rMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 ^ 
 
 A 
 
 {./ 
 
 
 :/. 
 
 2(. 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 £ %& 110 
 
 1.8 
 
 U 1 1.6 
 
 Hiotographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 .SJ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 :\ 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 23 WEST Main street 
 
 W^B'tTER, N. '. 14580 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 4^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 MKcrofiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historica! Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 a 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 Lareliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de k< 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible , these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaisseiU dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 I I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 v/ 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 I I Showthrough/ 
 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materi{ 
 Comprend du matdriel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I I Only edition available/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont dt6 film^es d nouveau de fa9on d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 >/ 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 n 
 
 32X 
 
Th« copy filmad here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library Division 
 
 Provincial Archives of British Columbia 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed papftr covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impes- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ♦- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 L'exer plaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la 
 g*n«rosit* da: 
 
 Library Division 
 
 Provincial Archives of British Columbia 
 
 Les images suivantes ont At* reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet* de I'exemplaire film*, et en 
 conformit* avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim*e sont film*s en commengant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 derni*re page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film*s en commen^ant par la 
 premi*re page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derni*re page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent *tre 
 film*s * des taux de r4duction diff*rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour *tre 
 reproduit en un seul clich*, il est film* * partir 
 de I'angle sup*rieur gauche, de gauche * droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n*cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m*thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 ^ . " ■ 
 
 r t 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
I XS' 
 
 »u 
 
 OREGON 
 
 ?i{l/ MR. P4KENHAM, 
 
 I'lIE BRITISH PLENIPOTENTIARY'S 
 
 REPLY TO THE 
 
 AMERI CAN GOVERN MENT, 
 
 Washington, Julv 2'Jth, 1815, 
 
 Notwithstanding the prolix discussion which the snhject has already undergone, tlie under- 
 signed, Her l$ritannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister I'lenipotcntiary, feels obliged 
 to place on record a few observations in reply to the statement, marked J.li., which he had the 
 honour to receive, on the 16th of this month, from the hands of the Secretffry of State of the 
 United States, terminating with a proposition on the part of the United States for the settle- 
 ment of the Oregon question. 
 
 In this paper it is stated that "the title of the Uijited States to that portion of the Oregon terri- 
 tory between the valley of the Columbia and the Russian line, in 54° 40' north latitutie is re- 
 corded in the Florida treaty. Under this treaty, dated on 22d February, 1819, Spain coded to the 
 United States, all her rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories west of the Rocky Moun- 
 tains, and north of the 42d parallel of latitude." " We contend," says tlie Secrctarj' of State, 
 "that at the date of this convention, Spain had a good title, as against Great Britain, to tlie wlioh; 
 Oregon territory, and, if this be established, the question is then decided in favour of the Uniteil 
 States," the convention between Great Britain and Spain, signed at the Escurlal, on the 28th 
 October, 179f), notwithstanding. 
 
 "If," says the American plenipotentiary, "it should appear that this treaty was transient in its 
 very nature; that it conferred upon Great Britain no right but that of merely trading with the 
 Indians, whilst the country should remain unsettled, and making the necessary establishments 
 for this purpose, that it did not interfere with the ultimate sovereignty of Spain over the terri- 
 tory ; and, above all, that it \;as annulled by the war between Spain Jind Great IJrilain, in 1790, 
 and has never since been renewed by the parties, then the British claim to any portion of the 
 territory will prove to be destitute of foundation." 
 
 The undersigned will endeavour to show not only that when Spain concluded witli the Uniteil 
 States the treaty of 1819, commonly called the Florida treaty, the convention concluded between 
 the former Power and Great Britain, in 1790, was considered by the parties to it to be still in 
 force ; but even that, if no such treaty had ever existed. Great Britain would stand, with refer- 
 ence to a claim to the Oregon territory, in a position at least as favourable as the United States. 
 
 The treaty of 1790 is not appealed to by the British Government, as the American plenipoten- 
 tiary seems to suppose, as their "main reliance" in the present discussion ; it is appealed to to 
 show that, by the treaty of 1819, by which "Spain ceded to the United States all her lights, 
 claims, and pretensions to any territories west of i he Rocky Mountains, and north of the 4 2(1 
 parallel of latitude," the United States acquired no right to exclusive dominion over any part of 
 the Oregon territory. 
 
