6^ ^V. - .o. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I .....2.0 12.2 liliiiS 1.25 1.4 1^-* ■9 6" — ► V] V) ^> ^ 7 -(^ Photographic Sciences Corporation «■ 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SB0 (716) S73-4S03 ^ '^' "^ •*' V^?*" 4f^ '^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical 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 D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tighi binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re Mure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ li se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dani) le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilmd 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 indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur n ■J u v/ n n Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pagbs restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou peliiculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^colordes, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualitd in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du mat6riel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalemsnt ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillAt d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont dt6 film^es h nouveau de fa^on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessout 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X j i / 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X aire details ues du : modifier ger une < filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. i6es Original copies in printed paper 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 impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le socond plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commen9ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN ". ire IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtrb reproduit en un seul cliche, (I est film6 A partir de I'angle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iilustrent la m6thode. ly errata 9d to nt ne pelure, ipon d 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 ( T] BA s THE OREGON QUESTION; OR, A STATEMENT OF THK BRITISH CLAIMS TO THE OREGON TERRITORY, IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRETENSIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. By THOMAS FALCONER, Esq., BARRISTER y.T LAW OF LINCOLN'S INN, MEMBER OF THE ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY, ETC. LONDON: SAMUEL CLARKE, 13 PALL MALL EAST. 1845. LONDON: PRINTED BY RETNEU, AND WEIGHT, LITTLE PULTENEY 8TKEET. The to t] Orej latel MIs£ ge8t( byl cont whi( nate ordi Ore lawj inca sole reje PREFACE. The following pages are a reprint of an argument relating to the pretensions of the American Government to the Oregon Territory, contained in a small work which I lately published, entitled, * On the Discovery of the Mississippi, &c.' Some additions to it have been sug- gested by a work of a very intemperate character, written by Mr Farnhara, and largely circulated in America, which contains statements that I could not have anticipated, and which it is right to notice. The subject itself, unfortu- nately, has obtained a new importance through the extra- ordinary conduct of the House of Representatives at Washington in passing a Bill for the Occupation of the Oregon Territory ; a measure which, if it should become law, the general Government of the United States is incapacitated to enforce, so long as it shall respect the solemn obligations of an existing treaty. It may be rejected by the Senate, and very probably will be, but there is too much reason to believe that the new Con- gress, which meets in December next, will entertain it with more favour, unless the impropriety and injustice of it shall be more generally understood in America than at present. T. R rUTNRY, MaROII 12, 18},'). H ,\ ?"•! i.V!*• Ln.io.if^ M'vi't :i:iii^^liliili|l!j m\h jnillllliyili, 'lo llll l lO /o /c "^ •sm- .«4" , '-""^ } *»v*, /. «•■••■. \ ■ A *-^Tiw «.* rf- ■# 1 i''>»"/ " ■ /'fW''^ ■'■■ .„<•■•'■ o ■ /it*''' ■ • 'f " f --««*« ,;)!«» 3w- H ':^: JIP^ ;t; m:x " i'*d.„ ►<'*\../ ■\i^?i:A'i y ^? >c^ c>' i;£^ "" I..., v.iy^i*'^ '■<»*•■' ,-«.-■"■■''■ ' .i^u" t^- i l*-**'^ •'k •. \ \ ' ji^' t> F"~- ~ •^ liWfil'iil .'A,/' R>u^lU S. {-.li.lit.U.iti M'Vft Kuer-.r.l lu- .1 i <• Wjr. THE OREGON QUESTION. The discussions respecting the Oregon Territory involve an argument on the legal rights of the British government to . the territory in dispute. They may portend a storm, and at present there is something unpleasant in them, from the violence of the language used in America, and the participation of the chief men of that country in attacks on the English government. But they may exhaust them- selves, and there may be a calm for a time. Nevertheless, the necessity for the settlement of the dispute is urgent, whether hostility ia intended, or pacific dispositions shall happily prevail. The chief works published in America on the subject, are — 1. The History of Oregon and California, and the other Territories on the North- West Coast of America. By Robert Greenhow, Librarian to the Department of the United States. Boston, 1844. Svo.Pp. 482. 2. History of the Oregon Territory, it bein^ a De- monstration of the Title of the United States to the same. By Thomas J. Farnham, New York. 1844. Pp. 80. 3. Report of a Committee of House of Representatives, of the 28th Congress, to whom was referred the Bill, No. 21, "to organize a Territorial government in the Oregon Territory, and for other purposes." March 12, 1844. So much irrelevant matter is contained in these works, that the answer to them may be condensed in a few pages. The reply may, perhaps, be dry enough in being confined to the material facts of the case, but it is certainly not advisable to imitate the desultory tactics of the American disputants. The foundation of the American claim to the Oregon Territory depends on the extent of the country known by i 6 i the name of Louisiana, at the time that it was purchased by the American government in 1803, and on the effect of a treaty made with the government of Spain in 1819. The first French colony in Louisiana was established by a distinguished Canadian, named D'Iberville, under the authority of a commission from Louis XIV, granted to him for this express purpose, and the country remained subject to the dominion of France until the year 1762. By the treaty of Paris, agreed upon in November, 1762, and signed the 10th of February, 1763, and made between the governments of England, France, and Spain; the countries of Nova Scotia, Canada, and Cape Breton, were ceded to En£^!;ind, pnd the eastern limits of the re- maining French settlements " were irrevocably fixed by a line drawn along the middle of the river Mississippi, from its source to the river Iberville, and from thence by a line drawn along the middle to this river and the Lakes Maurepas and Ponchartrain to the sea." The river and Fort of Mobil'3, and everything which France possessed on the left bank of the Mississippi being ceded, " except the town of New Orleans and the island on which it is situated." By the 20th article of the same treaty, the government of Spain ceded to England that portion of North America <^alled Florida, with Fort St Augustin and the Bay of Pensacola, and all that it possessed on the continent of North America to the east or gouth-east of the river Mis- sissippi. By a secret treaty made Nov. 3, 176^^ and signed the same day on which the preliminaries of peace between Great Britain, France, and Spain, were signed, — the government of France ceded to that of Spain " all the country known under the name of Louisiana, as also New Orleans and the island on which that city is situated " — that is, so much of Louisiana as had not been agreed to be transferred by France to Great Britain. On the 3rd of September, 1783, by the treaty made between Great Britain and Spain, — East and West Florida were ceded by Great Britain to the Spanish government, which thus became again possessed of these its ancient colonies. By th6 treaty made on the 3rd of September, 1783, between Great Britain and the United States of America, the independence of these states was recognised, and their noi^h-western, western, and southern boundaries were thus described: — " By a line through the middle of Lake Erie until it arrives at the a' Her communication between that lake and Lake Huron , thence along the middle of the said water communication into the Lake Huron, thence through the middle of the said lake to the water communi- cation between that lake and Lake Superior ; thence through Lake Superior, northward of the Isles Royal andPhilipeaux, to the Long Lake ; thence, through the middle of Long Lake and the water between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the Lake of the Woods ; thence through the said lake to the most north-western point thereof; and from thence, on a due west course, to the River Mississippi j whence, by a line drawn along the middle of the said Jiiver Mississippi, until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the 31st degree of north latitude — south, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned in the latitude 31 degrees north of the equator to the middle of the River Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River; thence straight to the head of the St Mary's River, and thence along the middle of the St Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean." There was one error in this otherwise clearly defined boundary : — the head waters of the Mississippi River are south or the Lake of the Woods, and, consequentlv, a line carried due west from the lake would not touch tne river. The clear intention of both parties was to terminate the boundary where this junction was expected to take place — where, if the Mississippi had continued in a course N. it would have intersected the line running due west from the Lake of the Woods. This obvious correction of the mis- take is adopted in the map lately published in America by Mr Greennow, in which a dotted lino from the head waters of the Mississippi to the line running due west of the Lake of the Woods completes this boundary. But nothing west or north of this line was granted by Great Britain to the United States in 1783, and nothing north of the head waters of the Mississippi was retained by France under the treaty of 1763. On October 1, 1800, Louisiana was retroceded by Spain ti» France " with the same extent that it now has in 8 the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states." It was an act of retrocession, but it transferred so much less than France originally held, as had been shorn from it by the treaty of 1763, which gave to Great Britain, and through Great Britain to the United States, nearly the entire eastern bank of the Mississippi. In 1803, with the consent of Bonaparte, then First Consul, Louisiana was sold to the United States for eleven million of dollars. The purchase included all lands " on the east side of the Mississippi River [so as to include New Orleans], not then belonging to the United States, as far as the great chain of mountains which divide the waters run- ning into the Pacific and those falling into the Atlantic Ocean ; and from the said chain of monntains to the Pacific Ocean, between the territory claimed by Great Bri- tain on the one side and by Spain on the other."