March, 1843, on the svhject of the treat]! of Washington. But the noble lord considers that a certain map which has been found in the archives of the Foreign Office at Jaiis is conclueiTe eTideace of the Jvjstaess oi the British claims. Nov?, sir, 1 am not prepared to acquiesce in any such assertion. Great blame has been thrown upon Mr. Webster with respect to this map. He has been charged with perfidy and want of good faith in not having at ouce disclosed to Lord Asliburton the fact of his possessing this map. Now, I must say that it is rather hard, when we know what are the practices of diplomatists and negotia- tors, — I say it is rather hard to expect that thi; negotiator on the part of the United States should be held bound to dis-, close to tlie diplomatist with whom he was in treaty all the weak parts of his case; and I think, therefore, tha"t the re- llection cast upon Mr. Webster — a gEmtlcrnanof worth and honor — are, witli respect to this matter, very unjust. This map was, it is true, found iu the archives of the Foreign Ollice at Paris; and a letter of Dr. Fiaaklin's has also been found, having reference to some map; hut there is no direct connexion between the map so found and the letter of Dr. Franklin. In general, tliere is such a connexion, as in the case of maps referred to in despatches; but there is none in this case. There is nothing to show that the map so found is the identical map referred to by Dr. Franklin in his letter; and nothing can he more fallacious than relying on such maps. For, let me state what may be said upon the other side of the question with respect to maps. We made in- quiry about those maps in the Foreign Office at Paris, and we could find none such as that in question at first. We have not been so neglectful in former times with respect to t'le miitter as tlie noble lord seems to think. We made in- qiiiries, in 18^6 and 18'27, into the maps in the Foreign Office at Paris, for the purpose of throwing light upon the inten- tions of the negotiators of 1783. A strict search was made lor any documents bearing in any manner upon the disputed question; but, at that time, neither letter nor map could be found. However, there were afterwards discovered, by a gentleman engaged in writing a history of America, a letter and a certain ntap, supposed Ijy him to be the map referred to in the letter, in answer to our first inquiry, as 1 have al- ready stated, yo such map could be discovered. The first which we received from the Foreign Office at Paris was a map framed in 1783 by Mr. Faden, geographer to the lung of England. On tliat map is inscribed, '"A map of the boundary of the iuited States, as agreed to by the treaty of 1783: by Mr. Faden, geogi-aplier to the King." Now, sir, that map placed the boundary according to the American claim. Vet it was a cotemporarj' map, and it was pub- lished by the geograjiher to the Bi-itish King. There was a. work which I have here, a political periodical of the time, published in 178;$, called Bi'we's Journal- It gives a full re- port of the debate in Parliament upon the treaty thi n being' concluded; and, in order to illustrate the I'eport, it also gives a map of the boundaries between the counlries as then agreed to. That map, sir, also adopts the line claimed by the United States. On subsequent inquiry at Pai'is, we found a map, which must be the map referred to by Mr. Jared Sparks, There is placed upon that map a broad red line, and that line marks out the boundary as claim.ed by the British. It is probably a rnap by M. d'Anville, of 174t), and there can be no doubt but that it is tlie map referred to by Mr. Jared Sparks; but we can trace no indication of con- nexion between it and the despatch of Dr. Franklin. To say that they were connected, is a mere unfounded infer- ence. But there is still another map. Here — in this country — in the library of the late King, was deposited a map by Mitchell, ofthe date I'^'i. That map was in the possession of tlie late King, and it was also in possession of the noble lord, but he did not communicate its contents to Mr. Web- ster. It is marked by a bioad red line, and on that line is written, "Boundary, as described by our negotiator, Mr. Oswald;" and that" line follows the claim of the United States. That map was on an extended scale. It was in pos- session of the late King, who was particularly curious in respect to geogx'ajjhical inquiries. On that map, I repeat, is placed the boundary line — that claimed by ttie United States — and on four dift'erent places on that line, "Boundary, as described by Oswald." Now, 1 do not say that that was the boundary ultimately settled by the negotiators; but nothing can be more fallacious than founding a claim upon cotemporary maps, unless you can also prove that they were adopted by the negotiators; and, when the noble lord takes it for granted that, if we had resorted to arbitration, we should have been successful in obtaining our claims, I cannot help thinking that the matter would be open to much discussion. Indeed, I do not believe that that claini of Great Britain was well founded — that is a claim which the negotiators intended to ratify. 1 cannot say, either, that the inquiries which have been instituted since Mr. Sparks's discovery have materially strengthened my conviction eitlier way. I think they leave matters much as they were; and nothing, I think, can be more delusive than the expec- tation that, if the question were referred to arbitration, the 15 suhscqi.ently to the conclusion of the ne-otiatious con- 1 lent good comp,my. It does so happen tirat there was a mao ducted by Lord Ashburton. The noble lord opposite | published by the KinK-« geographe|r in this counlry in the " 'an was to- [The that :i!!=^°;:ll*!i,5:'-^^?i.i'™'v">^-<^-.i'!«"-i-^i"-^ ^ i^rr'at thr"scZMi;nTJr"\^ discovery of the map in Paris, even if it could be positively ica, and there was' nothing he dcploVcd co nuch as that"*;; i".■T5':i^.":":'^°.e "3"!