 The treaty of 1790 embraced, in fact, a variety of objects. It partook in some of its stipula- 
 tions of the nature of a commercial convention ; in other respects it must be considered as an 
 acknowledgment of existing rights, an admission of certain principles of international law, not to 
 be revoked at the pleasure of cither party, or to be set aside by a cessation of friendly relations 
 between them. 
 
 \) 
 
 (<HfifiK?wWHMfiJ'(«i 
 
 mt 
 
 .— iiiiasji-ii^j 
 
 -.^■■..^■■•uWJiiiU.-- 
 
 ■■■| 
 
 "Viewed in the former light, its stii)ulations might have been considered as cancelled in con- 
 sequence of the war which subsequently took place between the contracting parties, were it not 
 that by the treaty concluded at Madrid, on the 28th of August, 1814, it was declared tluit all tlie 
 treaties of commerce which subsisted between the two nations (Great Britain and Spain) in 1790 
 were thereby ratified and confirmed. 
 
 In the latter point of view, the restoration of a state of peace was of itself sufficient to restore 
 the admissions contained in the convention of 1790 to their full original force and vigour. 
 
 There are, besides, very positive reasons for concludinf that Spain did not consider the stii»u- 
 lations of the Nootka convention to have been revoked by the war of 1796, so as to require, in 
 order to be binding on her, that they should have been expressly revived or renewed on the resto- 
 ration of peace between the two countries. Had Spain considered that convention to have lieen 
 annulled by the war — in other words, had she considered herself restored to her former position 
 and pretensions with respect to the exclusive dominion over the unoccupied parts of the North 
 Amerisan continent, it is not to be imagined that she would have passively submitted to see the 
 contending claims of Great Britain and the United States to a portion of that territory the sub- 
 ject of negotiation and formal dipl iiuatic transactions between those two nations. 
 
 It is, on the contrary, from her silence with respect to the continued occupation by the British, 
 of their settlements in the Columbia territory, subsequently to the convention of 1814, and when, 
 as yet, there had been no transfer of her rights, claims, or pretensions to the United States ; and 
 from her silence also, while important negotiations resjjecting the Columbia territory, incomi)a- 
 tible altogether with her ancient claim to exclusive dominion, were in progress between Great 
 Britain and the United States, fairly to be infeiTcd that Spain considered the stipulations of the 
 Nootka convention, and the principles therein laid down, to be still in force- 
 But the American plenipotentiary goes so far as to say that the British Government itself had 
 no idea in 1818. that the NootKa Soi 
 
 The ur 
 Sound C( 
 By re as 
 expressly 
 By reas 
 not to be 
 of the coi 
 And, tl 
 conclusio 
 or at leas 
 Having 
 tentiary > 
 bearing u 
 even if tl 
 to her clc 
 as good a 
 This b 
 of their \ 
 territory 
 affirmativ 
 ration, at 
 As reh 
 ment tha 
 ment of t 
 "The 
 of Februi 
 west coas 
 United S 
 complete 
 The tit 
 If this 
 previousl 
 the same 
 Thus, 
 the clain 
 ciple, eqt 
 Let us 
 authentic 
 Reject I 
 catcd, it 
 Flattery, 
 verer of ! 
 very of t' 
 Inl7S 
 Straits o 
 In the 
 at the vi 
 Inl7i 
 memoral 
 the right 
 of the A 
 
 the possi 
 
 In 175 
 mentioni 
 Sound, e 
 sides, dis 
 thus circ 
 to Vance 
 presentei 
 territory 
 
 While 
 a partne 
 of the ri 
 effected 
 from sea 
 pany est 
 
 In 181 
 and the 
 
 In the 
 northerr 
 ously dis 
 
 From 
 tory was 
 the Ore J 
 regions 
 
i 
 Y'S 
 
 1845. 
 
