to be distant, upon an average, less than half a mile to the north of the true parallel. The King of the Netherlands, however, considering that the Treaty of Ghent made it imperative upon the parties to cause a new survey to be made of that line, in declaring that that provision of the Treaty must be executed, decided that in any case the United States should preserve the site upon which a fortification at Rouse's Point had been erected, with a circle round it of one Kilometre radius. By the Treaty of Washington it has been determined to confirm the parties in their possessions according to the old line of 1772, and therefore it has been made the boundary between the two countries. Rouse's Point consequently remains with the United States, as it would have done if the award of the King of the Netherlands had been accepted by both Governments. The work, however, which was erected upon this low piece of land soon after the revolt broke out in the British provinces, in 1776, was long ago demolished, and will probably be never re-constructed, as the place is considered to have no advantages as a military position. The 2nd Article of the Treaty provides for that portion of the general boundary left unsettled by the Commissioners under the 6th Article of the Treaty of Ghent. The extreme claim of the United States when their Commission closed in 1828, would have carried the boundary far to the north-east of that now established by the Treaty of Washington, which there can be no doubt is the line intended by the Treaty of 1783. The difference which the line now established constitutes in favour of Great Britain, is about 5,847 square miles, or 3,742,080 acres. Nearly the whole of it, however, is a barren and rocky country, unfavourable to agriculture. On the other hand, a particular channel in the water communication from Lake Huron to Lake Superior has been agreed upon, in consequence of which a small island in dispute, called St. George's, or Sugar Island, falls to the United States. By this Article the whole of the boundary from Lake Huron to the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains, is now permanently agreed upon. It might have been advisable to have left these explanations of the real nature of the boundary portion of this Treaty, at this point, as altogether sufficient for persons of candour to form their judgment upon; and the author would probably have been contented to do so without further remark, but for those misrepresentations before alluded to in the Revue des deux Mondes, which evidently aim to represent Vide the whole Treaty as derogatory to Great Britain, and which have been extensively circulated through the continent of Europe. The writer of the article referred to-and which is in many respects a very able one-has chosen to consider some remarks which have appeared in one or two of our newspapers as representing public opinion in England, and says that, upon mature consideration of the Treaty of Washington, the general feeling here is divided between satisfaction at having settled one of our most embarrassing political questions, and regret at having paid so very dear for the friendship of America. Now this writer has either very much misunderstood the provisions of the Treaty, or, from some motive, has represented several of them in a very different sense to their obvious and true one. Whatever the reason may have been, it is very clear that his assertions that the honour and interests of this country have been overlooked in the late negotiations, required that the facts should be misrepresented, before the assertions could be made even plausible, and this is what has been done. Of these misrepresentations a few may be cited. After stating that the British Government at length withdrew its consent to the award of the King of the Netherlands, he proceeds to say : "Lord Palmerston proposa encore que la "rivière Saint-Jean fût prise pour ligne limi"trophe, ce qui a été en grande partie adopté "dans le dernier Traité. A cette époque, les "Etats Unis refusèrent cette proposition *.” This statement unequivocally betrays the loose manner in which so grave a subject has been treated. It is true that Mr. Forsyth, the American Secretary of State, did, on the 29th February, 1836, in a note to Charles Bankhead, Esq., propose to terminate the controversy by making the St. John from "its source to its "mouth" the boundary between the two countries; but as this proposition involved the surrender to the United States of a territory which had never been in dispute, containing near 3,000,000 acres of land, as well as the flourishing town of St. Andrews, and various settlements of British subjects, Mr. Bankhead, in his answer, says, he forbears to make any allusion to such a proposition, as the best proof he can give "of "its utter inadmissibility." This was the proposition, it will be remembered, which had been rejected by the British Government during the negotiations at Paris in * Lord Palmerston proposed after this that the river St, John should be agreed upon as the boundary, and which has been in a great measure adopted in the late Treaty. At this period the United States refused this proposition. 1782, and since that period it had never been entertained for a moment by any administration in Great Britain. But although Viscount Palmerston never made so extravagant a proposition, or any one that resembled it, it is true that that statesman, in his despatch to Mr. Bankhead, dated October 30, 1835, did propose, by way of compromise, a line which is substantially the same for all useful purposes with that which has now been settled by the Treaty of Washington, with the sole exception that the St. John was to be the boundary from the point where the North line intersects that river to its southernmost source. The passage in the despatch is as follows: "His Majesty's Government would there"fore propose to that of the United States, "to adjust the present difference, by dividing equally between Great Britain and the United "States the territory in dispute; allotting to "each party that portion which, from contiguity or other circumstances, would be most "desirable as a possession for each. "The general outline of such a division "would be, that the boundary between the two "states should be drawn as required by the "Treaty, due north from the head of the St. "Croix River, and should be carried straight "on till it intersected the St. John: from |