* — (^History of the Federal Government,' by Alden Bradford, LL.D., Editor of the Massachusetts State Papers. Boston, 1840. P. 130.)— No point was mentioned where the line in the chain of mountains was to commence, nor where the tract of land lay, forming a portion of Louisiana, lying between the territory claimed by Spain and Great Britain. France had nothing to sell but what constituted Louisiana after the cession made to Great Britain in 1763. There was, nevertheless, inserted, in this treaty of sale, a reference to a perfectly undefined line to the Pacific, having no defined point of commencement, and referring to territory having no definable boundaiy either on the north, or the south, or on the east. But before the treaty for the purchase was completed. President JeflPerson, in a letter dated August 12, 1803, wrote thus to Mr Breckenridge: — "The boundary which I deem not admitting question are the high lantfs on the western side of the Mississippi, inclosing all its waters — the Missouri, of course — and terminating in the line drawn from the nortl -western point, from the Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of the Mississippi, as lately settled between Great Britain and the United States. We have some claims to extend on the sea-coast west- • Mr Grcenhow, in his elaborate work on the Oregon queBtion, has omittod all notice of this very iinportnut passage. was an 9 wardly to the Rio Norte or Bravo — and better to go east- wardly to the Rio Perdido between Mobile and Pensacola, the ancient boundary of Louisiana," It is evident, there- fore, that at this time no French title to any line running bey^>nd the mountains on the west was known to have existed. In 1819, Don Louis de Onis was commissioned, on the part of the government of Spain, to confer with the government of the United States on the south-western boundary of Louisiana. The negotiations were terminated by the treaty called the Florida Treaty, signed at Wash- ington on the 22nd of February, 1819.* The south- western boundary of Louisiana had previously been the Arroyo, midway between Nachitoches and the Adeas, this having been the dividing line in 1762, before the cession of Louisiana to Spain. 13y this treaty the boundary west was fixed to be the River Sabine to the 32nd degree of latitude ; thence due north to the Rio Roxo or the Red River of Nachitoches ; thence westward along this river to the degree longitude 100 west from London {qucere, Green- wich) and 23 from Washington ; thence due north to the River Arkansas ; thence to its source in 42° latitude ; or if the source is north or south of latitude 42°, along a line ♦ In consequence of the omission, on tlie part of the Spanish government, to ratify this treaty within the time agreed on, I'ro- sidcnt Munroe, in his message of December 11, HIVJ, asserted some principles which were entirely forgotten by General Cass and Mr Wheatson when the ratification ef the late treaty between Great liritain and France was pending. " The government of Spain had no justifiable cause for declining to ratify the treaty. A treaty con- cluded in conformity with instructions is obligatory, in good faith, in all its stipulations, according to the true intent and meaning of the p.irties. ivich party is bound to ratify it. If either could set it aside, without the consent of the other, there would no longer be any rules applicable to such transaclions between nations. iJy this ])roceeding tlio government of Spain has rendered to the United States a new and serious injury.' — '* IJy this {)roceeding SpnI.i has formed n relation between the two countries which will justify any measures, on the part of the United States, which a strong sense of injury and a proper regard for the rights and interests of the nation may dictate. In the course to be pursued these objects should bo constantly held in view, and have their due weight. Our national honour must be maintained, and a new and distinguished proof bo afforded of that regard for justice and moderation which has inva- riably governed the councils of this free people." 10 due north or south until it meets the parallel of latitude 42° ; and thence along this parallel to the Pacific. Thus was the undefined line (ante, p. 8) from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific inserted in the agreement for the purchase of Louisiana converted into a defined line. A sweeping clause was included in the Florida Treaty, by which the United States ceded to Spain and "re- nounced for ever" all rights, claims, and pretensions to territories lying west and south of the described boundary, and Spain ceded to the United States all lights, claims, and pretensions to territories east and north ot this boundary. On this clause «he claim of the United States to the Oregon Territory chiefly depends. As the treaty was negotiated in order to carry into eiFect the transfer of Louisiana, it is material to ascertain how far to the west this province extended when the sale of it was made. The first notice of the western boundary of Louisiana, of any authority, is in the grant made, September 17, 1712, by Louis XI v to Crozat. This grant empowered him " to carry on exclusively the trade in all our territories by us possessed and bounded by New Mexico, and by those of the English in Carolina; all the establishments, ports, harbours, rivers, and especially the port and harbour of Dauphin Island, formerly called Massacre Island; the River St Louis, formerly called the Mississippi, from the sea-shore to the Illinois ; together with the River St Philip, formerly called the Missouri River, and the St Jerome, formerly called the Wabash (the Ohio), with all the coun- tries, territories, lakes inland, and the rivers emptying them- selves directly or indirectly into that part of the river St Louis. All the said territories, countries, streams, and islands, we will to be and remain comprised under the name of * The Government of Louisiana,' which shall be dependent on the general govermnent of New France^ and remain subordinate to it ; and we will, moreover, that all the territories which we possess on this side of the Illinois be united, as far as need be, to the general government of New France, and form a part thereof, reserving to our- selves 1 3 increase, if we think proper, the extent of the government of the said country of Louisiana," This document defined with tolerable precision the pro- vince of Louisiana. It was partly bounded on the west by 11 New Mexico ; it did not extend beyond the Rocky Moun- tains, for the rivers emptying themselves into the Missis- sippi have their sources on the east side of these mountains, and it was to reach the Illinois to the north. It was also declared that the government should be dependent on the general government of New France — that was, subject to the superior authority of the Governor of Canada. Some years subsequently the Illinois was added to Louisiana. New Mexico bounded it, at least as high as 41 degrees, or above the source of the Rio del Norte. There was no strip of land to the west belonging to France, as mentioned in the purchase of 1803, ** lying between the territory claimed by Great Britain on the one side and Spain on the other ;" and Mr Greenhow admits " that we are forced to regard the boundaries indicated by nature — namely, the highlands separating the waters of the Mississippi from those flowing into the Pacific or the Californian Gulf — as the true western boundaries of Louisiana, ceded to the United States by France in 1803."— (Greenhow, p. 283.) The consequence, therefore, is, that the purchase of Louisiana included so much territory as was bounded on the north by a line running from the source of the Missis- sippi due west to the mountains (ante, p. 7); on the west by the mountains ; on the east by the River Mississippi ; and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. A still more important consequence is, that the title to the territory claimed by the United States, west of the mountains — so far as it depends on any alleged Spanish rights — dates from the year 1819, and is derivable from the Florida Treaty made with Spain, and not from the pur- chase of Louisiana. The agreement with France in 1803 professed to give "a line" across some country lyin^ be- tween the territory claimed by Spain and Great Britain, which the government of France had no title to interfere with, and the Florida Treaty, which was made between Spain and the United States, in order to carry into exe- cution that made between France and the United State . defined the northern boundary of Mexico to be a line running along the 42nd parallel of latitude, from the mountains to the Pacific, and accompanied it with a ces- sion of Spanish rights to the north (ante, p. 10). On the conclusion of this treaty it was contended, on the part of the United States, that Great Britain had no title to any 12 territory north of that parallel, on the ground that no other country but Spain had a right to such territory. It is, consequently, material to ascertain what were the English claims to the Oregon Territory prior to the year 1819, that is, to the territory not forming a part of Louisiana in 1803. The government of Spain during its possession of Mexico never made any settlement on the western coast north of Cape Mendocino (lat. 40" 29' N). It was a vacant territory, subject to the same rules of settlement that had governed the settlement oi other portions of North Ame- rica. " Having touched only here and there upon a coast," said Queen Elizabeth to the Spanish Ambassador, "and given names to a few rivers or capes, were such insig^ nificant things as could in no ways entitle them (the Spaniards) to a propriety farther than in the parts where they actually settled and continued to inhabit." And the principle embodied in this speech has been the rule acted on by nearly every European nation. The discovery of the coast noitb of Cape Mendocino was made by Drake, and the ar<^umeiit in support of this fact has been well stated in the morning Chronicle in these words : — " It suits Mr Greenhow's purpose to treat a portion of Sir Francis Drake's discoveries on the north-west coast of Ame- rica as extremely fabulous, whilsi he accords credit, even then somewhat qualified, to such as will not interfere with the claims of his countrymen. Such a line drawn between one portion of the deeds of the naval hero and another is, as we shall see shortly, somewhat disingenuous. It is an important point in Mr Greenhow's case, however much he may pretend to undervalue it, to ward off Drake and his companions from the disputed coast, so far