tiators had entangled the question- could reasonably have been looked for.

Of the clear, unequivocal justice of the whole of our claim we never have had the slightest doubt, nor do we believe that any one, even amongst the Americans, has ventured directly to deny that the British line approached most nearly to the intentions of the original negotiators; but we have already had occasion to show that the wording of the treaty was so curiously infelicitous as to be nothing short of nonsense, or at least to afford a sufficient colour for the King of Holland's award that its terms were inexplicable and impracticable.' (Quart. Rev., vol. Ixvii. p. 507.)

In consequence of the difficulty, or, as the royal umpire thought, the impossibility of reconciling the letter of the treaty with the claims of either of the parties, he took upon himself to recommend a new line, far to the northward of the St. John's, of which the result would have been to give the United States two-thirds, and England about one-third of the disputed territory.

We confess that we have never been able to discover the rationale of that award. On what imaginary evidence the royal umpire carried the United States beyond the River St. John'sor, having once crossed the River St. John's, upon what reasoning he stopped short of conceding their entire claim-or why, finally, when he had discarded both the terms and intentions of the treaty, he did not carry his conventional line along so obvious a boundary as that of the St. John's—we cannot comprehend. Mr. Benton, in his vehement attack on the treaty of Washington as more unfavourable to the United States than even the Dutch award, thought proper to remind Congress that the King of the Netherlands was on the list of British generals, and in the pay of the British Crown' (p. 6)-a statement which happens, like too many others in Mr. Benton's speech, to be totally untrue : but might it not with more plausibility be surmised, considering the state of the relations between England and Holland in January 1831, when this award was made, that any bias which might be imputed to the umpire was not likely to lean towards a power which was at that moment threatening Holland with hostilities in favour of the Belgian insurgents ?

But the personal feelings of the Ex-King of Holland-if (which we are reluctant to believe any such existed --can change nothing in the facts of the case, as we have now to deal with them. The award was made, and, according to the terms of the reference, ought to have been final and conclusive ! The British ministry, with what we may almost call an excess of good faith, accepted it; and it would no doubt have also been accepted by the United States, but it happened that at this moment the American minis


ter in Holland happened to be Mr. Preble, himself a citizen of the state of Maine, which had a great territorial and pecuniary interest in establishing their pretended boundary, and had shown a great deal of angry feeling in the preceding discussion. We have seen of late such remarkable instances of ministers of the United States at foreign courts taking, without reference to their government, public steps with the apparent and almost avowed object of making themselves individually popular at home, that we now look back with less surprise than we then felt ai this citizen of Maine having, two days after the award, addressed, in his public character, to the Dutch government a protest against the award, on the ground that the arbiter had exceeded his powers by recommending a new boundary, instead of adjudicating the boundary specified by the treaty of 1783;---and though it is known that nt Jackson was not only willing but anxious to accept and ratify the award, the Senate—to which the opposition of the State of Maine obliged General Jackson to refer the questionadopted Mr. Preble's view of the matter, and rejected it by a decisive majority of 34 to 8; the present President, Tyler, and the present Secretary of State, Webster-who, as Mr. Benton insists, have made a less favourable arrangement-voting in the majority.

It seems at first sight difficult to understand why the United States should have rejected a decision which was so extravagantly in their favour; but it must be remembered that, under their Constitution, the general Government is held to have no right to dispose of any portion of the territory of any individual State, and as Maine; insisted that the whole disputed region was her incontrovertible right, the President could not cede an inch without her consent. Nor are we much surprised at the resistance of Maine; for when the King of Holland had once taken the extraordinary step of carrying the line to the northward of the St. John's, we ourselves must confess that he seems to have established the whole principle of the American claim (though he negatived it in several minor points), and that it therefore was not unreasonable in the people of Maine to insist that, the principle being thus decided in their favour, they were entitled to, and would by perseverance undoubtedly obtain, all its consequences ;-an expectation which, however, we think it no disgrace nor even inconsistency in Messrs. Tyler and Webster to have resigned when experience had proved its futility. We must also recollect that England was at that moment under the misrule of the Reform mob, and in a condition that may have encouraged, if it did not suggest, the idea-not, it seems, altogether unfounded—that she might be safely pressed upon with impunity. These were, perhaps, the


