Page images
PDF
EPUB

had the American secretary been told that Maine would lose her own territory by honorable arbitration rather than sacrifice an acre to the spirit of unworthy compromise. Better, indeed, if our sister States had been admonished that they had degraded themselves as well as us, when they asked us to yield our part of a common American birthright.”

Manifestly these words, expressing strong political feeling and action, should be read only in connection with the reading of the Maine commissioners' report, which fairly and fully records the difficulties that the commissioners encountered in Washington, and also the reasons by which at length they were constrained most reluctantly to yield the assent of the state to the boundary provisions of the treaty. That action, in view of all the facts and circumstances, the commissioners regarded as fully warranted. According to the best light they possessed, they endeavored to discharge a duty which they had not sought, but which the state, through its chosen representatives, had solemnly laid upon them; and it may confidently be said, after the lapse of more than three-quarters of a century, that time has justified their action.

It is true that Maine did not receive by the terms of the treaty the larger compensation she spurned ten years before. Referring to this fact Governor Washburn once remarked, “There is no part in the history of Maine in which I take greater satisfaction than this-that, while feeling keenly the injustice done to her, when once the sacrifice became inevitable, she was too proud to haggle about the price.'

Maine Historical Society Coll., First Series, VIII, 105.

L

CHAPTER XXI.

THE TREATY IN THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT.

ORD Palmerston, who had been the British secretary of state for foreign affairs during the larger part of the decade preceding the Ashburton-Webster negotiations, was not pleased with the settlement. It was not such a settlement as he had desired to obtain during his term of office. Evidently he had been kept well informed concerning the opinions of prominent officials in Canada and the maritime provinces, both before and after the negotiations; and on March 21, 1843, in the House of Commons he asked for copies or extracts of the communications between the British government and Lord Ashburton with reference to the treaty. There were persons in England, he said, who were disposed to approve of the treaty. There was nobody, he believed, who did not think it a bad and very disadvantageous bargain for England. Doubtless there were some people in the country who were so anxious to have the dispute settled, that they were glad to have it settled upon any terms, even upon the disadvantageous conditions contained in the treaty. On the other hand, there were persons, of whom he wished to be regarded as one, who considered the transaction deserving of blame. The negotiations had not been skilfully conducted. The tone of the British representative was undignified throughout, and the terms agreed upon were unnecessarily disadvantageous to Great Britain. Lord Ashburton should have insisted that Great Britain was entitled to the whole territory in dispute. On the contrary, he allowed Mr. Webster to place the negotiation on the ground that the whole territory belonged of right to the United States; and all that England was to be permitted to retain was to be bought by her for considerations and equivalents. "But there

is the treaty," he added; it has been concluded, and it has been

[merged small][ocr errors]

Sir Robert Peel, in reply, stated that Mr. Webster had met with censure in some quarters in his own country similar to that which had assailed Lord Ashburton; but he believed that both negotiators were equally animated by a spirit of sincere regard for the interests of their country, uninfluenced by political considerations. As to the plan on which the negotiations were conducted he believed it would have been unwise to have attempted further explorations and inquiries by commissioners.2

Lord Palmerston, in his remarks, had referred to the Sparks red line map as confirming the British claim, and had blamed Mr. Webster for withholding from Lord Ashburton such important evidence. Replying to this lack of good faith on the part of the American secretary of state, the British prime minister thought it rather hard, with their knowledge of the practices of negotiators, that anyone should expect that the negotiator on the part of the United States should be held bound to disclose, to the diplomat with whom he was in conference, the weak parts of his case. "This map, it is true, was found in the archives of the foreign office at Paris," he said; "and a letter of Dr. Franklin's also has been found, having reference to some map; but there is no direct connection between the map so found and the letter of Dr. Franklin. In general there is such a connection as in the case of maps referred to in dispatches; but there is none in this case. There is nothing to show that the map so found is the identical map referred to by Dr. Franklin in his letter; and nothing can be more fallacious than relying on such maps. For let me state what may be said upon the other side of the question with respect to maps. We made inquiry about those maps in the foreign office at Paris, and we could find none such as that in question at first. We have not been so neglectful in former times with respect to the matter as the noble Lord seems to think. We made inquiries in 'Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, LXVII, 1163, 1193–1218. 2 Ib., LXVII, 1241.