as all latitudes above 43 deg. north are concerned. From what he states in p. 124, he is not exactly sure that Drake saw the coast as far north as lat. 43 deg. In spcakin^^ of the first discovery of the Columbia River by Bodega and Maure/.le, who sailed under the command of Hcceta, he there says, that, 'Of these coasts, the portion south of the 43rd degree of latitude had been seen by Ferrelo in 1543, and po.mbl)/ by Drake in 15/8.' Now all the land north of lat. 38 deg. seen by Drake in 1578, was unappro- priated when Drake visited it, and took possession of it, giving It the name of New Albion, and, as such, it is found on French and Spanish maps of an old date, the southern boundary of New Albion lying then many degrees to the southward of what 13 tti IS not is now the northern limit of Mexico. But it is Mr Green- how's purpose to prevent New Albion at all hazards from embracing the Columbia. Drake possibly^ says Mr Green- how, touched the coast, as far north as lat. 43 deg. Had it been lat. 42 deg. instead of 43 deg. — the former being the southern boundary a/'signed since 1819 to the Oregon territory — he might not have been so ready to throw any doubt upon that parallel as the extent of Drake's discovery to the north- ward — for Drake might have ascended as far as the forty- second parallel, without embracing within the limits of New Albion one single degree of the territory now claimed by the United States. Mr Greenhow cares not what force the claims of Drake as a discoverer may have south of lat. 43 deg., or rather 42 deg., as any claim which might in that case be founded u,3on his discovery by the British government would bring it exclusively in collision with Mexico, but New Albion not only embraced a considerable portion of territory now in- cluded within the limits of Mexico, but also extended several degrees to the northward of the 42nd parallel of latitude ; at all events, sufficiently so to embrace within the scope of Drake's discoveries the mouth of the Columbia. This is by no means a^- unimportant point for us to establish, inasmuch as it puts beyond a doubt the superiority of our claims in our after disputes with Spain, and consequently the futility of the claim which the United States now set up — by virtue of cession from Spain. "That Drake didno^ discover the north-west coast as far as lat. 48 deg., is a proposition based, as Mr Greenhow admits, on no positive evidence ; yet, on the other hand, says he, the assertion that he did * is not supported by sufficient evidence,' and * where originally made, it is accompanied by statements certainly erroneous, and calculated to destroy the value of the whole tcptimony.' The erroneousness of these statements we shall consider by-and-by, after following, in brief detail, the course of the British discoverer on this — until his day — un- known coast. " To do so satisfactorily, we must pay some attention to dates, and to geographical positions. That Drake had crossed the 42nd parallel of latitude, by the 3rd of June, 1579, is a matter admitted on all hands. The controversy turns upon his movements between this date and the 17th of the same month, when he sought shelter in a small bay, situated in lat. 38 deg., and where he remained five weeks repairing his vessel and trafficking with the natives. Of these movements we have two different accounts, prepared by two members of the expe- dition, varying from each other in matters really unimportant, 14 but by no means, ir. the general conclusion which they each tend to establish, contradictory of each other. Mr Greenhow gives us to understand that a considerable interval of time elapsed between the publication of these two accounf.s, from which he insinuates an unfavourable inference in rctgard to that latest published, owing to the length of time which elapsed between its appearance and the conclusion of the voyage — a consideration from which we are inclined to infer favourably of both accounts, establishing, as it does, the entire absence of concert or collusion between their respective authors, whilst all apprehensions of mistake or forgetfulness on the part of the author of that latest published are removed by the fact that his account was prepared for publication from notes taken during the acttial progress of the expedition. That l*lr Greenhow deems it important to divert Drake from the Columbia is evident from the anxiety he displays to make it ap'^ear that, after the 3rd of June, the course of the British admiral was southward to the bay above named, in lat. 3b deg. In * The World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake,* one of the two narratives just alluded to, Fletcher, a preacher attached to the expedition, tells us that on the 3rd of June they were in lat. 42 deg., and that on the 5th of the same month they anchored near the shore in a * bad bay,' in lat. 48 deg., but that, being driven from this bay by the violence of the winds, they ran southward along the coast, until they reached lat. 38 deg., where they found the harbour in which their vessel was refitted. Pretty, in his • Famous Voyage of Sir F. Drake,' states that on the 6th of June the vessel was 'n lat. 43 deg., when it was determined to seek the land. There is certainly here a slight difference in date?, but far from sufficient to throw discredit upon the narratives, when we consider the more important points in which they do not thus conflict. Pretty does not mention at what particular point land was first made, but he informs us that when they did make it, finding no proper harboui., they coasted in a southerly direction until the 17 th of the same month, when ' it pleased God to send them into a fair and good bay, within 38 deg. towards the line.' They both, therefore, agree that land was made about the 5th, and that it was because a harbour sufficiently good could not be found when they first approached it^ that thoy ran to the southward, until they at length found, in lat. 38 deg., what they were in quest of, — an available harbour. It appeals, then, from Fletcher, that the point where they first made land was in lat. 48 deg., whilst there is nothing in Pretty's account to contradict this assertion. In disproofi howeve. , of the assertion that Drake discovered the cobst as far north as the 15 48th deg. of latitude, Mr Greenhow assures us that, * in the first place, it would be difficult, if noc impossible, for any ves- sel in two days to pass through six degrees of latitude north- ward, with *.he wind, as we are assured by both accounts, blowing constantly and violently from the north and north- west; and that much confidence cannot be placed on assertions as to latitude, based on observations made in a vessel on a stormy sea, with imperfect instruments, and when the atmos- phere was generally charged with thick fogs.' As to the first objection, it might be quite true that, under such unfavourable circumstances; no vessel could traverse six degrees of latitude ; but it does not necessarily follow that, because the wind was blowing violently from the north and north-west, Drake's course must have been ue north, to reach the 48th parallel. To ensure this, he must have been close upon the land on the 3rd of June, when he was in latitude 42 or 43 degrees — an improbable conjecture, when we consider that, from the time when he had lefl the American coast, in latitude 16 degrees, until the 3rd of June, when it was determined to make land again, his course had been west and north-west ; so that on that day, on reaching latitude 43 degrees, he must have been far to the westward of the coast. His object was to find a pas- sage to England by a northern route — afraid to attempt the route by Cape Horn, or the Straits of Magellan, for fear he should be intercepted by the Spaniards, who he knew were on the look out for him, to recover the booty he had secured by the plunder of their towns and shipping. In attempting to make land, therefore, <^n the 3rd of June, nothing would be more likely than that he should shape his course to the north- eFtst, which, with the wind a-beam, if blowing from the north- v^est, would enable him to make, without much difficulty, from five to six degrees in the course of two days. There is not, therefore, the glaring impossibility in the matter which Mr Greenhow would have us to believe. As to his objection to the doubtful nature r^f their observations, it would apply as much to their observcttions on the 3rd as on the 5th of June. Mr Greenhow, in maintaining that latitude 42 or 43 degrees was the highest attained by the expedition, and which was attained from the 3rd to the 6th oi June, throws no doubt upon the correctness of the observations which ascertained this — in his estimation — the highest point gained. But between the observations of the 3rd and those of the 5th, that Columbia River was included, and this is the only reason that we can perceive why Mr Greenhow should seek to throw discredit on the latter, for we are not told that the sea was more stormy, the instruments more imperfect, or the fogs thicker on the 5th 16 than they were on the 3rd. But wc do not rest our case solely upon the correctness or the incorrectness of these ohservations of latitude. There are ther circumstances mentioned in con- nexion with the expedi. which serve to put the correctness of these observations in . learest light, whilst these circum- stances are in turn supported and borne out by them. In the first place, we are told of the severe cold which the crew en- countered before Drake finally abandoned the coast. The description given of the climate Mr Greenhow characterises as an * intentional untruth.* We should like to know from Mr Greenhow what purpose the relators could have served, or wished to serve, in giving a statement of this kind to the world intentionally untrue. There was no boundary dispute then — there was no antagonist claim to the territory to be rebutted j they did not foresee the future importance of the coast, nor the disputes which would arise concerning it. The future claim of the United States and the United States themselves were then alike in the womb of futurity, undreamt of by the most visionary of that day. They could have no possible motive for deviating from a plain, straightforward statement of what they saw and what they expeiienced. Besides, if they exaggerated a little in speaking of the weather, it does not follow that they were dealing in wholesale falsehoods, or that their narratives were i7i toto vitiated by the little extra colouring which they may have given to their descriptions of the climate. It must be remem- bered that they had suddenly ascended from the tropics to an inhospitable latitude, and were, therefore, in a condition to feel the cold more severely than they would otherwise have done. This may sufficiently account for their imputing, if they did BO, exaggerated rigour to the climate. But we are far from being assured that they did. The writer of this has encoun- tered a uevere snow storm in the Gulf of St Lawrence, on the opposite coast of America, and precisely in the same latitude, on the 3rd day of June, the ropes and sails being at the same time stiffened wiih ice. MrGreenhow's experience of the genial latitudes of Washington may render him as incredulous to such statements as was the King of Siani in regard to the statement that water sometimes assumed a form in which it could sup- port an elephant. We do not say that snow and ice are com- mon occurrences in the Gulf of St Lawrence in the month of June, nor does it at all follow that they are so on the Pacific coast between the 43rd and 48th parallels, from the accounts furnished us by the comrades of Drake ; but it is by no means so impossible as Mr Greenhow imagines it, that in June, 1679, the weather on the north-west coast may have been as rigorous as it is depicted to have been. 17 e accounts "There is another important statement to be found in these narratives which must not be overlooked, In Fletcher's account we are told that the adventurers * searched the coast diligently, even unto the 48th degree, yet they found not the land to trend as much as one point in any place towards the east, but rather running on continually to the north-west, as if it went directly to meet with Asia.