I answered that the conquest of Canada had never been an object of the War, on the part of the United States. It had been invaded by us in consequence of the War, as they themselves had invaded many parts of the United States. It was an effect and not a cause of the War.

* * *

With respect to the Indian allies, I remarked that there was no analogy between them and the case of Portugal. The peace itself would include all the Indians included within the British limits; but the stipulations which might be necessary for the protection of Indians situated within the boundaries of the United States who had taken the British side of the war, was rather in the nature of an amnesty than of a provision for allies. It resembled more the case of subjects, who in case of invasion took part with the invader, as had sometimes happened to Great Britain in Ireland. He insisted that the Indians must be considered as independent nations; for that we ourselves made Treaties with them, and acknowledged boundaries of their territories-I said that whenever they would form settlements and cultivate lands, their possessions were undoubtedly to be respected, and always were respected by the United States. That some of them had been civilized in a considerable degree; the Cherokees for example, who had permanent habitations, and a state of property like our own. But the greater part of the Indians never could be prevailed upon to adopt this mode of life. Their habits, and attachments, and prejudices, were so adverse to any settlement that they could not reconcile themselves to any other condition than that of wandering hunters. It was impossible for such people ever to be said to have possessions. Their only right upon land was to use it as hunting grounds; and when those lands where they hunted became necessary or convenient for the purposes of settlement, the system adopted by the United States was by amicable arrangement with them to compensate them for renouncing the right of hunting upon them, and for removing to remote regions better suited to their purposes and mode of life. This system of the United States was an improvement upon the former practice of all European Nations, including the British. The original settlers of New England had set the first example of this liberality towards the Indians, which was afterwards followed by the Founder of Pennsylvania. Between it and taking the lands for nothing or exterminating the Indians who had used them,

there was no alternative. To condemn vast regions of territory to perpetual barrenness and solitude, that a few hundred savages might find wild beasts to hunt upon it was a species of game law that a nation descended from Britons would never endure. It was as incompatible with the moral as with the physical nature of things. If Great Britain meant to preclude forever the people of the United States from settling and cultivating those territories, she must not think of doing it by a treaty, she must accomplish their utter extermination. If the government of the United States should ever submit to such a stipulation, which I hoped they would not, all its force, and all that of Britain combined with it, would not suffice to carry it long into execution. offering a feather to a torrent. The population of the United States in 1810 passed seven millions. At this hour it undoubtedly passed eight. As it continued to increase in such proportions, was it in human experience, or in human power, to check its progress by a band of paper, purporting to exclude posterity from the natural means of subsistence which they would derive from the cultivation of the soil?-Such a treaty, instead of closing the old sources of dissension, would only open new ones. A war thus finished would immediately be followed by another, and Great Britain would ultimately find that she must substitute the project of exterminating the whole American people to that of opposing against them her Barrier of Savages. The proposal of dooming a large extent of lands naturally fertile to be forever desert, by compact, would be a violation of the laws of Nature and of Nations, as recognized by the most distinguished writers on Public Law. It would be an outrage upon Providence; which gave the earth to man for cultivation, and made the tillage of the ground the conditions of his nature and the law of his existence. "What?" (said Mr. Goulbourn) "Is it then in the inevitable nature of things that the United States must conquer Canada?"-No"But what security then can Great Britain have for the possession of it?" If Great Britain does not think a liberal and amicable course of policy towards America would be the best security, as it certainly would, she must rely upon her general strength, upon the superiority of her power in other parts, of her relations with America; upon the power which she has upon another element, to indemnify herself by sudden impression upon American interests, more defenseless against her superiority than

I answered that the conquest of Canada had never been an object of the War, on the part of the United States. It had been invaded by us in consequence of the War, as they themselves had invaded many parts of the United States. It was an effect and not a cause of the War.

own.

