Exposition of the Causes and the Consequences of the Boundary Differences Between Great Britain and the United States

Copy of a Resolution passed at a Meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, held at the

Cutler's Hall.

Sheffield, March 26th, 1839.

RESOLVED,

That this Meeting regards the settlement of the question of the North-east Boundary Line, still pending between this Country and the United States, as of vital importance to the commercial interest of both Countries; and that the Secretary be requested to write to David Urquhart, Esq., soliciting his views upon this interesting and important subject; especially with reference to the rights of Great Britain, and the effect which the non-settlement of this question may have upon our Trade.

SIR,

Sheffield, March 27th, 1839.

Annexed I hand you copy of a Resolution passed unanimously at a Meeting of our Chamber of Commerce. The importance which the North-east Boundary Line has now assumed, and the great difficulty of forming a correct opinion upon it in the present state of the case, has impelled us to seek at your hands, that information by which we can the better understand its bearings.

Knowing as we do, the amplitude of your information on all diplomatic questions and international affairs, we hope you will pardon this trespass upon your time. The great willingness with which you entered into many subjects of deep interest in a commercial and national point of view, when we had the pleasure of seeing you here, emboldens us to take this step.

Hoping that your health is sufficiently restored as to enable you, without the liability of further injury, to comply with our request,

Sir,

Speke Hall, April 12th, 1839.

My delay in acknowledging the receipt of the Resolution of the Chamber of Commerce of March the 26th, and in replying to your letter of the 27th, has been occasioned by my immediate and entire application to the task you have assigned me.

The Papers presented to Parliament, have been so arranged, the Diplomatic transactions so adjusted, and the Documents so worded, that it has been a task of no ordinary difficulty to arrive at the simple facts; and still more difficult to render them intelligible, to make them clear, and to prove them true.

The best consideration which I have been enabled to give to the subject, has brought me to the conclusion, that the complications and dangers of this question spring solely from the non-execution of the Award pronounced by the King of Holland; to accept which, both Nations were, and are, bound;—no international act having abrogated its authority.

It appears to me that I have satisfactorily established the following points:That there has been a settled purpose on the part of the British Minister to set aside the Award; and, consequently, to disguise the truth, and to falsify the facts:—

That not to have exacted and enforced the execution of the Award, after its adoption by the British Crown, was a dereliction of duty,—a violation of the nation's rights; it was to degrade the dignity of the Crown, and to involve this Empire in difficulty and danger :

That this neglect has resulted, not from culpable negligence, but from criminal intention, exhibited in a variety of circumstances, extending over a series of years :— That the enforcement of the Award is now the only admissible ground of adjustment :

That to abandon the Award, is to sacrifice our public rights and national honour; and to fulfil and accomplish the scheme of foreign hostility, of which the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has been the agent.

If the Award of the King of Holland is binding on Great Britain and the United States; if its fulfilment (were it not binding,) is the only practicable settlement: then it is imperative on the nation to arrest any attempt at a new arbitration.

The convictions which I state now, when collision is imminent, I have already stated at Sheffield. Long before the occurrence of the events which have directed your attention so intently and painfully to Boundary "differences," I have pointed out that question as the most alarming, and that transaction as the most disgraceful, in the wide range of our dangers and our dishonour.

That it required an armed assault by one of the States of the American Union, to call any attention to such a subject in the Parliament or the Nation, is the amplest proof of the negligence that prevails-of the disasters which that negligence may produce, and the ruin it must ultimately entail.

By the disregard of the mercantile class for all that nations have hitherto deemed prudent and considered just, the public service of this constitutional state has been reduced to a position, in which a negligent or a criminal Minister has only to sacrifice a British interest, to secure the support of every foreign influence hostile to Great Britain.

He secures also the support of the party to which he belongs, by committing it to a false line-he is secure of the silence of the party to which he is opposed, from ignorance of facts and consciousness of error.

In regard to this question, the party in power is committed through the Foreign Minister; the party in opposition is committed through the misconception of the question when in office in 1835 ;-the third party has expressed in both Houses the doctrine, that the claims of Great Britain are unjust. No one, in either House, was found to contradict this assertion, except the Minister by whom the facts had been misrepresented.

The rights secured to Great, Britain by treaty, the result of triumphs on land and sea, bought by British blood, and purchased by two thousand millions of treasure, are an inalienable portion of our national and individual property. They are beyond all other rights; they are our existence as a nation and a name. The abandonment of any one of these, touches the honour and the welfare, the political independence, and the individual possessions, of each member of the State; it is treason to the Nation, the Constitution, and the Throne.

The integrity of our national rights is the source of prosperity-the basis of security-the bond of Government—the condition of allegiance. Bankruptcy, war, convulsion, and disloyalty, are the results of the infraction of treaties,—of the dishonour to that which is the personification of our unity, the expression of our rights, the emblem of our power, the record of our fathers, and the promise to our sons, our National Flag.

The recollection of the interesting days I spent at Sheffield, and of the zealous and enthusiastic adoption there by the leading men of all parties-of British and National interests, leads me to feel no small gratification in addressing to the Chamber of Commerce of that Town, this exposition of a Question, which I conceive dangerous, only because misrepresented, and a correct comprehension of which is a duty in every Briton —a duty to America as well as to England-to mankind as well as to his country.

I have the honor to be,

Sir,

Your obedient, humble servant,

D. URQUHART.

TO CHARLES CONGREVE, Esq.

Secretary to the Chamber of Commerce, Sheffield.

P. S. Applications on the same subject having reached me from other quarters, I have thought it better (as well as from its length) to send you my Analysis in a printed form. The shortness of time, my seclusion here, and consequent inability to refer to authorities, have been serious obstacles to the elucidation of this subject; and I have from the first cause also to apprehend repetitions and omissions.

CONTENTS.

PART I.

STATE OF THE QUESTION, BEFORE REFERENCE TO THE KING OF HOLLAND..

PART II.

THE RECEPTION OF THE AWARD OF THE KING OF HOLLAND IN ENGLAND AND IN AMERICA, AND

THE MEASURES THEREUPON ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE

UNITED STATES

PART III.

OUTRAGES COMMITTED BY SUBJECTS AND SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES OF THE UNITED STATES

AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THE BRITISH CROWN

PART IV.

DOUBLE INSTRUCTIONS OF LORD PALMERSTON, AND CONSEQUENT REJECTION OF THE AWARD BY