IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 'v ^° j.^ 1.0 ■50 I.I 1^1 ^ as, 12.5 2.2 2.0 IL25 i 1.4 U Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 i^.V 4' %0 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/iCMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques O^ 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. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mtthode normale de filmage sont indiquto ci-dessous. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur r~| Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies D Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculde □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculies □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque r~/ Coloured maps/ L£J Cartes g^ographiques en couleur r~>^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ l^l Pages d6color6es, tacheties ou piqudes □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtachies D Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) HTj Showthrough/ I — I Transparence □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Quality of print varies/ Qualiti indgale de I'impression D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents r^A Includes supplementary material/ 1— J Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire D D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 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 ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. I I Only edition available/ D Seule Edition disponible 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 M filmdes d nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X / 12X 16X 20X a4X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: IMatropolitan Toronto Library Canadian History Department The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iteeping with the filming contract specif ications. 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 bacic 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. 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'exemplaire film* f ut reproduit grAce A la ginirositA de: IMetropolitan Toronto Library • Canadian History Djpartment Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le plus grand S7in, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de I'exempialre film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fiimage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont film6s en commenpant par ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmfo en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", ie symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmto A des taux de reduction diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est fiim6 A partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de heut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 1 1 fl ll-j -i-a ^ t^a 'h \? THE y OREGON QUESTION, AS IT STANDS. BY M. B. SAMPSON. WITH A MAP. > • LONDON : SAMUEL HIGHLEY, 32, FLEET STREET. P. ElCHARDtOK, CORNHILL ; WlLBY «fe PtJTNAM, WATBELOO PLACE MDOCCXIiTI. 1 ■ 1 » < 1 • « » * s;?: Prtoe rAr«i^>«nce> v... c:0 <0^ N^'H JUN20 1935 ■ '-* VSK^ «3.4sj&ia^v : J. FRINTKI) BV THOMAS HAnRII.n, SII.VKR 8TRKET, VAI.CON SQUARK. r . ' 1 • ^ Jh THE OBEGON QUESTION, AS IT STANDS. \nK. REFERENCES. The leading points of the Oregon question, embraced in the re- cently published cor- respondence between the British and Ame- rican plenipotentiaries, admit of being concisely stated, and as it is cer- tain that almost every person will have some- thing to say upon the subject, and equally certain that not one in a hundred will pre- viously seek the in- formation necessary to warrant the expression of any opinion what- ever, so long as this information is only to be gained by wading through the voluminous and not very clearly- connected statements of the conflicting par- ties, it is desirable at once to undertake the task. The subjoined map will show the entire extent of the disputed territory, bounded on the north by the pos- sessions of Britain and Yellow. — Russian boundary. Mexican do. . Blue. — American claim, 54deg. 40min., (present British Russia, on the east by boundary) the rocky mountains Grm,.-American offer in 1844, 49deg. (dividing it from the Red. — British offer; course of the Columbia. 1. Vancouver's Island. 2. Nootka Sound. possessions of Britain, « and also from the United States), and on the south by Mexico. The Mholcofthis territory is termed the Oregon, and the following are the circumstances upon which the United States and Great Britain respec- tively rest their claims (o the exercise over it of entire or partial sovereignty. First as to the claims of the United States. The United States rest their claims on three grounds, namely — 1. On the rights of France to the tenitory, which rights the United States ob- tained from that country by the treaty of Louisiana in 1803. 