 lie uiider- 
 ;ls obliged 
 ic had the 
 ate of tlie 
 he scttlc- 
 
 egoii terri- 
 utlc is re- 
 ded to the 
 :ky Muini- 
 
 of State, 
 tlie wliolc 
 the United 
 
 the 2Htli 
 
 sicnt in its 
 with tlic 
 bliblinients 
 the terri- 
 n, in 17'JG, 
 on of tlie 
 
 the United 
 id between 
 )e still in 
 vith refer- 
 ted States, 
 ilenipoten- 
 ialed to to 
 ler lights, 
 F the 4 2d 
 iny part of 
 
 ts stipida- 
 
 red as an 
 
 law, not to 
 
 relations 
 
 d in con- 
 vere it not 
 ^hat all the 
 n)iul7y(i 
 
 to restore 
 fonr, 
 
 • thestipu- 
 •equirc, in 
 the resto- 
 have been 
 jr position 
 the >i(»rth 
 to see the 
 y the sub- 
 he British, 
 and \^hcn, 
 tates ; and 
 I inconi])a- 
 een Great 
 ions of the 
 
 t itself had 
 
 H 
 
 The undersigned trusts that he has now shown that the convention of 1790, (the Nootka'- 
 Sound Convention), has continued in full and complete force up to the present moment. 
 
 F5y reason, in the first place, of the commercial character of some of its provisions, as such 
 expressly renewed by the convention of August, 1814, between Great l^ritain and Spain. 
 
 By reason, in the next place, of the acquiescence of Spain in various transactions to which it is 
 not to be supposed that that power would have assented, had she not felt bound by the provisions 
 of the convention in question. 
 
 And, thirdly, by reason of repeated acts of the Government of the United States, previous to the 
 conclusion of the Florida treaty, manifesting adherence to the principles of the Nootka ronve iition, 
 or at least dissent from the exclusive pretensions of Spain. 
 
 Having thus replied, and he hopes satisfactorily, to the observations of tlie American Plenipo- 
 tentiary with respect to the effect of the Nootka Sound convention and the Florida treaty, as 
 bearing upon the subject of the present discussion, the undersigned must endeavour to show that 
 even if the Nootka Sound convention had never existed, the position of Great Britain in regard 
 to Iter claim, whether to the whole or to any particular portion of the Oregon territory, is at least 
 as good as that of the United States. 
 
 This branch of the subject must be considered, first, with reference to principle — to the riglit 
 of their party, Great Britain or the United States, to explore or make settlements in the Oregon 
 territory without violation of the rights of Spain ; and next, supposing the first to be decided 
 affirmatively, with reference to the relative value and importance of the acts of discovery, explo- 
 ration, and settlements effected by each. 
 
 As relates to the question of principle, the undersigned thiriks he can furnish no better argu- 
 ment than that contained in the following words, which he has dready once quoted from the state- 
 ment of the American Plenipotentiary. 
 
 " The title of the United States to the valley of the Columbia, is older than the Florida treaty 
 of February, 1819, under which the United States accpiircd all the rights of Spain to the north- 
 west coast of America, and exists independently of its provisions." And again, " the title of the 
 United States to the entire region drained by the Columliia river and its branches, was perfect and 
 complete before the date of the treaties of joint occupancy of October, 1818, and August, 1827." 
 The title thus referred to, must be that resting on discovery, exploration, and settlement. 
 If this title then, is good, or rather was good, as against the exclusive pretensions of Spain, 
 previously to the conclusion of the Florida treaty, so must the claims of Great Britain, resting on 
 the same grounds, be good also. 
 
 Thus, then, it seems manifest that, with or without the aid of the Nootka Sound convention, 
 the claims of Great V Aain, resting on discovery, exploration, and settlement, are, in point of prin- 
 ciple, equally valid with those of the United States. 
 
 Let us now see how the comparison will stand when tried by the relative value, importance, and 
 authenticity of each. 
 
 Rejecting previous discoveries north of the 4 2d parallel of latitude as not sufficiently authenti- 
 cated, it will be seen, on the side of Great Britain, that in 177G, Captain Cook discovered Cape 
 Flattery, the southern entrance of the Straits of Fuca. Cook must also be considered the disco- 
 verer of Nootka Sound, in consequence of the want of authenticity in the alleged previous disco- 
 very of that port by Perez, 
 
 In 1787, Captain Berkeley, a British subject, in a vessel under Austrian colours, discovered the 
 Straits of Fuca. 
 
 In the same year, Captain Duncan, in the ship Princess Royal, entered the straits, and traded 
 at the village of Classet. 
 