motives that influenced the Senate at that day; but we cannot so easily explain the readiness of Lord Palmerston * to acquiesce in this award. No doubt the precarious state of the country --the general and growing difficulties of the Whig cabinet, and the obvious jealousy of all the Conservative cabinets of Europe, may have made him over-anxious to extract spinis de pluribus unam---but superadded to these motives there was also, we have no doubt, some feeling of respect to the decision of the arbiter, whose award, however erroneous it might really be, would nevertheless have a considerable influence on the public opinion of mankind; and the rather, as the antagonist party appeared to complain of it as unjust towards them. But whatever were his motives, Lord Palmerston, carrying candour and patience to the utmost verge of endurance, continued willing to accept the Dutch decision, till at length, finding that the States would not give way, he, on the 30th of October, 1835, withdrew his consent to the territorial compromise recommended by the King of the Netherlands.' So far, although we think the offer of acquiescence in the Dutch award was impolitic in itself and persisted in too long, we impute no blame to Lord Palmerston ;-but while he was debating this point in a very desultory correspondence, another proposal was interjected by the American government, on which we think his Lordship’s conduct is more liable to question, if not to reproach.

The then President, General Jackson, had, we have no doubt, an anxious desire-a laudable ambition we may venture to call itto settle this boundary question; and when the constitutional difficulties raised by Maine, and sanctioned by the Senate, restricted him not merely from ratifying the King of Holland's arbitration, but from concluding any conventional line whatsoever, by binding him to the strict terms of the treaty, he evinced something, as we think, of his characteristic spirit, by making a proposition whichevading the constitutional difficulty by which he had been just defeated – would have accomplished his object of concluding the affair on terms not more onerous to England, and even less advantageous to Maine, than the award that Maine had compelled him to reject. Our readers will recollect that one of the first difficulties in following out the treaty-boundary was this the treaty provided that the boundary-line should run due north from the head of the River St. Croix, till it came to certain Highlands—which were supposed by the British, and, we believe, by the United States, to

* Though throughout the article we shall generally use his Lordship's name as the ostensible Minister, yet we are very well aware that he must iu strictness be considered as one only of a cabinet, all equally responsible. Against Lord Palmerston indi. vidually we can have no personal bias quite the rererse?

exist south of the St. John's ; but when the due north line came to be drawn, it appeared that there were no such Highlands to be found in that line. This was the foundation of all the subsequent difficulty-and this General Jackson professed to obviate by proposing, through Mr. Livingston, his secretary of state, to Sir Charles Vaughan, the British minister at Washington, that a joint commission should be appointed, with a mutual umpire, to make a scientific survey of the country, and if, as was supposed, the due north line did not fall in with the required Highlands, then that such Highlands should be looked for elsewhere, and that, wherever found, a line drawn from them straight to the head of the St. Croix should be taken to be the north-eastern boundary of the United States. This proposition was accompanied by the following diagram,





showing that if the Highlands should be found at C or D, the lines A C or A D, as the case might be, should be the northeastern boundary of the United States; and this Mr. Livingston further explained verbally, by exhibiting a map which showed that the probable point of the Highlands was about 50 miles westward of the river St. Francis.

This was the proposition for which the shrewdest and most experienced of the advocates of the United States' claim, Mr. Gallatin, censured the American Secretary of State,

who, on this very question, did, subsequent to the award, propose to substitute, for the due north line, another which would have given to Great Britain the greater part, if not the whole, of the disputed territory. Why the proposal was made, and why it was not at once accepted, cannot be otherwise accounted for, so far at least as regards the offer, than by a complete ignorance of the whole subject.'-Correspondence laid before Parliament, 1838, p. ix.

We are entirely of Mr. Gallatin's opinion, and so, we think, will be our readers, when they shall have examined and compared Mr. Livingston's proposition and explanation with the subjoined sketch of the country, where we have marked the American


[blocks in formation]

and British claims respectively, and the King of Holland's award; and have also applied to the actual locality the lines of Mr. Livingston's diagram :-those lines, be it always remembered, which were to be in the specified cases the north-east boundary of the United States.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The very inspection of this little map will satisfy our readers of the many great advantages which this proposition opened to us ; but let us observe specifically,—first, that whatever might be the result of the new survey, it must be of great value to us in ulterior negotiation, that the United States, while stickling for the strict terms and very letter of the treaty, should have voluntarily departed from the only terms of the treaty that were undisputed and undisputable—the due north line secondly, any alteration which could have been made on Mr. Livingston's prin

« ElőzőTovább »