2. On the rights of Spain, which they obtained by the treaty of Florida in 1819» and, 3. On their own priority of exploration and settlement. On the rights derived from France by the treaty of Louisiana but little stress is laid, and they may be very shortly described. From its mouth at New Orleans, in the state of Louisiana, the Mississippi river ascends to about the 47th degree of north latitude, running its course pa- rallel with, and about 15 dcgi-ces east of, the rocky mountains. In the treaty of 1763, between Great Britain and France, this river was fixed as the western limit of the British dominions in America, leaving France to assert her right to all the unknown territory between that river and the Pacific Ocean, so far as she could make it good, either by explo- ration^ or by setting up a claim, (for which Great Britain in respect of her own settlements in America had previously furnished a precedent,) solely on the ground of contiguity. Spain, however, as we shall pre- sently see, was recognized as possessing a claim to the whole of the Oregon, and the French claim to the country west of the Mississippi was, consequently, never extended with much chance of success beyond the rocky mountains, although in old French maps the sovereignty of France is assumed over the whole region to the Pacific. It is only therefore, in case the original Spanish claim to Oregon could be invalidated that the French claim could possibly acquire any value, and as the original existence of the Spanish right is not really disputed either by Great Britain or the United States, this branch of the question is at once rendered almost wholly unimportant. It is upon the two other grounds, namely, the rights derived from Spain, and priority of exploration and settlement, that the United States chiefly take their stand. By the treaty of Florida, in 1819, Spain made over to the United States all her rights on the West Coast of North America ; the said rights, which arose in the following w^ay, and which extended as far north as the Russian possessions, being those of prior discovery. The voyages of discovery instituted by Spain in this region com- menced in 1528, with that of Maldonado and ended with that under Galiano and Valdes, in 1792, and their priority over all others has never been contested. They not only included the entire coast of what is now called the Oregon territory, but included the discovery of the mouth of the Columbia river (coloured red on the map), which :o. The are the 1 respec- r partial r—l. On tates ob- !. On the in 1819» isiana but From its ippi river ourse pa- I. In the .s fixed as »g France river and by explo- [)ectoi"her recedent,) shall pre- )le of the sippi was, eyond the reignty of It is only could be Lny value, not really is branch lant. ived from le United in 1819, the West following )Ssessions , jion com- bat under )thers has coast of scovery of p), which discovery was made by the Spanish navigator, Bruno Hcceta, on the 15th August, 1775. For nearly three centuries, therefore, Spain had claimed power over the whole of this territory. She maintained this claim with jealous vigilance, and it had been in a great measure ac- quiesced in by all European governments. Although constantly sending out expeditions after the date of her first discoveries, it is alleged she did not send them out for the purpose of rendering her title more valid, but simply to ascertain the character and extent of her own territory, while at the same time she took the ordinary formal steps for assert- ing her title whenever it was practicable to do so. With this view the expedition of Heceta, which was fitted out from Mexico in 1775, and which landed at various places on the coast from the 4 1st to the 57th degree of latitude, took possession of the country, upon all such oc- casions, according to a prescribed regulation : celebrating mass, reading declarations asserting the right of Spain to the territory, and erecting crosses with inscriptions to celebrate the event. These facts aflbrd strong grounds for regarding the rights of Spain to the territory as almost incontestible, and if it can be shown that she ceded these rights to the United States by the treaty of Florida in 1819, they would, of course, now be equally strong when urged on behalf of that Government. It will be subsequently seen, however, that this cession is not admitted by the Briti' V Government to have taken place. Having thus stated the rights of the United States as founded on their alleged acquisition of the original rights of Spain, the third ground of claim, viz., that of their own prior exploration and settle- ment of the territory as compared with the exploration and settlements effected by Great Britain, remains to be considered. This claim chiefly refers to the portion of the territory drained by the Columbia river. It appears that the first navigator who entered this river was a citizen of the United States, named Gray, the captain of a trading vessel of Boston, called the Columbia. On the 11th of May, 1792, he passed its bar, and anchored 10 or 15 miles above its mouth, and he then gave it the name of the Columbia, after his ship, which name it still retains. This transaction constitutes the American claim as far as relates to discovery by navigation. They have, however, an argument based on exploration by land. In 1803 an expedition was arranged and placed under three United States* citizens, Meriwether, Lewis, and Clarke, to explore the river Missouri, and its principal branches, to their sources, and then to seek arid trace to its termination in the Pacific, some stream, " whether the Columbia, the Colorado, or any other which might offer the most direct and practicable water com- munication across the continent for the purposes of commerce," and in 1805 this party reached, what they considered, the head-waters nf the Si Columbia. After crossing, and giving names to many tributary streams, thL'y descended to its mouth, and encamped for the winter. In the spring they commenced their return, still continuing their observations, and in September, 1806, they again reached the United States, after an absence of two years and four months. Thus much with regard to exploration. As regards priority of settlement, it is urged that establishments were formed by American citizens on the Columbia as early as 1809 and 1810. In the spring of 1811, also, the celebrated settlement of Astoria was founded by a company, at the head of which was John Jacob Astor, and whose purpose was to establish a regular chain of trading posts on the Columbia and the contiguous coasts of the Pacific. The