 In 1788, Meares, a British subject, formed the establishr-ient at Nootka,.vfhich gave rise to the 
 memorable discussion with the Spanish Government, ending in the recognition, by that power, of 
 the right of Great Britain to form settlements in the unoccupied parts of the north-west portion 
 of the American continent, and in an engagement, on the part of Spain, to reinstate Meares in 
 
 the possession from which he had been ejected liy the Spanish commanders. 
 
 In 1792, Vancouver, who had been sent from England to witness the fulfilment of the above- 
 mentioned engagement, and to eflfect a survey of the north-west coast, departing from Nootka 
 Sound, entered the Straits of Fuca ; and after an accurate survey of the coasts and inlets on both 
 sides, discovered a passage northwards into the Pacific by which he returned to Nootka, having 
 thus circumnavigated the island which now bears his name. And here we have, as far as relates 
 to Vancouver's Island, as complete a case of discovery, exploration, and settlement as can well be 
 presented, giving to Great Britain, in any arrangement that may be made with regard to the 
 territory in dispute, the strongest possible claim to the exclusive possession of that island. 
 
 Wliile Vancouver was prosecuting discovery and exploration by sea. Sir Alexander Mackenzie, 
 a partner in the North-west Company, crossed the Rocky Mountains, discovered the head waters 
 of the river since called Frazer's River, and, following for some time the course of tliat river, 
 effected a passage to the sea, being the first civilized man who traversed the continent of America 
 from sea to tea in those latitudes. On the return of Mackenzie to Canada, the North-west Com- 
 pany established trading posts in the country to the westward of the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 In 1806 and 1811, respectively, the same company established posts on the Tacoutche, Tesse, 
 and the Columbia. 
 
 In the year 1811, Thompson, the astronomer of the North-west Company, discovered the 
 northern head waters of the Columbia, and, following its course till joined by the rivers previ- 
 ously discovered by Lewis and Clarke, he continued his journey to the Pacific. 
 
 From that time till the year 1818, when the arrangement for the joint occupancy of the terri- 
 tory was concluded, the North-west Company continued to extend their operations throughout 
 the Oregon territory, and to " occupy," it may be said, as far as occupation can be effected in 
 regions so inaccessible and destitute of resources. 
 
 While all this was tiassinir. th^ fnllnwinfr nvr.n»^ n^Pnrrn.l «,l.iM. ^»n.fU..t» .!-» A.„-= .-■ 
 
made to it on the part of England during the negotiation of tliat year on the Oregon (juestioii. 
 
 In reply to this argument it will he sufficient for the undersigned to remind the American 
 plenipotentiary that in the year 1818 no claim, as derived from Spain, was or could he jmt forth 
 by the United States, seeing that it was not until the following year (the year 1819), that the 
 treaty was concluded hy which Spain transferred to the United States her rights, claims, and pre- 
 tensions to any territories west of the Uocky Mountains, and north of the 42d parallel of latitude. 
 
 Hence, it is obvious that in the year of 1818 no occasion had arisen for appealing to the qua- 
 lified nature of the rights, claims, and pretensions so transferred — a qualification imposed, or at 
 least recognized, by the conveniion of Nootka. 
 
 The title of the United Stales to the valley of the Columbia, the American Plenipotentiary 
 observes, is older than the Florida Treaty of February, 1819, and exists independently of its pro- 
 visions* Even supposing, then, that the British construction of the Nootka Sound convention 
 was correct, it could not apply to this portion of the territory in dispute. 
 
 The undersigned must be permitted respectfully to inquire upon what principle, tmless it be 
 upon the princijde which fo;ms the foundation of the Nootka convention, could the United States 
 have acquired a title to any part of the Oregon territory, previously to the treaty of 1H19, and 
 independently of its provisions? By discovery, exploration, settlement, will be the answer. 
 
 But, says the American Plenipotentiary, in another part of his statement, the rights of S|»aiii to 
 the west coast of America, as far north as the 61st degree of latitude, were so complete as never 
 to have been seriously questioned by any European nation. 
 