* * *

With respect to the Indian allies, I remarked that there was no analogy between them and the case of Portugal. The peace itself would include all the Indians included within the British limits; but the stipulations which might be necessary for the protection of Indians situated within the boundaries of the United States who had taken the British side of the war, was rather in the nature of an amnesty than of a provision for allies. It resembled more the case of subjects, who in case of invasion took part with the invader, as had sometimes happened to Great Britain in Ireland. He insisted that the Indians must be considered as independent nations; for that we ourselves made Treaties with them, and acknowledged boundaries of their territories-I said that whenever they would form settlements and cultivate lands, their possessions were undoubtedly to be respected, and always were respected by the United States. That some of them had been civilized in a considerable degree; the Cherokees for example, who had permanent habitations, and a state of property like our But the greater part of the Indians never could be prevailed upon to adopt this mode of life. Their habits, and attachments, and prejudices, were so adverse to any settlement that they could not reconcile themselves to any other condition than that of wandering hunters. It was impossible for such people ever to be said to have possessions. Their only right upon land was to use it as hunting grounds; and when those lands where they hunted became necessary or convenient for the purposes of settlement, the system adopted by the United States was by amicable arrangement with them to compensate them for renouncing the right of hunting upon them, and for removing to remote regions better suited to their purposes and mode of life. This system of the United States was an improvement upon the former practice of all European Nations, including the British. The original settlers of New England had set the first example of this liberality towards the Indians, which was afterwards followed by the Founder of Pennsylvania. Between it and taking the lands for nothing or exterminating the Indians who had used them,

there was no alternative. To condemn vast regions of territory to perpetual barrenness and solitude, that a few hundred savages might find wild beasts to hunt upon it was a species of game law that a nation descended from Britons would never endure. It was as incompatible with the moral as with the physical nature of things. If Great Britain meant to preclude forever the people of the United States from settling and cultivating those territories, she must not think of doing it by a treaty, she must accomplish their utter extermination. If the government of the United States should ever submit to such a stipulation, which I hoped they would not, all its force, and all that of Britain combined. with it, would not suffice to carry it long into execution. It was offering a feather to a torrent. The population of the United States in 1810 passed seven millions. At this hour it undoubtedly passed eight. As it continued to increase in such proportions, was it in human experience, or in human power, to check its progress by a band of paper, purporting to exclude posterity from the natural means of subsistence which they would derive from the cultivation of the soil? Such a treaty, instead of closing the old sources of dissension, would only open new ones. A war thus finished would immediately be followed by another, and Great Britain would ultimately find that she must substitute the project of exterminating the whole American people to that of opposing against them her Barrier of Savages. The proposal of dooming a large extent of lands naturally fertile to be forever desert, by compact, would be a violation of the laws of Nature and of Nations, as recognized by the most distinguished writers on Public Law. It would be an outrage upon Providence; which gave the earth to man for cultivation, and made the tillage of the ground the conditions of his nature and the law of his existence. "What?" (said Mr. Goulbourn) "Is it then in the inevitable nature of things that the United States must conquer Canada?"-No"But what security then can Great Britain have for the possession of it?" If Great Britain does not think a liberal and amicable course of policy towards America would be the best security, as it certainly would, she must rely upon her general strength, upon the superiority of her power in other parts, of her relations with America; upon the power which she has upon another element, to indemnify herself by sudden impression upon American interests, more defenseless against her superiority than

Canada against ours, and in their amount far more valuable than Canada ever was or ever will be. He said that Great Britain had no intention to carry on a war, either of extermination or of conquest; but recurred again to our superior force, and to the necessity of providing against it. He added that in Canada they never took any of the Indian lands, and even the Government (meaning the Provincial government) was prohibited from granting them. That there were among the Indians very civilized people; there was particularly one man whom he knew, Norton, who commanded some of the Indians engaged on the British side in the war, and who was a very intelligent and well informed man. But the removing of the Indians from their lands to others was one of the very things of which Great Britain complained. That it drove them over into their Provinces, and made them annoy and encroach upon the Indians within their limits. This was a new idea to me. I told him I had never heard any complaint of that kind before; and I supposed that a remedy for it would very easily be found. He made no reply and seemed as if in the pressure for an argument he had advanced more than he was inclined to maintain.

* * *

The rupture of this negotiation will render it unnecessary for us to possess the proof which it was your intention at the date of your instructions of the 28th of January to furnish us, etc.

The strongest feature in the general complexion of his discourse was the inflexible adherence to the proposed Indian boundary line. But the pretext upon which this proposition had in the first instance been placed, the pacification with the Indians, and their future security, was almost abandoned-avowed to be a secondary and very subordinate object. The security of Canada was now substituted as the prominent motive. But the great and real one, though not of a nature to be acknowledged, was occasionally discernible through all its veils. This was no other than a profound and rankling jealousy at the rapid increase of population and of settlements in the United States; an impotent longing to thwart their progress and to stunt their growth. With this temper prevailing in the British Councils, it is not in the hour of their success that we can expect to obtain a peace upon terms of equal justice or of reciprocity.