doubtedly it was the duty of the Government of the United States to lay before these States thus admitted into the negotiations, all the information in its power. Every office in Washington was ransacked-every book of authority consulted-the whole history of all the negotiations, from the treaty of Paris downward, was produced and among the rest this discovery in Paris, to go for what it was worth. If these afforded any evidences to their minds to produce a conviction that it might be used to obscure their rights, to lead an arbitration into an erroneous, unjust compromise,that was all for their consideration. The map was submitted as evidence, together with all the other proofs and documents in the case, without the slightest reservation on the part of the Government of the United States. I must confess that I did not think it a very urgent duty on my part to go to Lord ASHBURTON and tell him that I had found a bit of doubtful evidence in Paris, out of which he might perhaps make something to the prejudice of our claims, and from which he could set up higher claims for himself, or obscure the whole matter still further! (Laughter.)

I will detain you, Sir, by no remarks on any other part of the subject. Indeed, I had no expectation of being called upon to speak on the subject, in regard to which my own situation is a delicate one. I shall be quite satisfied if the general judgment of the country shall be in the first place, that nothing disreputable to the country, nothing prejudicial to its interests in regard to the line of boundary, has been done in the treaty; and in the next place, and above all things, that a fair, honorable, manly disposition has been manifested by the Government in settling the question, and putting an end to a controversy which has disturbed the relations of the country for fifty years, not always without some danger of breaking the public peace, often with the effect of disturbing their commercial intercourse, spreading distrust between those having daily dealings with one another, and always tending to excite alarm, jealousy, and suspicion. (Loud and continued applause.)

A vote of thanks to the President and the Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, was then passed, the question being put by the First Vice-President, and the meeting adjourned.

NOTE.

Mr. GALLATIN, in his observations on Mr. JAY's Map, contained in his memoir, read on the 15th of April, stated that the line on the map, designated in Mr. Jay's hand-writing as “ Mr. Oswald's line," must have been thus laid down with the assent and knowledge of Mr. OsWALD, and that a copy or graphic description of it must have been transmitted by him to his Government.

On the 19th of April, English papers were received, by the packet ship "Mediator," containing the Parliamentary debate of the 21st of March, on the Ashburton Treaty, in which Sir ROBERT PEEL is reported to have said:

"There is one more point on which I must touch before I sit down. The noble Lord has spoken at great length of a map recently discovered. [Hear, hear.] He seems to think that that map so discovered affords conclusive evidence of the justice of the British claims. Now, Sir, in the first place, let me observe to the noble Lord, that contemporary maps may be when the words of the treaty referred to by them are in themselves doubtful-they may be evidence of the intentions of those who framed them, but the treaty must be executed according to the words contained in it. [Hear, hear.] Even if the map were sustained by the parties, it could not contravene the words of the treaty; but the noble Lord considers that a certain map which has been found in the archives of the Foreign Office at Paris, is conclusive evidence of the justness of the British claims. Now, Sir, I am not prepared to acquiesce in any such assertion. Great blame has been thrown upon Mr. WEBSTER with respect to this map. He has been charged with perfidy and want of good faith, in not having at once disclosed to Lord ASHBURTON the fact of his possessing this map. Now I must say that it is rather hard, when we know what are the practices of diplomatists and negotiators-[a laugh]-I say, it is rather hard to expect that the ne

I

gotiator on the part of the United States should be held bound to dísclose to the diplomatist with whom he was in treaty all the weak points of his case; and I think, therefore, that the reflections cast upon Mr. WEBSTER-a gentleman of worth and honor-are, with respect to this matter, very unjust. This map was, it is true, found in the archives of the Foreign Office at Paris, and a letter of Dr. FRANKLIN was also found, having reference to some map; but there is no direct connexion between the map so found and the letter of Dr. FRANKLIN. [Hear.] In general, there is such a reference in the case of maps referred to in despatches; 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 on 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 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 in any way 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 the 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, framed in 1783 by Dr. 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 contemporary map, and it was published by the Geographer to the British King. There is a work, which I have here, a political periodical of the time of 1783, called Beme'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 the map a broad red line, and that line marks out the boundary as claimed by the British. It is probably a map by Mr. 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 connexion between it and the despatch 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 Kingwas deposited a map, by Mitchell, of the date 1753. That map was in the possession of the late King, and it was also in the possession of the noble Lord, but he did not communicate its contents to Mr. WEB STER. [Hear, hear.] It is marked by a broad red line, and on that line is written Boundary as described by our negotiator, Mr. OSWALD,' and that line follows the claim of the United States. [Hear, hear.] 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.' [Hear, hear.) 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 contemporary 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 that the expectation that, if referred to arbitration the decision would inevitably have been given in your favor, in consequence of the evidence of maps, which would not be trusted as maps recognised by the negotiators themselves.”*

* In another report of this speech, the concluding part of the foregoing extract varies materially from the version given above; instead of saying that he does "not" believe the British claim well founded, Sir ROBERT is represented as having said :-" I believe still, as my impression was in the first instance, that the claim of Great Britain was well founded: that that claim the negotiators meant