^''°^ ''"1>"«^'»- ^""W.be no groun'd | aration having taken place. The King-s gcogrtplS Mr: Padcn, published his map 1783, which contains, not the Brit- i'or the impeachment of the treaty of Lord Ashburton" or for proving that he hud not ably and honorably discharged his | ish, but" the American li'ue M hy did not my nol)le friend duties If blame should fall upon anyone, it should lal'l | take over a copy of that map? My noble friend oiinosile fTvearr ''"''■'' """" '>°"'^"<=""S these negotiations (Lord Aberdeelif is a can.Ud'man;LTan exp:^ien^K! •* ■ ' plomatist, both abroad and at home; he is not unlettered, but ''" '■'■■ ~ "' ' " the crafts of diiduniacy'and ■ -eal this map.' AVe have a I, on the part of America, ^f T I ji -,1. 1 •■1 -....n '^ , I .v,-^ '• ■"■o*" to have sent out the man oj Lmi-Os onJUeilhjlpnl, lb43, ou the proposition vf\°i ;^'!'; '•adca. an'l said, 'this is George the Third-s map.'' thanks to Lord Miburton for the treaty of Wask- ington. A great charge against Mr. Webster is, that he sup- pressed the map of Dr. Franklin in the course of the neiro- tiation; and this suppression has been said to savor of bad laith. J deny it. 1 deuy that a negotiator, in carrying on a controversy, as represeHting his own country, with a for- eign country, is l)ound to disclose to the other party what- ever he may know that tells against his own country and for the opposite party. I deny that he is so bound, 'any more than an advocate is bound to tell the cdurt all that he deems to make against his own client and for his adversary. My noble friend, Lord Ashburton, has been objected to— my noble friend opposite has been blamed for selecting him— because he is not a regular bred diplomatist ; because he is not acquainted with diplomatic lore; t>ecauseheis a plain unlettered man as regards diplomatic aflairs; and be- cause he had only the guide of common honesty and com- mon sense, great experience of men, great general knowl- edge, a thorough aciiuaintance with the interests of his own country and of the country he was sent to, for his guide in the matters he was to negotiate. But 1 believe my noble friend has yet to learu this one lesson— that it is the duly of expe- rienced diplomatists, of regular bred politicians, of those who have grown gray in the mystery of negotiation and the art of stateseraft, that when you Sre sent to represent a country, and to get the best terms vou can for it, to lower the terms of the opposite party, and" to exalt the terms of your own, as (ar as may be— you ought first of all to disclose all the weaknesses of your own case— that your duty to your country is something, but that your duty is first to the opposite party, and that you are bound to tell everything that makes for that adverse party. That is your duty; that is one of those arts of diplomacy which have lain concealed until the f those principles of statesmanship 6th of Victoria to produce and pn assuredly not quite understood by that old French states man, albeit trained in the diplomatic school, who said that language had been conferred upon men by Providence for the purpose of concealing their thoughts. This was a les- son he had yet to learn, this regular-bred diplomatist— this practised negotiator. He certainly could not have thought that it was his duty to practise a window in his bosom, and let every one see what passed in his mind. But it was the duty, it seems, of my noble friend to tell all; and it was equally the reciprocal duty of Mr. Webster to do the same. ]t was my noble friend's duty^to disclose all that he had But it never occurred to my noble friend to do so. Then two years after .Mr. Faden published that map, another was published, and that took the British line. This, however came out after the boundary had become matter of control versy, post Uliint motam. But, at all events, my noble friend had to contend with the force of the argument against Mr. Webster, and America had a right to the benefit of both maiiB. My noble friend oj.posite never sent it over, and no- body ever blamed him for it. But that was not all. What il there was another map containing the American line, and never corrected at all by any subsequent chart coming from the same custody ? And what if that map came out of the custody of a person high in office in this eountrv— nay what It It came out of the custody of the highest functionary of all,— of George 3d himself.' I know that map— I know a map which I can trace to the custody of George 3d, andoa which there is the American line and not the Englisli line and upon which there is a uote, that from the hand-writing as it has been described to me, makes me think it was the note of George 3d himself: "This is the line of Mr. Oswald's treaty ia 1783," written three or four times ujjon the face of it. Now suppose this should occur— 1 do not know that it has happen- ed— but it may occur to a Secretary of State for Foreign Aflairs,— cither to my noble friend or Lord Palmerston, who, 1 understand by cor.imon report, taken a great interest in the question; and though he mav not altogether approve of the treaty, he may peradventure envy the .success which attended it, foK it was a success which did not attend any ol hi;; own American negotiations. But it is possible that my noble friend or Lord Palmerston may have discovered that there was this map, because George 3d's librarv by the munificence of George 4th, was giVen to the B'ritish iMuseum, and this map must have been there; but it is a curiouscircum.stancethatit is no longer there. 1 suppose ,^,„ itmust have been taken out of the British Museum for the e present year 1843-oneol | purpose of being «ent over to my noble friend in America- lip which It remained for the and that, according to the new doctrines of diplomacy he promulgate but which were was bound to have used it wheii there, in oi-acr to show '■" *' '-^ '"■'•""'■ -'■■"- tliat he had no case-that he not a leg to stand upon. Why did he not take it over with him? Pmbr.bly he did not know of its existence. I am told that it is not now in the British Museum, but that it is in the Foreign Office. Proba- bly it was known to exist; but somehow or other that map, which entirely destroys our contention and gives all to the Americans, has been removed from the British Museum, and is now to be found at the Foreign Oflice. Kxplain it a* you will, Uiat is the simple fact, that this important majv was removed from the museum to the omce, and not in tie time of my noble frietd [Lord Aberdeen.] LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 017 185 146 4