 They had been maintained by Spain with the most vigilant jealousy, ever since the discovery 
 of the American continent, and had been acquiesced in by all European Powers. They had been 
 admitted even by Russia, and that, too, imder a sovereign peculiarly tenacious of the territorial 
 rights of her empire, who, when complaints had been made to the cpurt of Russia against Ilussiaii 
 subjects, for violating the Spanish territory on the north west coast of America, did not hesitate 
 
 r-ry^tyrfmr^ 
 
 to assure the King of Spain tliat she was extremely sorry that tlie repeatetl orders issued to pre- 
 vent the subjects of Russia from violatijjg, in the sn)ullest degree, the territory belonging to 
 "another power, should have been disobeyed. 
 
 In what did this alleged violation of territory co'isist ? Assuredly in some attcnptcd acts of 
 discovery, exploration, or settlement. 
 
 At that time Russia stood in exactly the same position with reference to the exclusive rijriits 
 of Spain as the United States; and any acts in contravention of those rights, wiicther cnianatiiig 
 from Russia or from the United States, would necessarily he judged by one and the same rule. 
 How then can it be pretended that acts which, in the case of Russia, were considered as cri 
 minal violations of the Spanish territory, should, in the case of citizens of the United States, he 
 appealed to as constituting a valid title to the territory affected by them ; and yet from this 
 inconsistency the American Plenipotentiary cannot escape, if he persists in considering the Ame- 
 rican title to have been perfected by discovery, exploration, and settlement, when as yet Spain 
 had made no transfer of her rights, if, to use his own words, " that title is older than the Florida 
 treaty, and exists independently of its provisions." 
 
 According to the doctrine of exclusive dominion, the exploration of Lewis and Clarke, and the 
 establishment founded at the mouth of the Columbia, must be condeumed as encroachments ou 
 the territorial rights of Spain. 
 
 According to the opposite principle, by which discovery, exploration, and settlement are consi- 
 dered as giving a valid claim to territory, those very acts are referred to in the course of the 
 same paper as constituting a complete title in favour of the United States. 
 
 Besides, how shall we reconcile this high estimation of the territorial rights of Spain, consi- 
 dered independently of the Nootka Sound convention, with the course observed by the United 
 States in their diplomatic transactions with Great Britain, previously to the conclusion of the 
 Florida treaty ? The claim advanced for the restitution of Fort George, under the first article of 
 the treaty of Ghent ; the arrangement concluded for the joint occupation of the Oregon terri- 
 tory by Great Britain and the United States; and, above all, the proposal actually made on the 
 part of the United States for a partition of the Oregon territory ; all which transactions took 
 place in the year 1818, when as yet Spain had made no transfer or cession of her rights — apj)ear 
 to be as little reconcilable with any regard for those rights, while still vested in Spain, as the 
 claim founded on discovery, exploration, and settlement, accomplished previously to the transfer 
 of those rights to the United States. 
 
 Supposing the arrangement proposed in the year 1818, or any other arrangement for the par- 
 tition of the Oregon territory to have been concluded in those days, between Great Britain and 
 this country, what would, in that case, have become of the exclusive rights of Spain ? 
 
 There would have been no refuge for the United States but in an appeal to the principles of the 
 Nootka convention. 
 
 To deny, then, the validity of the Nootka convention, is to proclaim the illegality of any title 
 founded on discovery, exploration, or settlement, previous to the conclusion of the Florida treaty. 
 To appeal to the Florida treaty as conveying to the United States any exclusive rights, is to 
 attach a character of encroachment and of violation of the rights of Spain to every act to which 
 the United States appealed in the negotiation of 1818, as giving them a claim to territory on 
 the north-west coast. 
 
 These conclusions appear to the undersigned to be irresistihle. 
 
 The United States can found no claim on discovery, exploration, and settlement, effected pre- 
 viously to the Florida treaty, without admitting the principles of the Nootka convention, and 
 the consequent validity of the parrallel claims of Great Britain founded on like acts ; nor can 
 they appeal to any exclusive right as acquired by the Florida treaty, without upsetting all claims 
 adduced in their own proper right, by reason of discovery, exploration, and settlement, ante- 
 v^ cedent to that arrangement. 
 
 in their c 
 
 In 179 
 
 In 18!) 
 branch o 
 
 In 181 
 lumbia, t 
 
 Thisp 
 the perse 
 in 1818, 
 America! 
 pied by 1 
 
 These 
 as giving 
 
 TheB 
 them the 
 attendinj 
 subject, 1 
 as giving 
 
 In the 
 navigato 
 in a nati 
 Cook an( 
 to the n( 
 
 In the 
 followed 
 
 made kn 
 
 as the y< 
 
 one of t! 
 