* If anything were want- ing to prove that Drake and his companions ascended to a much higher latitude than 43 degrees, it is abundantly fur- nished in this account of the inclmation of the coast at the point whence they deemed it advisable to return. Whatever doubts Mr Greenhow may attempt to throw upon their obser- vations of latitude, he admits that their observation of the coast, so far as they state it to trend in no one point to the east, is perfectly accurate. So it U ; for the direction of the coast from Cape Mendot;ino to about the 48th degree of lati- tude is almost due north. If, then, they were competent to judge of the inclination of the coast at one point, they were equally so to judge of it in another. The same parties who state, very correctly, that the land did not trend at all to the east, state also that they ?t length found it inclining in a north- westerly direction, as if stretching towards Asia. Mr Green- how, however, chooses to consider them, in this latter point, as either again deceived, or as guilty of another * intentional un- truth ;' and he triumphantly assures us that their 'hole testi- mony is invalidated, inasmuch as the land nowhf /e inclines to the north-west between the 40th and 48th degrees, but runs nearly due north. Very true, Mr Greenhow ; but what do wo find to be the case just at the 48th degree of north latitude ? Simply that at this precise point, the western coast of North America makes a remarkable deviation from its previous northerly direction, and runs thence in a course as nearly due west as before it ran due north. This is a circumstance which could not fail to impress itself upon any one who had seen the coast at this point. Had Fletcher been drawing on his ima- gination in making this statement— had he been hazarding a conjecture, instead of stating a fact which had come under his observation, he would more likely have given the coast a north-easterly than a north-westerly direction ; for it was under the firm conviction that the coast somewhere in these northern latitudes so inclined to the eastward as to allow them to pro- ceed by a northern route to Europe, that they had ascended into these latitudes at all. But Mr Greenhow, for precisely the same reason that he would throw discredit on their accounts of the climate, attempts to throw discredit also upon Fletcher's description of the north-westerly direction of the B coast. He would thus treat the former, because the intensity of the cold, as represented in the narratives, presupposes a higher latitude than 43 degrees, to which he would confine Sir Francis Drake ; and he would discredit the latter, because, by showing that the admiral had reached the point where the land inclined to the north-west, he had in fact reached the 48th parallel of latitude, the point assigned by Fletcher, and not denied by Pretty. We have already seen that Mr Greenhow himself does not call the accuracy of the narrator in question when he describes the direction in which the land from 43 deg. to 48 deg. didnot trend i and he cannot be allowed, to suit his own views, to attempt to falsify the statement of the same in- dividual, when he describes how it did trend when the expedi- tion reached the point where the coast first assumed its north- westerly inclination. He who is competent to say correctly that, in a distance of about 500 miles, a coast does not stretch at any point to the eastward, is surely competent to say when it stretches to the westward ; and when his statement in both cases tallies with what is now universally known to be true, he cannot be justly suspected of falsehood in the one case when he is admitted to have told the strict truth in the other. " But it is more convenient for Mr Greenhow to discredit his statement — as to having seen the coast running to the north- west — than to allow that the expedition reached a point where the coast did so incline ; for if Fletcher told the truth, the expedition did reach that point ; and if it did reach that point, it reached latitude 48 degrees, and, consequently, ascended nearly two degrees above the latitude of the mouth of the Columbia. '^ Thus, then, we see, that there is every reason to believe that Drake's discoveries on the north-west coast extended as far north as the 48th parallel of latitude, that is, about two degrees north of the Columbia River, and from 5 to 6 deg. north of the point which Mr Greenhow is willing to admit that he reached. We see that his course from the 3rd of June, when he deter- mined to make land, was a north-east, and not a southerly course, as Mr Greenhow would have it to be ; a conclusion which better tallies with the time at which he reached the bay in lat. 38 deg., than if he had steered directly south from the 43rd parallel. We have seen that Mr Greenhow deems it unlikely that Drake could have ascended from 5 to 6 degrees to the northward, against northerlv winds, in the short space of two days (that he was compelled thus to encounter head winds, however, being an erroneous conjecture, considering Drake's probable position on the 3rd) ; but is it not much more unlikely that he would have taken from twelve to four- 19 teen days to sail from 4 to 5 degrees to the soutliward, with a favouring north wind blowing all the time ; for he did not reach the bay in which he refitted until the 17lh? The whole of that time, however, might easily liave been consumed in first ascending to latitude 48 decrees ; and then, on finding no available harbour there, proceeding cautiously to the south- ward, until he entered what is considered to be the bay at present known as the Bay of San Francisco. Until, therefore, an equally authenticated discovery can be shown to have taken place prior to this period, of this same coast, in favour of Spain, the title of England to the ultimate exclusive sovereignty of the territory must stand unaffected by the pre- tensions of Spain, or those of any other power seeking to derive a right through her." Between titles founded on mere discovery^ the dis- covery of Drake gives a priority. But as the English made no settlement until about the vear 1790, the in- terval of two centuries would establish the fact of an abandonment of an intention to settle, if previous to 1790 the government of any other country had made a settle- ment on the coast ; for there can be no question, that mere discovery is not alone a complete title to possession* The first voyage made by the Spaniards along the western coast of America, w^hich it is necessary to notice, is that made by Juan Perez in 1774. The last voyage previously made by the Spaniards on this coast occurred as far back as the year 1603.- No oflficial account of the expedition of Juan Perez has been published, but it has been inferred that he discovered Nootka Sound; though it is admitted, at the same time, that the discovery of this important harbour is by general consent assigned to Captain Cook ; and that the government of Spain " has deprived itself of the means of establishing beyond question the claim of Perez to the discovery." — (Greenhow, p. 117.) On the return of Perez another expedition was sent to the North Seas by the Spanish government. It consisted of two vessels, the * Santiago,' commanded by Don Bruno Heceta, and the * Sonora,' commanded by Don Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra, who succeeded Ayala after the vessel sailed, and who had with him Maurelle as pilot. Soon after leaving the Isle de Dolores, north of the Columbia, the vessels parted company. Bodega proceeded north beyond the 56th degree of latitude, and examined the coast now belonging to and possessed by Russia. The 20 * Santiago' retamed, and on the 15th of August, 1775, Heceta observed an opening in the coast in lat. 46' ? 7', from which rushed a current so strong as to prevent his entering. This fact convinced him of the existence of a river, and he placed it on his chart, under the name of the Kio St Roc. — ('Greenhow, p. 120.) This is the first notice of the Columbia River. In the year 1778 Captain Cook visited the west coast of North America, to which Drake had given the name of New Albion. On the 7 th of March he reached the coast in 44 deg. of north latitude. He continued his exploration north, but passed the Columbia River without observing it. He discovered Nootka Sound, among other places, and having reached the land at the foot of Mount Ellas (lat. 60° 18'), continued his course round the coast to the Aleutian islands. This was the first voyage in which any survey of lue coast that can be relied on, or that even deserves the name, was made. In 1779 Spain became involved in a war with Great Britain, and its flag did not again appear on the coast north of Cape Mendocino until 1788. — (Greenhow, p. 126.) In 1789 the seizure was made of the *Iphigenia,' the 'Argonaut,* the * North- West America,' and the * Princess,' at Nootka, by the Spanish captain, Martinez. Meares, the Englishman chiefly concerned in the adventure and trade in which they were engaged, may, and certainly seems to, have misrepresented several facts connected with it; he may have hoisted other colours than British, in order to evade a supposed infringement of the rights of the East India Company ; and he may hh,ve demanded and obtained, as always happens in demands for indemnification, more than was actually lost; but Martinez certainly exceeded his authority, for he was specially instructed by the Vice- roy of Mexico not to capture any British vessels on the north-west coast. The personal facts of the case are not of the slightest importance ; the only question dependent on it is, whether or not the English or any other foreign nation had a right to trade on the coast, or, at this time, to make settlements upon it i' Now it is a clear and admitted fact that the government of Spain