The Project of a New Commission.

The project of a new commission is the accomplishment of the transactions which have been exposed. But this project will now no longer be the secret deed of a Minister-with this, at least, to say -that he staked his head upon the die. Now, it will be the act of the Nation. No "Ministerial capacity" (responsibility) stands any longer between these transactions and the light of day. On the nation therefore, and its representatives, will now lie the responsibility of this new and public violation of national faith-this outrage on common sense, a new commission-to find, what is known not to exist--to interpret, what is recognized to be void of sense-and to execute, what is admitted to be impracticable.

--

The object of the new proposal is of course the same as that to which the previous negociations have been directed. By it the Parliament will be formally committed. Suspicion in the nation, and interest on the subject, will be laid at rest; while the warlike disposition of the United States will be kept up and increased. Thus will measures be matured with equal progression in the East and in the West: and, when India is ripe for insurrection, Persia prepared for assault, Alexandria for revolt, Constantinople for occupation,— (and with frightful rapidity do those fates approach),-then will be determined at St. Petersburg the mode and the moment of our war with America.*

* On the occurrence of the events in Maine, which have directed the attention of England, for the first time, to this subject, the eyes of every one at Washington were turned to the Russian Mission. The American newspapers in which I read the account of the proceedings in Congress at the close of the Session, had given a full half of their columns to the details of the festivities at the Russian Embassy-and to the mutual hospitalities of the Burghers of New York, and the officers of the French Steam Frigate Veloce-who received the honour of American citizenship. Meanwhile, the Governor of New Brunswick speaks as a soldier ought; the Minister at Washington as,-alas !-British diplomatists are now taught to speak. The first declares his determination and obligations, "at all hazards," to resist aggression:-the second, begs the American Government to yield-implores the Governor of New Brunswick to withdraw-declares England to be wholly unprepared for War with any one, far less Iwith the United States. And, in character with the remainder of these proceedings, the Secretary of Legation is publicly stated in the newspapers to have asserted that the Governor of a British province had exceeded his instructions; and that he would be recalled.

PART VI.

RECAPITULATION-VIOLATION OF NATIONAL COMPACTBETRAYAL BY THE FOREIGN SECRETARY OF THE PUBLIC INTERESTS-HIS ASSUMPTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER-ONLY REMEDY, IMPEACHMENT.

"SUCH A MAN IS A PUBLIC ENEMY, WHO SAPS THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE PEACE AND COMMON SAFETY OF NATIONS."-Vattel, Book ii. Chap. xv.

Great Britain and the United States are bound, by the Treaty of Ghent, to submit differences respecting the Boundary to an Arbiter, and to be bound by his decision. The peace of those States reposes on that Treaty. To violate it, on any one point, is to abrogate it in all. The violation of the stipulation which renders arbitration final, would be abrogation of all international ties subsisting between those States.

The two Governments have signed a convention, on the 29th September, 1827, executory of the stipulation of the Treaty of Ghent, and binding themselves to accept, as final and conclusive, the Award which the Arbiter should pronounce; and to carry it, without reserve, into immediate execution. This international compact had solely reference to, and was to be fulfilled in, the single act of the adoption of the Award, when rendered.

In conformity with this public deed, and on the faith of these obligations, the King of Holland was requested by the High Parties "to be pleased to take upon himself the arbitration of their differ"ences;" and that prince did so undertake that office.

On the 10th of January, 1831, the King of Holland pronounced his decision.

The King of Great Britain immediately expressed to the King of Holland, his acquiescence in that decision.

The King of Great Britain did not so express to the United States, his acquiescence in that decision.

The United States made no communication on the subject, either to the King of Holland or to the British Government.

In December, 1831, the British Government communicated to the United States the acceptance of the Award by Great Britain, and requested to know what the United States proposed to do. The United States gave no answer.

In the month of July, 1832, the Senate of the United States advised the President not to accept the Award; and also advised him to open a new negociation with Great Britain.

Communication to that effect was made in July 21st, 1832.

On April 14th, 1833, after an interval of nine months from the period of the American communication, and two years and three months after the rendering of the Award, the receipt of this com. munication is acknowledged by the British Government; the setting aside of the Award, by America, acquiesced in; and a proposal for new negociations adopted.

On the 29th December, 1835, the English Government signified to the American Government, that it distinctly withdrew its assent to the Award of the King of Holland, which it then designates as a "territorial compromise, recommended."

From April 1833, to January 1838, sixteen notes are exchanged between the British Minister at Washington, and the American Secretary of State, containing proposals for negociation— counter-proposals-refusals-and counter-refusals.

On the 10th of January, 1838, the British Minister at Washington receives, from the principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a despatch containing these words:" Both Go"vernments have agreed to consider the Award of the King of "Holland as binding on neither party; and the two Governments "therefore are in this respect as free as they were before the “reference to that Sovereign was made."

Thus-The British Minister had accepted the Award in the name of the Crown; had applied to that Award the anterior treaty stipulations; had signified to the King of Holland his acceptance of it; had signified to the American Government his acceptance

of it. He had not produced it to the House of Commons; he had resisted in his ministerial capacity the production of it in the House of Commons; he had refused to assign any reason for the withholding of it. He had obtained the rejection of it by the American Senate-by an intimation that England was not indisposed to open new negociations; he had submitted to that rejection: he had acceded to a proposition of a new negociation; he had himself offered projects of negociation he then withdrew the assent of the British Government from the Award altogether, and finally instructed the Envoy at Washington, that both Governments were entirely absolved from all obligations imposed upon them by the Award, and consequently imposed upon them by the Convention of 1827 and the Treaty of 1814.

Further-He had suffered a long series of aggressions against the rights of Great Britain, and the prerogative and authority of the Crown, to be perpetrated without obtaining satisfaction, or demanding it; without making remonstrance, or even communication, to the Government by whose subjects these crimes were committed, until he had encouraged, sanctioned, and fully established, a determined spirit of hostility to the fulfilment of the common obligations of the two States, and until he had diplomatically set aside the rights of Great Britain in that question. He had, moreover, by his positive declarations in the House of Commons, excited the American people and Government to resist the Award, had fomented a spirit of hostility, and encouraged the outrages of the population bordering on the disputed Boundary.

But-The Award of the King of Holland, founded as it is on international compact, remains binding upon this country, and upon the United States, so long as both are not absolved from such obligations by the same authority as that by which they were contracted.

Until such compact is entered into, the proposal of a new negociation on the part of a British Minister, being an attempt to set aside an act, the fulfilment of a convention, is an assumption of the prerogatives of the Crown. It is therefore illegal, and is not binding on Great Britain.

U

The public safety requires an immediate inquiry into the conduct of the principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to this question; and if it appears that by his acts, or his negligence, or even his ignorance, these alarming and unfortuate results have been brought about, then are the means furnished, by which to restore our national position, and to transfer, from the Parliament and the Crown, to the guilty Minister, the responsibility of such acts, by his impeachment and condemnation.