lands should be sought in a North Western, instead of the Northern direction, which had been directed by the terms of the Treaty, by which America affected to be guided; and this suggestion was made by an American Secretary of State. But this was coupled by an intimation that the Highlands were to be sought at any distance on that line Westward, so that the pretensions which might have been raised by the United States were incalculable, and the certainty of obtaining their great object of crossing the St. John was very nearly obtained.

Such being the state of the question, and England having shewn herself disposed to make every sacrifice, in order to abide by the decision of the Arbitrator which she had chosen; while America showed herself disposed to make new demands from day to day, and only to treat upon such vague and indefinite principles, as promised to yield her future advantages; it appeared from some conversation which took place between Sir Charles Vaughan, and Mr. Forsyth, the American Secretary of State, that the Government of the United States desired and hoped, that notwithstanding the great sacrifices already profferred on the part of England, in agreeing to the award of the Arbitrator at all, Great Britain should offer some compensation to Maine for her accession to that award.

In the reply of Lord Palmerston to the letters of Sir Charles Vaughan, enclosing the pretensions of America as set forth by Mr. Forsyth, no notice is taken of the above informal suggestion; but Lord Palmerston suggests, in the first place, that the Commission of Survey proposed by the American Government should be instructed to search for Highlands separating rivers in regard to the course of which into the Atlantic or the St. Lawrence there could be no doubt, inasmuch as the question as to whether the Bay of Fundy or Chaleur Bay did or did not form a part of the Atlantic, according to the meaning of the Treaty of 1783, was contested. In the second place, Lord Palmerston proposed, in case of the rejection of the above, that the disputed territory should be divided equally between Great Britain and America, giving as an outline of the division that the Boundary should be drawn due North from the source of the St. St. Croix till it struck the St. John, then along the course of that river to its southernmost source, and thence in a direct line to the head of the Connecticut river, the Northern division of the territory thus separated remaining in the possession of Great Britain, the Southern being allotted to America.

Both these proposals were immediately rejected by America; Mr. Bankhead, then representing

Great Britain at Washington, declaring a counter proposition made by the American Government to consider the river St. John along the whole of of its course, the boundary, to be utterly inadmissible. Mr. Bankhead at the same time explained the first proposal of Lord Palmerston, which had been rejected, by stating that the commission of Survey was intended, as modified by Lord Palmerston's proposal, not to decide upon points of difference, but merely to present to the respective Governments the result of their labours. In reply to this, the President asked several questions of no great importance, and the correspondence on the subject appears to have dropped from the 5th of March 1836, till the 29th of March 1837.

But in the meantime, some important events had taken place in America. The Senate had applied for the correspondence between the two Governments since the arbitration of the King of the Netherlands. Copies of the correspondence had been furnished by the President, and the Senate had ordered the correspondence to be published, notwithstanding the strongest representations of the President. The State of Maine made application to the President to cause the line of boundary to be run according to its own interpretation of the Treaty of 1783, and the appropriation of a sum of money granted by

Congress for the purpose of carrying that object

into effect.

The correspondence with England was resumed by an application from Mr. Forsythe for an answer to the proposal of the United States to make the St. John the boundary, and Lord Palmerston replied, strongly urging a conventional line equally dividing the disputed territory.

NOTE.

N.B. From the above statement it will be seen that although America rejected the arbitration of the King of the Netherlands, on the pretence that his decision was not in accordance with the line prescribed by the treaty of 1783, she has on various occasions proposed a direct deviation from that line; and at the same time has assumed much indignation when England has proposed deviations not so well suited to the views of Maine.

Although by no means fond of meddling with any political discussions, I may be permitted perhaps to say that there would seem to me to be a very easy way of settling the differences on the boundary question, supposing that there exists good faith and moderation on both parts. No new survey can have any good result, except upon such conditions as will create an umpire between

the respective Commissioners of survey, and render the limits agreed upon by the Commissioners, together with the decision of the umpire in regard to all contested points, binding on the two states interested. The transactions which accompanied the rejection of the division made by the King of the Netherlands, prove that the executive Government of the United States is not entrusted with sufficient powers to effect this object; and therefore it can only be brought about by a treaty of survey and arbitration, duly submitted to the constitutional bodies of both States, and fully ratified by both before any new attempt to define the boundary is made. One of the articles of the treaty might thus define the objects of the survey, and the powers of the umpire.

"It is agreed that two Commissioners be appointed in the following manner: that is to say; One Commissioner shall be appointed by Her Britannic Majesty, and one by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and the said two Commissioners so appointed shall be sworn impartially to examine and decide what is the nearest possible approach which can be made to the line of boundary described in the 5th article of the treaty of Ghent, or to any part thereof which yet remains to be decided, commencing