never made any settlement north of Cape Mendo- cino. The whole coast for upwards of 25 degrees north of this cape was waste, unsettled, and unoccupied. Through- 21 out the whole distance there was no person authorized to execute authority on the part of Spain, or any other power, at any single point. The right of making settlements under such circum- stances as these has been argued by Mr Greenhow, and hia argument is too important, upon account of its admissions, to omit. He says — ** It should be observed with regard to the right of the Spanish government to take possession of Nootka, that before the 6th of May, 1789, when Martinez entered the sound with that object, no settlement, factory, or other establishment whatsoever, had been founded or attempted ; nor had any jurisdiction been exercised by the authorities or subjects of a civilized nation in any part of America, bordering upon the Pacific, between Port San Francisco, near the 38th degree of north latitude, and Prince William's Sound, near the 60th. The Spailish, the British, the Russians, and the French had, indeed, landed at many places on these coasts, where they had displayed flags, performed ceremonies, and erected monuments, by way of ' taking possession,' as it is termed, of the adjacent territories for their respective Sove- reigns ; but such acts are, and were then, generally considered as empty pageants, securing no real rights to those by whom or in whose names they were performed. Nor docs it appear that any portion of the above-mentioned territories had become the property of a foreigner, either by purchase, occupation, or any other title which can be regarded as valid. " The right of exclusive sovereignty over these extensive regions was claimed by Spain in virtue of the papal concession in 1493, of the first discovery of the coast by Spanish subjects, and of the contiguity of the territories to the settled dominion of Spain. Of the validit}^ of the title derived from the papal concession, it is needless in the present day to speak. That the Spaniards were the first discoverers of the west coasts of America, as far north as the SOth parallel of latitude, has been shown ; and the fact is, and ever has been, since the pub- lication of Maurelle's * Journal' in 178i, as indisputable as that the Portuguese discovered the south coasts of Africa. The extent of the rights derived from discovery are, however, by no means clearly defined by writers on public law ; and the practice of nations has been so difterent in ditferent cases, that it seems impossible to deduce any general rule from it. That a nation whose subjects or citizens have ascertained the existence of a country, previously unknown, should have a belter right than any other to make settlements in that 22 country ; and, after sucb settlement, to own it, and to exercise sovereignty over it, is in every respect conformable with nature and Justice ; but this principle is liable to innumerable difficulties m its application to particular cases. It is seldom easy to decide how far a discovery may have been such, in all respects, as should give this strongest right to settle, or to what extfnt of country a title of sovereignty may have been acquired by a particular settlement. And even when the novelty, or priority, or sufficiency of the discovery is ad- mitted, the right of prior occupation cannot surely be re- garded as subsisting for ever, to the exclusion of all other nations; and the claims of states occupying contiguous ter- ritories arc always to be taken into * consideration.'" Notwithstanding the alleged difficulty of determining when the government of a country, which has no title to occupy a vacant territory by reason of discovery, may occupy it as abandoned, the practice in 'such cases has been tolerably uniform. Discovery alone, and an alleged inten- tion to occupy, certainly do not give a perfect title, unless an actual occupation takes place. Nor does the discovery of part of a great territory entitle the first settlers to take the whole. For instance, the continent of North America was first discovered by the English under Cabot ; but the right, nevertheless, of the French to settle on it was never questioned. The southern part of the same continent was occupied by Spain, but the French, nevertheless, made the contiguous settlement of Louisiana. Where there is clear evidence of abandonment — where the discovery is not fol- lowed by preparations to occupy, a settlement may be made in opposition to a title of discovery. Where, also, the territory can be separated by any natural and distinct boundary — whether that of distance from prior settlements, or the physical facts of mountains or deserts — a settlement can be made in opposition to any previously made. But " a settlement " must be understood to mean, the establishment of the laws or government of the persona making the settlement, with the consent and authority of the nation to which they belong. Without such an autho- rity they are mere outcasts and vagabonds on a desert, and have no right to fonn a government of themselves. A colony of the mother country — that is, a body of settlers among whom the law of their country can be administered — can only be formed by the consent of their own govern- 23 ment. DisCoveriea actually accompanied by occupation, without such consent, do not entitle the settlers to any of the rights of their own government, or to exercise any power, even of the most inferior description, under the pretence of being a colony. A settler can only have the authority that is delegated to him, and without such a delegation he has no power. His occupation of new territory may be subsequently recognized by his own government; but unless it is so recognized, prior to any settlement being made by the authority of some other government, it does not become a dependency of the nation of the settler. At the time the English were at Nootka, the coast was perfectly abandoned by Spain ; there was no Spanish set- tlement on it. It was open to any nation to make a set- tlement, or to recognize any that had been made by its subjects without authority. When the news arived in England of the seizure of the vessels by Martinez, the British government claimed the right of having indemnification made to their owners ; it determined to recognize any settlement that had been made, and it expressed its intention to make settlements on the west coast of America. On the 5 th of May, 1790, a message of the Crown was delivered to Parliament, com- plaining " that no satisfaction was made or offered for the acts of seizure, and that a direct claim was asserted by the Court of Spain to the exclusive rights of sovereignty, navi- gation, and commerce, in the territories, coasts, and seas in that part of the world." The message was received by Parliament with much approbation, and the necessary sup- plies were very liberally granted to enforce the claims made. In the declaration of Spain, dated Aranjuez, June 4, 1790, signed by the Conde de Florida Blanca, it is said that, " although Spain may not have establishments or colonies planted upon the coasts or in the ports in dispute, it does not follow that such coast or port does not belong to her." The British government alleged "that English subjects had an indisputable right to the enjoyment of a free and uninterrupted navigation, commerce, and fishery ; and to the possession of such establishments as they should form, with the consent of the natives of the country not pre- viously occupied by any European nation." On the part of Spam there was no declaration of an in- tention to occupy ; and on the other side there was no 24 assertion of a right to occupy in case occupation had been already taken by an European power. The dispute was terminated by the convention between Great Britain and Spain, signed at the Escurial, October 28, 1790. By the third article it was agreed that " the respec- tive subjects of the contracting parties should not be molested in navigating or carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean or in the South Seas, or in landing on the coasts of those seas, in places not already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or of making settlements there." But this article was subject to the restriction, that the government of Great Britain should prevent an illicit trade with the Spanish settlements, and that the British should not navi- gate' or fish within ten leagues of the coast already occupied by Spain. And it was by the fifth article agreed, that as well in the places restored as " in all other parts of the north-western coasts of North America, or ot the islands adjacent, situated to the north of the parts of the said coast already occupied by Spain, wherever the subjects of either of the two powers shall have made settlements since the month of April, 1789, or shall hereafter mfike any, the subjects of the other shall have free access." This convention was an admission of the right of the British government to make settlements, and the right sanctioned is not to be distinguished from that of Russia to its settlements on the north-west coast. The admission of this right was not granted as a licence, liable to be re- voked or lost by a war — it was not made as a favour or concession. It is one of those agreements respecting ter- ritory — such, for instance, as the treaty of 1783, made between Great Britain and the United States — which a war does not revoke. The admission contained in the con- vention is of a principle to which the States of A nerica, the colony of Canada, and the State of Louisiana, owe their existence. No new doctrine was set up. An old established rule was recognized, and a war would have been the result if it had continued to be contested. Mr Adams, whose long and distinguished career in the highest offices of his country had made him familiar with these questions, was compelled to treat it as a definitive settlement of a general princii)lc of national law (Green- how, p. 341, n.). And tne President Munroe, in his mes- 25 sage of December 2, 1823, admitted that no new principle had been asserted in the claims of Kussia, and of Great Britain, to settle on the coast, but that the occasion had been found proper for asserting that " henceforth the American continents were not. to be considered as subjects for European colonization " — a declaration against which the Courts both of Russia and of Great Britain protested. — (Greenhow, p. 336.) The convention did no*^ exclude Spain from making set- tlements if it should think fit ; but on the part of Spain the right of Great Britain to make them was acknowledged, and the intention and right of making one at Nootka Sound was especially declared and allowed. Much of the difficulty which ha« arisen upon this subject would have been avoided if the terms employed in this convention had been attended to. It was not the intention of the English government to let loose a body of men upon the west coast of America, free to act as' they pleased, and to exhibit their passions