United States' claims rest on the three several grounds thus de- tailed. They are, of course, entitled to the full benefit of each and all of them, so far as they can be harmoniously blended. It will be seen, however, that they gain little strength from each other, as the strength of one rests for the most part on the supposition that the others do not exist. Thus, if the Spanish title be held valid, the French claim can be good for nothing j while, if the American title, (founded on explora- tion by Americans,) be worth anything, the Spanish title must be held void. One of the three may be perfectly good, but only one, because they are discordant in their nature. Although, however, it is im- possible they can be united so as to present one complete claim more powerful than that which is to be derived from the best of them singly, they are still each valuable to the United States, and may legitimately be used in turn in opposition to the claims of Great Britain. If, for instance, Great Britain should see fit to base her claim on the argument of contiguity in preference to acknowledging the rights of original discovery, or of subsequent explorations, then she can be met by the French claim as it is now possessed by the United States ; if, on the other hand, she takes the ground of original discovery, then it is perfectly competent to the Americans to urge what they also possess, in this respect, namely, the Spanish title ; or if, again, refusing all acknowledgment of the French or Spanish titles, Great Britain should prefer to take her stand on the extent and value of the explora- tions made by British subjects in comparison with those made by citizens of the United States, then the Americans, if they see fit to do so, are at perfect liberty to meet her on her own ground, and to urge their claims in this direction. It is quite fair for them to use each one of their three grounds of title to meet Great Britain on her own arguments, should they deem it expedient ; or, on the other hand, to rest upon any one of them, and to refuse to consider the others. We have now to ccnciuer the way in which these claims have been respectively met. As regards the claim derived by the United States from France y strenms, the spring ns, and in after an priority of American e spring of ided by a and whose )8t8 on the [Is thus de- ach and all 11 be seen, le strength hers do not laim can be 3n explora- ust be held ne, because , it is im- claim more St of them s, and may IS of Great to base her vledging the hen she can the United al discovery, lat they also ain, refusing reat Britain the explora- ise made by see fit to do and to urge to use each on her own her hand, to others, claims have from France in the cession of Louisiana, little discussion has taken place, because Great Britain has never contested the original claim of Spain by which the French claim is rendered untenable. As regards the Spanish claim, now possessed by the United States, the view taken by Great Britain is as follows. The early discoveries and consequent rights of Spain are not denied, but it is denied that these rights were conceded to the United States, as alleged, by the treaty of Florida; and for the reason that this treaty took place in 1819, while by a treaty known as the Nootka Sound treaty, and which was made so far back as 1790, Spain had renounced all right of exclu- sive sovereignty over Oregon, and it was therefore impossible that she could concede to the United States what she no longer possessed. This treaty originated in the following way. In 1788, John Meares, a British subject, sailing under the Portuguese flag, landed at Nootka Sound and formed an establishment there, of which the Spaniards took forcible possession in the following year, under the orders of the Viceroy of Mexico, who claimed for Spain the exclusive sovereignty of the whole territory on the north-west coast of America up to the Russian line. Meares appealed to the British Government for redress against Spain, which, under the apprehension of hostilities, was promptly accorded by that country. The convention by which this was effected, and which is called the Nootka Sound treaty, not only provides for the restoration of the lands and buildings of which the subjects of Great Britain had been dispossessed by the Spaniards, and the payment of an indemnity for the injuries sustained, but also agrees that "in order to preserve perfect harmony" for the future, the subjects of Great Britain and Spain respectively, shall thenceforth enjoy equal rights over the whole of the Oregon territory, so far as it was then unoccupied by the subjects of either power. " The respective subjects," it was contracted, "of Spain and Great Britain, shall not be disturbed or molested, either 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." This treaty evidently amounts on the part of Spain to a complete surrender of her right of sovereignty. John Meares, a British subject, had taken possession of a part of the territory, and the Viceroy of Mexico perceiving at once that this could not be tolerated consistently with the claim of Spain to exclu- sive sovereignty, took prompt measures to dispossess him. Whereupon the Spanish Government disallowed the act of their Viceroy, recog- nized the legality of Meares' claim to the territory he had taken pos- session of (for the convention provided that his lands should be restored to him), and acknowledged the right of Great Britain thenceforth to form independent settlements, that is to say, settlements 'i { 8 in which they should not be " disturbed or molested" by the exercise of any authority or sovereign power on the part of Spain. From this it would appear that Spain had reserved no rights as against Great Britain which she