 Gray's d 
 
 In the 
 
 ' rupted b 
 
 '■ Chathan 
 
 With 
 
 • route pu 
 ' their hoi 
 ! cipal bra 
 i versed a 
 
 • Thom 
 the nort 
 drah.ed 
 
 j It wai 
 
 I stream c 
 
 : miles fr( 
 
 j These 
 
 ' Clarke's 
 
 ; whole vi 
 
 i As to 
 
 ; theresti 
 
 It wil 
 
 explorat 
 
 the Ore! 
 
 That 
 
 rest the 
 
 a claim 
 
 That, 
 
 ;. Britain, 
 
 ] After 
 
 1 tive vail 
 
 will not 
 
 offered 
 
 This 
 
 : negotiai 
 
 Ontl 
 
 both pa 
 
 Ontl 
 
 while, \ 
 
 49°, th( 
 
 j claim t< 
 
 I The 1 
 
 some fii 
 
 . and eqi 
 
 I statemc 
 
 plenipo 
 
 Thei 
 
 Secreta 
 
 Hon. 
 
II <iiicstioii. 
 Amcricuu 
 e imt forth 
 ), that the 
 18, and pre- 
 oflatitudc. 
 to the (jua- 
 osed, or ut 
 
 ipotentiary 
 ■ of its pro- 
 convention 
 
 iloss it be 
 lited States 
 1H19, and 
 swer. 
 
 of Spain to 
 ;tc as never 
 
 1 discovery 
 y had been 
 territorial 
 nst Uussiai 
 lot hesitate 
 
 in their own proper right. 
 
 In 1792, Gray entered the mouth of the Columbia River. 
 
 In 1805, Lewis and Clarke effected a passage across the Rocky Mountains, and discovering a 
 branch of the Columbia River, followed it until tliey reached the ocean. 
 
 In 1811, the trading post or settlement of Astoria wa^ established at the mouth of the Co- 
 lumbia, on the northern side of that river. 
 
 This post or settlement passed during the last war into British hands by the voluntary act of 
 the persons in charge of it — a fact most clearly established. It was restored to the United States 
 in 1818, with certain well-authenticated reservations ; but it was never actually re-occupied by 
 American citizens, having, from the moment of the original transfer or sale, continued to be occu- 
 pied by British subjects. 
 
 These are the acts of discovery, exploration, and settlement, referred to by the United States 
 as giving them a claim to the valley of the Columbia, in their own proper right. 
 
 The British Government are disposed to view them in the most liberal sense, and to give to 
 them the utmost value to which they can in fairness be entitled ; but there are circumstances 
 attending each and all of them, which must, in the opinion of any impartial investigator of the 
 subject, take from them a great deal of the effect which the American negotiators assign to them 
 as giving to this country a claim to the entire region drained by the Columbia audits branches. 
 
 In the first place, as relates to the discovery of Gray, it must be remarked that he was a private 
 navigator, sailing principally for the i)ur|)oses of trade, which fact establishes a wide difference, 
 in a national point of view, between tiic discoveries accomplished by him and those effected by 
 Cook and Vancouver, who sailed in ships of the Koyal navy of Great Britain, and who were sent 
 to the north-west coast for the express purpose of exploration and discovery. 
 
 In the next place, it is a circumstance not to be lost sight of, that<it was not for several years 
 followed up by any act which could give it value in a nuliunal point of view ; it was not in truth 
 
 '■■;:iKi«i{8^:^lijPiii^i>ife;-rt,>..^^ 
 
 iued to pro 
 iloiigiiig to 
 
 cd acts ol' 
 
 isive rights 
 emanating 
 
 same rule, 
 red as cri • 
 
 d States, be 
 from tbih, 
 
 ig the Amc- 
 
 ) yet Si)aiii 
 the Florida 
 
 ke, and the 
 chmenls on 
 
 it are consi- 
 irse of tiie 
 
 )ain, consi- 
 tlic United 
 isioii of the 
 St article of 
 •egon terri- 
 nade on the 
 ictions took 
 lits — ai)i)ear 
 ain, as the 
 the transfer 
 
 for the par- 
 Britain and 
 
 1? 
 
 ciplcsof the 
 
 ' of any title 
 orida treaty, 
 ights, is to 
 act to which 
 territory on 
 
 effected prc- 
 ention, and 
 ts ; nor can 
 ng all claims 
 ment, ante- 
 
 made known to the world either by the discoverer himself, ov by his Government. So recently 
 as the year 182G, the American Plenipotentiaries in fiondon remarked, with great con eetness, in 
 one of their reports, that, *' respecting the mouth of the Columbia River, we know nothing of 
 Gray's discoveries but through British accounts." 
 