in the licence and violence of a lawless condition. Nor was it the intention of the Spanish government to establish its law over them. The proposed " settlements " were to be those of a civilized nation, and necessarily implied their subjection to English law ; and this, not for a temporary object, but in order to occupy the country, according to the open and distinct declaration of this, purpose in the previous official correspondence. When the convention was communicated to Parliament, it became the subject of party discussion, as every important communication to a popular assembly will be. The just and wisely-arranged treaty lately made between Great Britain and the United States respecting the north-eastern boundary of the United States — a treaty which ought, beyond all others, to have been accepted with unanimous approval, being a most honourable settlement of a most complex question, did not escape the bitter though for- tunately impotent criticism of a party opposition. Such attacks, when great interests are at stake — when unanimity might be instructive and no principle is compromised — may be regretted, but the language of them is not to be adopted in the interpretation of the policy of those whose acts are condemned. Mr Fox, Lord Grey, and the Marquis of Lansdowne contended that by the convention of the Escurial, nothing had been gained and much surrendered. ^ " If the Enj^lish," said Lord Grey, " form a settlement on one hill, the Spaniards may erect a fort on another." The English ministers did not enter into an explanation. They had not demanded the supplies, which enabled them to put afloat a great armament, in order to effect so absurd an ar- rangement as that described by the opposition, and Mr Pitt was too sagacious to have committed the blunders imputed to him. The instructions given to Captain Vancouver, who was commissioned to sail to the north-west coast of America, and to take possession of Nootka Sound, and to ascertain what parts of the coast were unsettled, were an official interpretation of the convention, and they certainly appear to have been drawn up in conformity with an agree- ment with the Spanish government. On the 4th of June, 1792, after the survey of a considerable extent of coast. Captain Vancouver, at Possession Sound, took possession, " with the usual formalities, of all that part of New Albion from the latitude 39° 20' south, and long. 236° 26' E. to the entrance of the inlet of the sea said to be the supposed Strait of Juan de Fuca, as also of all the coasts, islands, &c, within the said strait and both its shores." On the 23rd of June Captain Vancouver met the Spanish schooners, the * Sutil ' and the * Mexicana,' under the com- mand of Galiano and Valdes. The communications be- tween the commanders were of the most friendly character. At Nootka, Vancouver met the * Daedalus,' with instruc- tions from the British government, and he was referred to a letter brought by the same ship from the Count de Florida Blanca., addressed to the commandant of the fort of San Lorenzo at Nootka, ordering that officer, in con- formity with the first article of the convention, to put his Britannic Majesty's commissioners in possession of the buildings and districts, or parcels of land which had been occupied by the English in April, 1789, as well in the port of Nootka as in Port Cox, situated about sixteen leagues further southward. It is impossible to understand how it could ever have been inferred from these events that Great Britain and Spain had agreed to a "joint occupancy " of the country, Tne British government claimed the right, which it as- serted was common to any civilised government, to take possession of vacant wastes. It never pretended to claim a joint occupation with Spain — for it was admitted that 27 a Spain did not " occupy " the country — but simply right common to H, Spain, &c., to settle in countries beyond the limits of any civilized government. This right being acknowledged, Vancouver took possession of the country from 39" 20' to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This posses- sion was taken exclusive of Spain. It was an act indicating the construction of the Nootka convention by the govern- ment of Great Britain. Nor is this all. The proceedings of Vancouver were published with the sanction of govern- ment in 1798. There was no concealment of what had been done. The official act by which the country was an- nexed to the British Crown was notified to all the world, and it was not followed by any remonstrance or adverse claim. How, under these circumstances, could "joint occupation" be inferred ? If there had been joint occupation, there must have been "joint law" administered— or, in fact, no law. The absurdity is convenient, in order to complicate the subject, but it has no foundation in the events of the Nootka contest. The correspondence between Vancouver and the Spanish commandant. Quadra, differed respecting the extent of cession to be made ; and they agreed to submit the matter to their respective governments. The expedition of the * Sutil ' and the * Mexicana ' in 1792 was the last made by the Spanish government with the object of discovery in the North Sea. After this the Spaniards abandoned the coast in dispute, and never at- tempted to form an establishment upon it. — (Greenhow, p. 257.) The order for the abandonment of Nootka was not merely sent bv the * Daedalus,' but was communicated to that most eminent Viceroy of Mexico, the Count de Kevillagigedo, — a name ever to be honoured. — (Greenhow, p. 227, n.) After having taken possession of Nootka, Vancouver proceeded on the survey of the coast. Meeting with the American vessel the * Columbia,' commanded by Gray, he was informed of the river noticed by Heceta, into which Gray had entered and named after his vessel. Broughton was sent to examine the river, and passed the bar. His survey extended inland for upwards of one hundred miles from where he anchored his ship. " Pre- viously to his departure he formally took possession of the river and the Country in its vicmity in nis Britannic 28 Majesty's name, ^ having every reason to believe that' tV*^ subjects of no other civilized nation or state had ever entered the river before. In this opinion he was confirmed by Mr Gray's sketch, in which it does not appear that Mr Gray either saw or was ever within five leagues of ivs entrance."* • The very bitter tone in which Mr Greenhow speaks of Captain Vancouver, and his complaint that Captain Y. endeavoured to de- prive Gray of the honour of having seen the Columbia River, is not justified by the facts. It appears by the log-book of the * Columbia,' that Gray crossed the bar of the river on the 11th of May, 1792. At or ft o'clock he anchored. At noon of the 14th he weighed anchor ; at four o'clock he had sailed upwards of twelve or fineen P'Ues, and at half-past four o'clock the ship took ground, when she was backed off and again anchored. On the 16th Gray dropped down the river, and the subsequent movements were to get the vessel out. On the 20th he got clear of the bar. The river he named the Columbia, and called one point of the entrance Adam's point, and the other Hancock's point. These facts are no doubt correct. The log-book has been printed in reports of committees of Congress, and the copy verified by affidavit, in the belief that it contradicts the English statement of the case. Captain Vancouver states (vol. ii, p. 63), that Broughton had with him a chart made by Gray — that he got to an inlet whia t^naoitu liabU tuelle, elle ait fait, aux Americans, daus le oours des negooiatious, de si larges sacrifioea." * The argument of Mr Greenhow (p. 281), that the reason wai ill considered for adopting the 49th parallel of latitude, namely, the treaty of Utrecht, and the acts of the commissioners, is foundea on lo manifest an error respecting the extent of Canada, that it does not merit discussion. The adoption of the 49th parallel was a jnst ar- rangement, to both Great Britain and the United States, though it gave less than the former had a title to insist on. Mr Jefferson was perfectly satisfied with it — hut feared that the allusion to any claim extending to the coast would be offensive to Spain. — (Greenhow, p. 282.) This way in 1807, ^f ter the purchase of LouisUua. \ 39 In 1818 a convention was ratified between Great Britain and America, after a long negotiation, in which the facts already related formed the basis, by which the rights of both countries Avere subjected to a temporary compromise. It was agreed that a line should be the northern boundary along the 49th parallel of latitude, from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains, and that the country westward of the liocky Mountains should be free and open for the term of ten years from the date of the convention to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of both powers, without prejudice to the claims of either country. At the end of ten years the negotiations ^a this subject were again renewed. It was proposed by Mr Canning and Mr Huskisson that the boundajy beyond the Rocky Mountains should pass from those mountains westward along the 49th parallel of latitude to the north-easternmost branch of the Columbia River, and thence down the middle of the stream to the PaciCo. This was not agreed to, and the negotiation terminated for a time. On the 6th of August, 1827, a convention was signed, renewing the provisions of the former one of October 20, 1818, and extending it for ar indefinite period, until either party should annul it, on giviii^ a year's notice. Mr Farnham, perfectly forgetful that the American government, in its negotiations respecting the establishment at Astoria, has admitted that the Oregon Territory waa open to the settlement of other countries than that of Spain, afiirms, with singular inconsistency, that an Ame- rican title adverse to Great Britain — and in fact to Spain — was formed through that settlement, and, also, that the sovereignty to the Oregon is vested in the government of America through a Spanish title (p. 52). In other words, that the American government possessed the sovereignty of the country in 1813, and did not possess it until 1819. His a,rgument8 to establish both these positions are equally long, and tiie one is perfectly conclusive against the other : — *' Drake (says Mr F.), an English pirate, ontered the Pacific Ocean, ond pretended to have visited the coast between the latitudes 37° and 48°." *♦ Elizabeth, while she knighted him, remunerated the subjects of the crown of Spain for the piracies he had committed. From such men's acts the laws of nations recognize no i.'