could possibly nine-and-twenty years afterwards make over to the United States. She reserved equal rights with Great Britain (that is to say, to joint occupation or toone-half the territory), but nothing more. It is, however, contended by the United States, that the Nootka Sound treaty is no longer in force. •« The general rule of national law," says Mr. Buchanan, " is that war terminates all subsisting treaties between the belligerent powers," (a proposition which he shows to have been maintained by Great Britain to its fullest extent*) and he contends therefore that by the fact of Spain having declared war against Great Britain in 1796, the provisions of the Nootka Sound treaty have been annulled, and the parties freed from its obligations. It is admitted that by the treaty of Madrid, on the 28th of August, 1814, it was subsequently agreed between Great Britain and Spain, that *' pending the negotiation of a new treaty of commerce, Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with Spain, upon the same conditions as those which existed previous to 1796; all the treaties of com- merce which at that period subsisted between the two nations being ratified and confirmed," but it is alleged, 1. That as the terms of this agreement are confined to Spain, it cannot be made " to embrace her colonies or remote territories ;" and 2. That even supposing it could be made to embrace these possessions, it would not revive the Nootka Sound treaty, as that treaty was not a commercial treaty, because it had no relation to any trade or commerce between the respective powers, but " merely prohibited the subjects of either from disturbing or molesting those of the other in trading with third parties — the natives of the country." . It will be seen, however, that these qualifications will not stand. Although the Madrid treaty speaks of " trade with Spain" it ic *o be remarked that it afterwards states that all the treaties of commerce which at that period (viz., 1796,) subsisted between the two nations should be ratified and confirmed, and if the Nootka Sound treaty was not a treaty between the two nations, that is to say, between Great Britain and Spain, it would be hard to say what it was. The difficulty of her colonies or remote territories not having been included by Spain in the treaty of Madrid, is thus at once got rid of, and the only remaining question is whether the Nootka Sound treaty can be called a commercial one. The distinction set up that it was merely a treaty relating to • " Great Britain knows of no exception to the rule that all treaties are put an end to by a subsequent war between the same parties." — Lord Bathurst to Mr. Adams, in 1816. 8 ^e exercise From this linst Great afterwards with Great ritory), but he Nootka tional law," ing treaties shows to !•) and he clared war itka Sound obligations, of August, Spain, that reat Britain mditions as es of com- itions being ?rms of this ■mbracc her f it could be the Nootka icause it had ;ive powers, sturbing or -the natives 1 not stand. " it in ^o be »f commerce two nations I treaty was ir reat Britain difficulty of ed by Spain ly remaining commercial r relating to eaties are put ord Bathurst the trade of Spaniuhand English subjects with the natives of the Oregon appears a remarkably fine one. It does not alter the fact that it gave Great Britain all the trading as well as other rights which Spain had the power to give. It was in fact strictly a treaty relating to com- merce, because it amounted to a special surrender of all right to interfere with the commercial operations of Great Britain in that district. The great fact, however, in connexion with this treaty, appears to be, that there was no occasion for its renewal in order to preserve to Great Britain all the rights she had originally acquired by it. It amounted to a surrender of sovereignty, as far az regarded its ex- ercise over British subjects, and no subsequent war between Great Britain and Spain could restore to Spain a throne which she had thus for ever abdicated, or which, at all events, she had agreed to share in common with this coxintry 5 thus granting a joint sovereignty, from which England could thenceforward not be deposed except by a formal act. It must also be particularly borne in mind that it had a retrospective no less than a prospective action, and that its effect with regard to the past cannot be altered or set aside. It acknowledged that Spain in interfering with British subjects who had taken possession of unoccupied lands in Oregon, had done what she had no right to do, and although this acknowledgment was obviously made by her under the mean in- fluence of fear, it could not afterwards be recalled. It is impossible, there, fore, to admit that she could in 1819 make over to America a right which nine-and-twenty years previously she had not only disclaimed, but for an attempted exercise of which, on the part of one of her officers, she had actually made reparation. The third ground of claim advanced by the United States, namely, that of prior discovery, exploration, and settlement by American citi- zens, now remains to be considered. It is admitted that, when the United States became an independent nation they possessed no claim, direct or indirect, to the Columbia territory. Their western boundary was defined by the treaty of 1783. Great Britain, on the contrary, had at that time already directed her attention to the north-west coast of America, Captain Cook having in 1778 visited and explored a great portion of it from latitude 44 degrees northwards. Her sub- jects also established settlements which, as in the case of Meares in 1788, she resolutely defended. Subsequently, in 1792, 1793, and 1794, Captain Vancouver effected a complete survey of the entire