 In the next i)lacc, the connexion of Gray's discovery with tliat of Lewis and Clarke is inter- 
 rupted by the intervening exploration of jLieulcnant iJroughtou, of the British surveying-ship 
 Chatham. 
 
 With respect to the expedition of Lewis and Clarke, it must, on a close examination of the 
 route pursued by them, be confessed that, neither on their outward journey to the Pacific, nor on 
 their homeward journey to the United States, did they touch upon the head waters of the prin- 
 cipal branch of the Columbia River, which lie far to the north of the parts of the country tra- 
 versed and explored by them. 
 
 Thompson, of the British North-west Company, was the first civilized person who navigated 
 the northern, in reality the main branch of the Columbia, or traversed any part of the country 
 drahied by it. 
 
 It was by a tributary of the Columbia, that Lewis and Clarke made their way to the main 
 stream of that river, which they reached at a point distant, it is believed, not more than 200 
 miles from the point to which the river had already been explored by Broughton. 
 
 These facts, the undersigned conceives, will be found sufficient to reduce the value of Lewis and 
 Clarke's exploration on the Columbia to limits which would by no means justify a claim to the 
 whole valley drained by that river and its branches. 
 
 As to settlement, the qualified nature of the rights devolved to the United States, by virtue of 
 the restitution of Fort Astoria, has already been pointed out. 
 
 It will thus be seen, the undersigned confidently believes, that on the grounds of discovery, 
 exploration, and settlement. Great Britain has nothing to fear from a comparison of her claims to 
 the Oregon territory, taken as a whole, with those of the United Slates. 
 
 That reduced to the valley drained by the Columbia, the facts on which the United States 
 rest their case are far from being of that complete and exclusive character which would justify 
 a claim to the whole valley of tlie Columbia; atid 
 
 That, especially as relates to "Vancouver's Island, taken by itself, the preferable claim of Great 
 Britain, in every point of view, seems to have been clearly demonstrated. 
 
 After this exposition of the views entertained by the British Government respecting the rela- 
 tive value and importance qf the British and American claims, the American Plenipotentiary 
 will not be surprised to hear that the undersigned docs not feel at liberty to accept the proposal 
 offered by the American Plenijiotentiary for the settlement of the question. 
 
 This proposal, in fact, offers less than that tendered by the American plenipotentiaries in the 
 negotiation of 1826, and declined by the British Government. 
 
 On that occasion it was proposed that the navigation of the Columbia should be made free to 
 both parties. 
 
 On this, nothing is said in the proposal to which the undersigned has now the honour to reply; 
 while, with respect to the proposed freedom of the ports on Vancouver's Island south of latitude 
 49°, the facts which have been appealed to in this paper, as giving to Great Britain the strongest 
 claim to the possession of the whole island, would seem to deprive such a proposal of any value. 
 
 The undersigned, therefore, trusts that the American Plenipotentiary will be prepared to offer 
 some further proposal for the settlement of the Oregon question more consistent with fairness 
 and equity, and with the reasonable expectatioiis of the British Government, as defined in the 
 statement (marked D), which the undersigned had the honour to present to the Aniericau 
 plenipotentiary at the early jiart of the present negotiation. 
 
 The undersigned British Plenipotentiary has the honour to renew to the Hon. James Buchanan, 
 Secretary of State and Plenipotentiary of the United States, the assuranceofhishigh consideration. 
 
 Hon. James Buchanan, Hfc. P. PAKENHAM. 
 
T?*f 
 
 ir 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 Map of Oregov Coi3NTinr, June 6.1838. with Report of Senator Lwn 
 
 LIBRARY OF 
 
 Number 
 
 ^ 
 
 '■> •;«:..■.