«rht8 of nations to arise, because if it be 40 *^ll dtill insisted that Drake ever sa\v this coast (I), auu that bis discovery was for the benefit of ih« crown of England, still it avails nothing, inadmuch as Spain had already discovered and explored it several years before ; and, in the fourth place, be- cause England did not afterwards occupy by permanent settle- ment, as required by the laws in such cases governing." If this argument is believed to be a sufiicient reply to the English claim, it must be equally sufficient against any Spanish title. Whatever doubt there may be respecting the extent of Drake's discoveries, it must be admitted that, no permanent settlement having been made, there did exist a right in any other country to step in and occupy the land discovered. But this objection applies, also, to the •Spanish title, for it is a known and admitted fact that, whatever may have been the discoveries of Spanish officers, no Spanish settlement was ever made north of Cape Men- docino, and that the question comes back to this point — by what parties, officially authorized to make settlements, was a settlement in the Oregon Territory first made ? There is no doubt of the fact that it was first done under the sanction and authority of the British government. If the opportunity at any time existed for the government of Spain to have occupied the country, it never did so, and the country never formed any portion of its ** provinces, dominions, or territories." Ibis fact, which is conclusive in support of the British title, affi)rds a perfect answer to another argument set forth by Mr Farnham, founded on the treaty of Utrecht of 1713. He alleges that " England for ever quit-claimed to Spain, and warranted for ever to her monarch and his successors, the north-west coast of North America as far as the Straits de Fuca" (p. 55). Need it be said that there is nothing in the treaty even in- directly referring to the north-west coast of America ? But as one groundless assumption leaves the argument incom- plete, another is needed, and, therefore, it is added, that — "The title of Spain to those countries and seas was not only exclusive, so far as exclusive discovery could give a title, but that the guarantees of England and the other powers at the convention of Utrecht rendered all further aoti*, such as sub- sequent acts of occupancy, &c., unnecessary to perfect that title through all after time. For, by these guarantees, England and the other powers waived the necessity of occupancy, &c., required by the law of nations to perfect the inuhoute rights of ) \ 41 prior discovery ; and waived, also, the possibility, on the part of these powers, of acquiring .*y subsequent discwofiry or occu- pancy any right in the territories thus solemnly conceded by Spain." This argument is certainly a singular jumble of contra- dictions and unauthorized assertions. The treaty, it ia said, is still binding. If so, all the parties to it are bound to prevent the United States from interfering with Spanish territories ; for the clause of the treaty cited in support of the argument is, that " neither the King of Spain nor any of his heirs or successors shall transfer or under any pre- tence alienate from themselves and the crown of Spain any provinces, dominions, or territories in America." If still in force, how came it that Spain alienated the Floridas in 1763 ? How has the United States become entitled to the Floridas ? Was there no alienation in that case ? But the argument admits that the Spanish government had no occupation of the country, and that " subsequent dis- coveries " on the west coast might be made : and then it is asserted, without any proof, that the government of Great Britain guaranteed the possession of dominions which Spain did not possess, and the possession of countries which were not discovered I And to make the absurdity com- plete, this treaty — which it is alleged was to prevent new discoveries and settlements of America by the English, and, by consequence, its present possession of the Oregon — is held by American authorities not to have been binding on the government of Spain to pre-^ ent the alienation, to the government of the United States, of any territory it might have possessed in Western America ! The treaty is entirely misunderstood by Mr Famham ; but his observations on it are valuable to prove how well satisfied he is that the title he endeavours to sustain is utterly invalid, and how perfectly well aware he is of its exact defects. After having involved himself in absurdities and contra- dictions in his inferences from the treaty of Utrecht, Mr Farnham turns to the treaty of Paris ot 1763, and affirms that this also has been violated by the British government* " France, says he, had many reasons for obtaining from that unscrupulous neighbour (Great Britain) a guarantee of her territories ' west of the Mississippi/ and did so in the treaty 42 Mil of Versailles (1762) as far as 49*' north [47® 10', or sourcp of the Mi8sissi[>pi]. If, therefore, she owned any land beyond the Mississippi valley, she ceded it to France. If she did not, she ceded her the right, as against herself, of acquiring title to all the territory lying *west of the Mississippi and south of the 49th parallel of latitude' [south of the source of the Missis- sippi]. How will British sophistry maintain her claim [the claim of Great Britain] to the Oregon, as against the grantees of France ? To this treaty the United States, by the purchase of 18U3, have become a party ; and as by the treaties of Utrecht and Versailles, England has abandoned, in the one case, to Spain* as high as latitude 48° north on the north-western coast of America; and, in the other Cbse, as high as 49° on the same coast ; it becomes difficult to sec with what pretence of right she now comes forward to recover what she has thus solemnly, by two several treaties, deferred to others." — " Al- though England, by virtue of the treaties of 1713 and 1763, was precluded from gaining any right of sovereignty from dis- covery or occupation, the United States have laboured under no such disposition." To this argument the reply is complete. By the treaty of 1763 the boundary between Louisiana and the British possessions was "irrevocably" fixed. At that time the western boundaiy of Louisiana did not extend beyond tHe Rocky Mountains (ante, p. 11). The country beyond the mountains did not belong to France, and therefore this treaty had no reference to it. There was no cession of a right to acquire lands beyond the limits of the French possessions, and there is not a word in the treaty to thia effect. It has already been shown that the treaty of Utrecht has no reference whatever to the Oregon ; vet these two arguments on the treaties of 1713 and 1763 nave been set forth as conclusive against the claims of the British government. They do not in the slightest manner disturb the British title to the Oregon Territory founded on prior occupation — setting aside any discussion on the question of prior discovery — and Mr Farnham actually proves that Spain was not in a condition, in 1819, to confer any title to territory north of Cape Mendocino. " We own (says Mr Farnham) Oregon hf purchase from Spain, the sole discoverer and first occupant of its coast ; by purchase from France, to whom England, by the treaty of Versailles, 43 relinquiihed her claim to it ; and by our own discovery and prior occupancy of the Columbia River. Throuehout this work incontrovertible authorities are relied on for nistorical facts, and for the construction given to the laws a'i nations. Out of her own month i^ Britain judged ; and if this pamphlet shall serve to convince my countrymen of the insolent selnshness of Great Britain — her grasping injustice-~her destitution of poli- \ tical honesty — and serve to show a necessity for the people to act for themselves, and to expect from the hands of their govern- ment at Washington the mamtenance of the rights and nonour of their country ; the author (! !) will feel ' ily rewarded fcr whatever labour he has bestowed in collecting and arranging the evidence of their rights to the Oregon Territory — the whole of it, and nothing less.'* It is not satisfactory to reprint such very ridiculous trash, but it affords a very good example of the malij;nancy of certain orators in America, and of the grave charges which are made to excite popular opinion against the government of this country.* The assertion that Spain was the first occupant of the coast is contradicted by Mr Farnham himself in his elaborate argument to prove that the treaty of Utrecht rendered any occupation of it by the government of Spain needless. That the English govern- ment relinquished the coast to France by the treaty of 1763 is impossible, for that treaty did not relate to territory not then occupied by the French ; and Mr Farnham's own argument is directed to prove that the western coast, at that time, belonged to Spain. The facts of Gray's dis- coveries and of Astor's settlement need not be restated, having been already very fully investigated. The claims of Great Britain are neither unjust, selfish, nor dishonest. * Persons who have remained a few months in America must have been often surprieed at the constant repetition of paragraphs in the public papers accusing the English govemmeut of the ex- penditure of enormous sums of money for the acquisition of iiew territory, or in intrigues for this purpose. Sometimes we are said to be on the pomt of seizing Texas ; at other times, that we have bought California, &c. Yet the writers of these articles are perfectly well aware that no money can be expended by the British government without the assent of parliament, and that the purcnase of territory without such assent is impracticable. The impolicy of the intrigues with which we are charged does not excite the slightest uoubt of the absurd designs imputed to ui, m They have sprung from events, the present results of which were not foreseen. If American claims have come into competition with the tn, it has arisen from no act of the British government — ;md if they are opposed, it has not been for the purpose of aggrandizement, or in order to assert rights which are eitiier untenable or unjust. The extreme north-wesvem part of the coast of North America forms a portion of Bussian territory. The title to it is partly that of di8C0\ery, and partly that only of occupation. The chief establishmerts, if not the only ones, formed on it, were made subsequently to the year 1798, when the coast from the 55th degree of north lati- tude, northwards, was conceded to the Kussian American Company. The company was authorised to explore and to bring under subjection to the Imperial Crown, any other territories in America, not previously attached to the dominions of some civilized nation. — (Greenhow, p. 269). So that the Kussian government, six years after the dispute between Spain and Great Britain respecting Nootka Sound, acted on the principle admitted in the con- vention of tho Escurial, and directed establishments to be formed on vacant and unsettled parts of the coasts. In 1824, a convention was signed between the govern- ment of the United States and Russia, by the 3rd article of which it was agreed, that the citizens of the United States should not form settlements to the north of 54* 40' of north latitude, and that the subjects of Russia should not form establishments to the