coast, and especially of the island which bears his name, and which he then circumnavigated. These transactions, with the exception of the last, all took place before Captain Gray explored the Columbia, and although it is conceded that this navigator was the first to enter that river, it is asked if this discovery, although an important one, can be held as superior to, or as one even to be placed in competition with, the vast extent of discovery and survey accomplished by British S T^ n 10 i '; i I '.:> navigators. With regard to exploration inland, the feat of a British subject, named Mackenzie, who in 1733 effected a passage across the Oregon from the Rocky Mounfams to the Pacific, and who explored the upper waters of a river siiice called Eraser's river, which joins the sea near the 49th degree of latitude, is urged as a considerable set- off against the admitted exploits of Clarke and Lewis, performed nearly three quarters of a century afterwards. It is also contended that Clarke and Lewis did not touch upon the head waters of the principal branch of the Columbia river, which lie much fiirther north than the country explored by them, and that this branch was first navigated by a person named Thompson, the Astronomer of the British North- West Company. As to priority of settlement, so far as regards the banks of the Columbia, which is claimed by the Americans as having taken place on their part in 1809, it is asserted that in 1806 and 1811, respectively, the North- West Company established posts on the Ta- coutche, the Tesse, and the Columbia. From what has now been detailed, a review of the three heads under which the dispute necessarily arranges itself can easily be made. The first head, that of the claim derived by the United States from France, seems to be of no importance whatever. The second, that of the claim derived from Spain, seems to result in showing that Spain first conceded lo England equal rights with herself in the Oregon terri- tory, and that she then conceded her own rights to the United States, 80 that under this head America and England are entitled lo joint occupation, or an equal division. The third head, (that of prior dis- covery as regards United States' citizens and British subjects,) is one of more difficulty because the circumstances connected with it are less precise. It is a matter for rough and liberal estimate, and not for hig„ gling argument. In this broad way it certainly seems not too much to assume, that the careful and complete survey of an entire coast, and of its principal adjacent islands, may, at least, be set up as equiva- lent to the discovery of the mouth of a single river, even though that river may be its most important one, — and also that the circum, stance of one British subject having been the first to cross from the Rocky Mountains to the ocean, and of another having been the first to navigate the real head-waters of the Columbia, may be viewed in a like aspect when compared even with the elaborate exploration of the Columbia performed by Clarke and Lewis. This view, therefore, would bring us to a conclusion under the third head similar to that at which we arrive under the second, namely, that the claims of the United States and of England are so nearly equal, that they can only be satisfactorily settled by a fair division. From these conclusions we pass to examine the terms of settlement which have been proposed. Previously to the negotiation commenced by the British minister at Washington, on the 24th of February, 1844, 11 >f a British across the 10 explored vhich joins lerable set- med nearly ended that e principal th than the mgated by ish North- •egards the 8 as having 6 and 1811, on the Ta- leads under be made. States from ond, that of t Spain first ircgon terri- lited States, od lo joint if prior dis- :s,) is one of 1 it are less not for hig„ ot too much ?ntire coast, p as equiva- ^en though the circum. cross from ng been the 7 be viewed exploration w, therefore, ar to that at aims of the ley can only f settlement commenced )ruarv, 1844, three several attempts had been made to settle the question. The first in 1818, the second in 1824, and the last in 1826. The negotiation of 1818 having failed, a convention was agreed upon on the 20th of October of that year, by which it was stipulated that the Oregon ter-, ritory should remain open for ten years, without prejudice to the ultimate claims either of Great Britain or the United States, or of any other country. The negotiations of 1824 and 1826 also failed, and as the term of the convention of 1818 was now drawing to a close, a new convention was agreed upon (under date 6th August, 1827,) to permit the con- tinuance of joint occupation for an indefinite period ; each party, how- ever, having the privilege of annulling such agreement, by giving twelve months' notice. This arrangement still remains in force (unless the British minister shall have recently given the required notice,) but it is evident that it will soon be terminated by the action of Congress. In the negotiation commenced in 1844, and which has just ended in failure, the offer of the United States was, that the Oregon ter- ritory should be divided by the 49th parallel of north latitude (coloured gieen), from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, making free at the same time to Great Britain, any port or ports on Vancouver's island, south of that parallel which they might desire. The proposal of Great Britain was for an " equitable partition," to be effected by run- ning the boundary along the 49th parallel from the Rocky Mountains till it intersects the Columbia river, and then taking the middle of that river to the ocean — the navigation of the river remaining perpetually free to both parties (see