1826 and 1827, into the maps in the foreign office at Paris, for the purpose of throwing light upon the intentions of the negotiators of 1783. A strict search was made for any documents bearing upon the disputed question; but at that time neither letter nor map could be found. However, there were afterwards discovered by a gentleman engaged in writing a history of America, a letter and a certain map, supposed by him to be the map referred to in a letter. In answer to our first inquiry, as I have already stated, no such map could be discovered. The first which we received from the foreign office at Paris was a map found in 1783 by Mr. Faden, geographer to the king of England. On that map is inscribed-'A Map of the Boundary of the United States, as agreed to by the treaty of 1783, by Mr. Faden, geographer to the king.' Now, sir, that map placed the boundary according to the American claim, yet it was a cotemporary map, and it was published by the geographer to the British king. There was a work, which I have here, a political periodical of the time, published in 1783, called Bewe's Journal. It gives a full report of the debate in Parliament upon the treaty then being concluded, and, in order to illustrate the report, it also gives a map of the boundaries between the countries as then agreed to. That map, Sir, also adopts the line claimed by the United States. On subsequent inquiry, at Paris, we found a map, which must be the map referred to by Mr. Jared Sparks. There is placed upon that map a broad red line, and that line marks out the boundary as claimed by the British. It is probably a map by M. d'Anville, of 1746, and there can be no doubt, but that it is the map referred to by Mr. Jared Sparks; but we can trace no indication of connection between it and the dispatch of Dr. Franklin. To say that they were connected is a mere unfounded inference.

"But there is still another map. Here, in this country, in the library of the late king, was deposited a map by Mitchell, of the date of 1783-that map was in the possession of the noble Lord; but he did not communicate its contents to Mr. Webster. It is marked by a broad red line, and on that line is written, 'Bound

ary, as described by our negotiator, Mr. Oswald;' and that line follows the claim of the United States. That map was on an extended scale. It was in possession of the late king, who was particularly curious in respect to geographical inquiries. On that map, I repeat, is placed the boundary line-that claimed by the United States; and on four different places on that line, 'Boundary as described by Mr. Oswald.' Now I do not say that that was the boundary ultimately settled by the negotiators; but nothing can be more fallacious than founding a claim upon cotemporary maps, unless you can also prove that they were adopted by the negotiators; and when the noble Lord takes it for granted that if we had resorted to arbitration we should have been successful in obtaining our claims, I cannot help thinking that the matter would be open to much discussion. Indeed, I do not believe that that claim of Great Britain was well-founded; that it is a claim which the negotiators intended to ratify. I cannot say, either, that the inquiries which have been instituted since Mr. Sparks' discovery have materially strengthened my conviction either way. I think they leave matters much as they were, and nothing, I think, can be more delusive than the expectation that, if the question were referred to arbitrators, the question would inevitably have been given in your favor, in consequence of the evidence of maps, which would not be regarded as maps recognized by the negotiators themselves. And then, Sir, with reference to the maps discovered subsequently to the conclusion of the negotiations conducted by Lord Ashburton. The noble Lord opposite has stated that his predecessor in office had made all possible inquiry into the matter, and possessed all the elements of information connected with it. Lord Ashburton then had a right to draw the same conclusion. He had a right to presume that he was sent abroad in possession of all the elements of information on which a satisfactory conclusion could be come to, and therefore the subsequent discovery of the map in Paris, even if it could be positively connected with Dr. Franklin's dispatch, would be no ground for the impeachment of the treaty of Lord Ashburton,

« PreviousContinue »