south of that parallel. The principle upon which this convention proceeded cannot be distinguished from that on which the olaim of the British to part of the coast is founded. But if the government of the United States anticipated the squeezing out of British claims by this union with Russia, it was checked by the convention made in 1825, between Great Britain and Russia, by which the boundaries of the Russian territory are very distinctly defined, and the intended effect of the convention with the United States — as far as the United States was interested in it — was checked. An argument has been advanced in favour of the claim of the United States on the ground of contiguity. But it is one of even more force, if it has any, in favour of Great 13ritain than of the United States. It means, if anything, that part of the territory claimed is essential to the perfect Q 45 enjoyment of contiguous territory. Now the western trade of North America is chiefly that of peltries obtained by the English, and exported from Fort Vancouver, on the Columbia, and an access to the river is important to its continuance. In the state above mentioned the question at this time remains. The negotiations that have been renewed for its settlement have been confided to the Kight Hon. Mr Pakenham, the British minister at "Washington, who will not be directed to propose, nor would he ask, or demand, anything inconsistent with a just or a proper respect for American as well as British claims. Whatever concession the facts of the case adi^it of, will be perfectly consistent with the honour and tht interests of the British govern- ment. But hitherto the American government has not shown the slightest title to concession, nor established its right to the territory which it demands. Notwithstanding the remarks which hav3 been made by American writers, the British government has acted with great temper and moderatioii. It has not placed its case on extreme rights, and it has been actuated by a very sin- cere desire to maintain friendly relations with the United States. The errors of fact which have been committed in the course of former negotiations, have been upon very im- material points, not in the slightest degree affecting the main question. It is greatly to be lamented, however, that in America it should have been the interest of dishonest and Violent politicians to have adopted a tone of discussion upon the subject opposed to its fair settlement. It is not honour- able, while the title to the territcry is undetermined be- tween the respective governments, to urge measures to populate it with American citizens, in order to give faci- lities for its occupation at a future period. Such recom- mendations do not indicate a conviction of the validity of the claim insisted on,, AmericL, as well as Great Britain, has an interest in the establishment of a settled govern- ment in that part of the world — in marking out the limits of legal possession — and in rearing a population which, however they nv^y differ respecting the system of govern- ment which they may prefer, shall look to the future, as bringing the fruits of a peaceful, generous, and civilized intercourse. The dispute is one that ought not to excite ( 46 the exhibition of temper or of passion. It does not, as yet, affect the trade, fortune, or interests of a single American. The ambition of both governments ought to be to decide it, so that peace — the greatest glory of civilization — may be preserved. That this will be the endeavour of the British government there can be no doubt. Those who conduct the negotiation will make it from a sense of honour and a care for the interests of the world, and the/ will be sustained by the mighty national resources, wliiich allow of the concessions that have been made, and authorize them to insist upon what is just. It is stated, and probably correctly, that the British government has offered to the government of the United States to submit the dispute to the arbitration of some foreign power. Nothing could be more proper, and no measure could be suggested better calculated to ter- minate it, amicably and satisfactorily. Some frantic American politicians may oppose it, and may claim the credit of very patriotic motives if they succeed in con- tinuing what will soon become a very idle and useless discussion , but even these men will be the first to be condemned by their own countrymen, when the con- sequences of their opposition shall interfere with fruits of the honourable rewanis of labour, and those of commerce which follow in the train of a generous and enlightened system of diplomacy. loes not, as f a single ts ought to st glory of vill be the can be no will make e interests ihe mighty ssions that upon what ;he British he United n of some 3r, and no d to ter- ne frantic claim the in con- id useless first to the con- fruits of commerce ightened INDEX. PAaB The boundary of 1763, between Louisiana and the British co- lonies of America - - 6 Boundary of 1783, between the British colonies of America and the United States - 7 The sale of Louisiana, in 1803, to the United States - - 8 Boundary of Louisiana undi^r the Florida Treaty . . 9 The French boundary of Louis- iana when sold in 1803 10-11 Alleged consequences of the Florida Treaty of 1819 • 11 British title to the Oregon pre- vious to 1819 - - - 12 Discoveries of Drake - -12 Spanish voyages, 1774 - - 19 Captain Cook's discovery of Nootka Sound - - - 20 PACK Captain Vancouver " takes pos- session " of the coast - - 26 No "joint occupancy" of the country by Spain and Great Britain - - - - 26 Vancouver's proceedings at the Columbia Kiver - - 27 Gray's discoveries - . 28-29 Conclusion from the fact of the government of the United States relying on Gray's dis- coveries - . - 29-30 What is meant by " taking pos- session" • - - - SO Louis and Clarke's expedition 32 Astor's establishment on the Columbia River - - 32 Astor's establishment unautho- rised by the American govern- ment ... 33-34 46 i\ 1 1 the exhibition of temper or of passion. It does not, as yet, affect the trade, fortune, or interests of a single American. The ambition of both governments ought to be to decide it, so that peace — the greatest glory of civilization — ^may be preserved. That this will be the endeavour of the British government there can be no doubt. Those who conduct the negotiation w'.ll make it from a sense of honour and a care for the interests of the world, and they will be sustained by the mighty national resources, which a'low of the concessions that have been made, and authorize them to insist upon what is just. It is stated, and probably correctly, that the British government has offered to the government of the United States to submit the dispute to the arbitration of some foreign powe; Nothing could be more proper, and no meaeure couui be suggested better calculated to ter- minate it., amicably and satisfactorily. Some frantic American politicians may oppose it, and may claim the credit of very patriotic motives if they succeed in con- tinuing what will soon become a very idle and useless discussion ; but even these men will be the first to be condemned by their own countrymen, when the con- sequences of their opposition shall interfere with fruits of the honourable rewards of labour, and those of commerce which follow in the train of a generous and enlightened system of diplomacy. ERRATA. Page 40, line 17, erase «' that." „ 41, „ S, for " by " read " to." „ 42, „ 20, for <• disposition " read " disability." „ 43, „ 16, for " malignancy" read "malignity." „ 46, last lines, re'.d thus :— " when the consequences of their oddo. silion shall interfere with the honourable rewards of labour and those fruits of con)merce which follow in the train of a generous and enlightened system of diplomacy." I» \ aes not, as ' a single ;8 ought to t glory of ill be the »n be no wd make s interests he mighty sions that upon what \ie British le United 1 of some r, and no 1 to ter- }e frantic claim the in con- d useless first to the con- Tuits of ommerce ightened INDEX. ppo> our, of a TAQK The boundary of 1763, between Louisiana and the British co- lonies of America Boundary of 1783, between the British colonies of America and the United States - 7 Tlie sale of Louisiana, in 1803, to the United States - . 8 Boundary of Louisiana under the Florida Treaty • - 9 The French boundary of Louis- i)ina when sold in 1803 10-11 Alleged consequences of the Florida Treaty of 1819 British title to the Oregon pre- vious to 1819 ... Discoveries of Drake Spanish voyages, 1774 - Captain Cook's discovery of Nootka Sound Capture of British vessels at Nootka .... Right of making settlement on the coast ... *' Settlement " — what is implied by the word ... Application to parliament re- specting the conduct of the Spaniards at Nootka - Convention of the Escurial Convention not revokable Effect of the word "settlement" in the Convention Captain Vancouver's expedition to Nootka • . • - 26 6 11 12 12 19 - 20 20 - 20 22 23 24 24 • 25 PACK Captain Vancouver « takes pos- session " of the coast - - 26 No "joint occupancy" of the country by Spain and Great Britain - - - . 26 Vancouver's proceedings at the Columbia Kiver . .27 Gray's discoveries - . 28-29 Conclusion from the fact of thu government of the United States relying on Gray's dis- coveries ... 29-30 What is meant by " taking pos- session" • - . . SO Louis and Clarke's expedition 32 Astor's establishment on the Columbia River . - 32 Astor's establidhmen'. unautho- rised by the American govern- ment ... 33.34 Negotiation between theUnited Status and Great Britain re- specting Astoria . 34-3j Lord Castlereiigli's conduct on the ratificatiun of the Florida Treaty . . . 35 36 True boundaries of the British possessions to the west - 37 Mr Farnham's argument on the Tieaty of Utrecht on the Treaty of Paris Russian title to territory west 40 41 44 Ml M ff \jf^ By the $ame Au^r, price 6s. 6d.f ON THE DISCOVERY OF THE MISSISSIPPI, And on the Sooth- Western » Oieeon, and North-Weatern Boundary of the United States, with aTransIation of Original MS. Memoirs, &o., relating to the Discovery of the Miwis- pippi, by Robert Cavelier d« la Salle, and the Chevalier Henry de Tonty. '*Thit nripretending little volume contain! a oomplete, searching, and succinct view of tlie Boundary questions, respecting which the United States are now, or have been, in tf state of excitement."— Spectator. ** To those who desire to become acquainted with the Boundary ques- tions of the United States, we recommend it as containing, in a very com- pact form, all the information they can vdsh to have." — Imes, January 6, 1845. ** An elaborate and masterly treatise."— -Atlas, January 4, 1845. *^The book is tail of the most valuable information and the most im- portant details." — Morning Chronicle, January S6, 1845. London: 1844. Samnel Clarke, 13 Pallmall East. SISSIPPI, ortb-Weatern mofOriffioBl >f the Miwis- be Cbevalier searching, and ich the United ktor. lundary ques- |In a very com- tei, January 0, [, 184S. the moat im- £a«t.