red line). Any port or ports, moreover, whether on Vancouver's island, or on the continent south of the 49th parallel, to which the United States might desire to have access, to be made free ports. This proposition would amount to a division of the en- tire territory, nearly acre for acre — insuring an equality also as relates to the navigation of the principal river. These propositions having respectively fallen through, the President of the United States, in his message delivered to Congress last December states his conviction that " no compromise which the United States ought to accept can now be effected;" that he had sanctioned the attempt at an arrangement out of respect for the propositions of former Presidents ; but that in his opinion, the title of the United States to the WHOLE Oregon territory, is supported by irrefragable facts and arguments, and thai it should now, consequently be asserted. " The civilized world," he says, " will see in these proceedings a spirit of liberal concession on the part of the United States ; and the govern- ment of that country will be relieved from all responsibility which may follow the failure to settle the controversy." We have now traced the dispute in all its bearings from its origin to the present time ; and having arrived at this point, the question arises, « ■" \ m n I i I looking at the tenor of the President's message, what hope or pos- sibility is there of a satisfactory arrangement ? Few persons can read what has now been stated, without arriving at the conclusion of Mr. Webster, that the case is thoroughly one for amicable adjustment. Looking at the American claim as it is derived from Spain, on the one side, and the obvious bearing upon it of the Nootka Sound treaty on the other ; at Captain Gray's first exploration of the Columbia, and at the previous or simultaneous surveys of nearly the entire coast by Cook, Meares, Vancouver, and others ; at the expe" dition of Lewis and Clarke, and at the feat of Mackenzie, together with all the other conflicting circumstances we are irresistibly led to the conviction that the claim of one country is about as good as that of the other.* Under this view the only equitable adjustment must appear to consist in an equal division of the territory, and this is what Great Britain has proposed. Beyond this it is difficult to see any other step except that of consenting to refer to arbitration, and this she has also proposed. In what mode then can the affair be settled? It is qvute clear that by the present methods of conducting the discussion it never can be settled, unless by a compromise more or less discreditable. Plenipotentiaries on both sides may argue and argue, and even if, unlike all preceding plenipotentiaries, they should consent to abandon all special pleading, they will never, so long as they ground their proceedings on a reference to the " law of nations," arrive at any satisfactory demonstration ; because this law is so uncertain, so sub- ject to inferences, and, as far as precedents are concerned, so full of contradictions, that the moment you get an illustration on one side, your opponent is able to produce something equally strong on the other. This has been particularly shown in the present question, and will be still more exhibited, in proportion as the discussion may be renewed or prolonged. If, therefore, the United States, refusing an equal division, and also the intervention of arbitrators, persist in their • Additional proof of this is furnished in the way in which the plenipoten- tiaries on both sides, during the recent correspondence, endeavoured to catch at every feather that might serve to turn the scale. We would refer especially to the plea used against the United States, that uie discovery made by their citizen, Captain Gray, was made in a trading vessel, and not a government ship, an objection which would tell equally against Meares, who sailed in a Por- tuguese and not a British vessel ; and also to the pleas put in against the British claim th.at there is no proof that Meares' property was ever antnalii/ restored to him by Spain, although she had agreed to do so, (as if this coidd in any way invalidate the acknowledgment of British rights conveyed by such agree- ment); and also that the Nootka Sound treaty was essentially " temporary" in its nature, and, therefore, not to be quoted in the present day, — as if a treaty having for its object to confirm the right of British subjects to take possession of and to hold unoccupied lands, ancl to make settlementx, had not in its very nature more of the elements of permanency than ninety-nine treaties out of a hundred. pe or pos- mt arriving ;hly one for t is derived n it of the exploration s of nearly it the expe" e, together dstibly led as good as adjustment f, and this difficult to arbitration, he affair be conducting lise more or and argue, uld consent hey ground rrive at any in, so sub- 3, so full of n one side, ong on the lestion, and ion may be refusing an ist in their e plenipoten- (1 to catch at er especially lade by their , government led in a Por- iit the British alli/ restored could in any { such agree- mporary" in s if a treaty le possession it in its very ities out of a •'■ f. "S^-fl' ■| -2 J III -S 2 I « S « S rt H "7 S .3 i la C4 1 g 5P « « S IS 05 ?: I ° ? ^ s S ■■ M ^ ea I a u pathy ; its principle, theory, and Pbaoticb. PRINCIPIiKS OF PhRENOLOOY. Temperature of Man. Notes for the Week ; The Times and Mr Dickens ; A Pattern Judge. Miss Martineav. Joseph Labntat. Scientific Intelligence; Foreign and Domestic. Miscellany. — Contagion of the Plaffue— Chapel at Carthage — Manufacture of Port — Windsor Castle opened to. the Public — Work for the New Year — Uv98 Sacrificed by Neglect — Moral Influences of the Railway Mania, i&c. dec. CONTENTS OF No. II. Mesmerism in America ; Death of M. Valdemar. On the Head and Character of Raphael, by Geo. Cohbe, Esq. Annual £xhibiti9n8 of .Iqdustrial Art, The Water Cure a Century Back. Notes for the Week : Beginning the New Year; *r '^^ TlieVcUneofaFact; ■ • .. ^ Horrible State of Dependenee; Opinion of a Police Magistrate on Public Executions. Scientific Intelligence ; Foreign and Domestic. Miscellany. — Plate8,^d i)iihe8— rUaes of Flogging — Effects of Cruelty upon Domestic Animals — Appetitp. for Horrora t— llie BiOTal Academy -^ Aitisticai Decorations of Public Booms. CONTENTS OF No. IIF. Meteorology. y ibn. QuIN AND TiHE. " 3AITI8H HoMlEOPATHIC Society" Society for jPromoting the Amendment of the Law. The Convict Qvennell. Dr. James Johnson. No^'EB FOB T09^ Week ; The Philosophy of Testimonials. Ten Days I^emorrhage after the extraction of a Molar Tooth. Crime Fostering ; Account of the Beligious Order of Abd-el-Khader-el- ^ . DjelaU. '.HersolieUte., Scientific Intblliobnce ; Foreign fud PMteitic, . . Thf aUnm 8isB Numbers form^ MiscKLLAXY.— A Candid Reason— A Triflldg Excep- tion— The Dean of York and the " Vestiges of Cre. ation"— Condescension of a Postmaster-General— " Lay not up for yourselves Treasures upbn Earth " —A HomoDopathic Remedy — PolitentfAs by Act of Parliament. CONTENTS OF No. IV. The Orkoon Question as It Stands, by M. B. Sampson, Esq. (with a Coloured Map.) Human Nature the Basis for Human Laws. NoTKs for the Week: Agricultural Chemistn/. Results of Sir James irrahani'a Mural Teaching. y Principles of Phrenology. ; SciE.NTiFic Intelligence; Foreign and Domestic. Miscellany. — Thomas Hood— A Consistent -Speeohi CONTENTS OF No. V. " The Daily News." Dr. Andrew Combe on Phrenology, its Nature AND Uses. £nglish Honweopathic Association. Notes for the Week : Two Perplexities of the Duke of Richmond. Mesmerism in India. Elephantiasis. ^ • .' The Fairs o^ the IPyrennees. Scientific Intelligence ; Foreign and Domestic. Miscellany. — Too Much for the Law — Protectionist "Elobution — AUopathic Doses, Mild Treatment for a Nervous Patient— Is this True P^A New Black Draught — Purulent Ophthalmia — A Temperance Tavern Keeper — Simple Mode of Purifying Watfr. - CONTENTS OF No. Vf. Dr. Forbes on HoMffiopATHV. Capt. Sturt's Expedition into Southern Australia. Testimokials in favour Of Phrenolooy. On thb Reception or New Troths ; Miss MartineaU and the Laneett Notes for the Week: Expedieneyvenxa Right. Compensatitm' ■ Juvenile DelinqiMney.' TfclWSACTIOKS or ScTENTttie SOCIEtlFS. Scientific Intelligence; Foreign and Domestic. Mi8ANT.— ■Prevention of Railway AcciidentS'— Reformation or Juvenile Offenders— Death of Lord Bacon— A Gratifying Change — Law versus Poverty — Kindness without Science — The Oregon;— Daatb-v: of Mr. Carpue— The PoeCThomson o» l|iaalt««gM r Love — African Currency —Chinese Cultivation arid , Impleiiieitts. ' ' . •-'* Part L price One 8hiU4$ig, [TVRtf OVttt. I' I It is the object of this work to itupply a definite want. The advancing Intelligence of the people has called forth cheap literature ot° every kind, with the exceptioa that no periodical, at a low price, has yep appeared devoted exclusively to sciende and philosophy. The various branches of study have only, tor the most patt, their expensive quarterlies, limitM in ' dfculation,^ because contafaifaig amid much thM ' should, be univerkally.^a quanenieB, limitM in ' dfculation,^ because contatnhig amid much thM ' should, be univerkaljy .^own, much that is useful onlr to professed disciples, and the attempt has yet to be made to unite these branches in one journal, and to aid the popular mmd to discern the harmony of Truth, by concentrating, as far as possible, its most varied developments. It is to be admitted that several of the Medical Journals are published at prices which bring them within general reach, while, at the same time, they are so ably conducted as to become useful not only to the professional, but to the ordinary reader : and, as there is scarcely a department of science whioh does not directly or ini'> rectly advance our knowledge of the laws which regulate die healUiful condition of the mind or body, each department may oe considered, in a greater or less d^re«, fairly Within the scope of the medical philosopher. But the works in question do not take advantage of this privilege to its natural extent, and, accordingly, topics which tliey were entitled to make their own, have been left to the vague discussions of metaphy- sicians. Another evil which has prevented these works Irom exercising the weight that ia their due, arises from their devoting themselves to uphold existing schools, instead of giving entertainment to every new fact that may be presented to them, regardless if it tend to sustain or to overthrow preceding dogmas. Thus, while we see an influential journal promulgating Phrenology and denounring the libels with which that science was assailed by Dr. Gordon in 1816, we find it week after week takmg Dr. Gordon as its model in its treatment of Mesmerism aud Homoeopathy. And this prevails more or less with all its contemporaries. Each has its peculiar doctrines to uphold at the cost of stifling every truth that may appear to bear against them ; and hence, while we find there is one journal that will admit well, authenticated facts in Phrenolo^, another those of Mesmerism, a third those of Homceopathy, or a fourth those of Hydropathy, there is not one that will give candid reception to all, and seek by an impartial examination of the inferences to which they lead, to arrive at a real estimate of their relative importance. The leading characteristic of the PopviiAR Record, will be found therefore in its unhesitating reception of every scientific fact, or well-reasoned statement that maybe presented — the only condition being, simply, that they shall be of general importance and well authenticated. Under this restriction, its pages will be open to all the disputed points of science or philosophy, and as there are now few persons who do not recognize some one among the many new systems of the day, it is not unreasonable to demand of our readers, when they find our columns open to the class of subjects in which theyindividually take an interest, that they should exercise forbearance when the same justice is accorded to views from which they differ. This work. Price Twopence, will be delivered punctually at any retidence, within three mitea of London^ upon directions being forwarded to the Office, 67, Strand. It may also be had of Newsmen and Bookselleril. Each yearly volume wilt be complete in itself, so that it may be discontinued or resumed at pleasure. A Part, will be made up every six weeks, price One Shilling ; the first of which, for 1846, is now ready. nxi^AZ^:- FRENCH NEWSPAPER. L'OBSERVATEUE FRANC AIS; A JOURNAL t&l tl^e political, Commertial, antt dcimttfifc ^tiat of tl^e TOeelt; or FHICOSOFUT, IITERATUBE, AWD OENEBAL IKFOHMATIOK, FROM FBAKq£, G£BMANt„ fiVMV, kVJi, ALL OTHEB C0TTKTBIE8. Each number contains Articles on English and French Politics. — Political, news from various other countries. — Judicial Reports.— The "Wandering Jew."— The" Histonr of the Consulate and the Empire."— A Review of Paris.- Gossipings and Anecdotes of the Fashionable World.— Reports of the weekly meetings of the French and other Scientific Academies.— A Commercial Report.— A Review of English and French Theatres.— A Musical Review, and Miscellanies. This Journal appears every Saturday, and in order to admit the most celebrated portions of French Literature, it is enlarge«*>^VVVV^ r wV%<^<> ^ V^WVVW\/VWM^JVWV*V^/\AJ^Ai f BRITISH AND FOREIGN READING ROOMS NOW OPEN AT 67, STRAND. One Hundred 4* Sixty EngUih and Foreign Fapen» Admiamnioihe peruml (^ the whole, Twopenee. I 1^ : z i n •< 3 a. O CO cr oq .•?. «> §. 4 i '»t a \n H ga ^ - H" ■ g- jr sr s- S-' t3 a a p a a* F » >/ '-' s If ^" ^1 B5 S- — o ^o "^ *'^S,a!! « oM !! e.p s 1 ' I £■»•=. '^•-' rt- s.^ OBI ^■W--5<*sc3ai— .CT* ifiiifli^iiiiir - & & ■©■ ~ < "^ » 5 2 2*1; ^ 8- ^'i«?'5|rii-i ffss'i: o 3. ft^lte li a« 04) rl- Br 1^ OR >• CW I fe'5'S'7.i' 5? <» M 3- •?! C "if o"« B « a g^ S,g:2. e g 3 JT ?* a erg •* 3. 2 5.8 grag » ther, and own wis- ide upon." 'he experi- we fly to the digni- r religious wretched a order to From this, led to join i of which r principle restrictive ch permits legislative r intention ; in which lers found be! by others, ty. It is e portions that the Id choose should be left for the future settlers to determine their own mode of rule, it would immediately become a race between the two countries to fill up certain portions of it, and to get those portions as soon as pos- sible to declare for one or the other. There would be constant in- trigues for acquiring predominance, and constant (quarrels and revolu- tions. It would not do, therefore, to leave the country in this state, and the following appears the plan that, according to the foregoing views, should be adopted. The territory should be divided into free states, say each of an area of 500 miles square, or such amount as experience may have shown to be most convenient, and the settlers in each of these states should be per- fectly at liberty to frame their own forms of government. They should, in fact, be completely independent, one only proviso being enforced by England and the United States, namely, that any laws which these new communities might frame, should always, as regards England and the United States, be the same for both; that they should never give the United States a preference over England, nor England a pre- ference ovor the United States ; but that whatever should be lawful and open to a native of one coimtry, should be lawful and open to a native of the other. A treaty of this kind would be based upon the purest equity, and if either country should object to it, it would at once show that a desire is entertained of obtaining some undue advantage. The plan would also effectually stop all colonizing intrigues, since no one of the new states could by possibility unite either with England or the United States under its conditions ;— at least until these countries had no laws save such as were in common, a consummation to be reserved, it is to be feared, for far distant generations. The extent to which the adoption of these views would benefit both England and the United States is hardly to be conceived. On the new ter- ritory, the people of each country would meet, not as rivals, but on mutual terms, and with common interests. It would be like a marriage between the two nations, and the new communities (its offspring) would serve permanently as a tie leading to the exercise of mutual forbearance, constancy, and love. This looks better than war. Is it to be a dream, and is war to be the reality? nal, unless that the I territory riioMAS IIabkild, Printer, Silver Street, Falcon Square, London, rf WORKS BY M. B. SAMPSON. I. Price Five Shillinga, cloth lettere'l, second edition, CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE; Consilrcrtli in relation to Cerebral ®rgani?Btion. If. Price Sixpence, Hewed, THE PHRENOLOGICAL THEORY OF THE TREATMENT OF CRIMINALS DEFENDED. III. Price Two Shillings and Sixpence, cloth lettered. SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. IV. Price Four shillings and Sixpence, cloth lettered, (PMiAtd under tht iuperMendenee o/the Engliih Homceapathic A$KX>iatkm,) HOMOEOPATHY ; StJB principle, S^eorQ, anrs practice. S. HIGHLEY, 32, FLEET STREET. E; E OF :es. w,)