gotiator on the part of the United States should be held bound to disclose 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

6

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. WEBSTER. [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

It thus appears, not only that the map found in Paris by Mr. SPARKS had already become known to the British Government, but also that the map in the King's library had been in its possession and was not communicated to the Government of the United States. The books in the King's library had many years ago been transferred to the British Museum. This map was brought from the Museum to the Foreign Office during Lord PALMERSTON's times, and was known to him as well as to Mr. FEATHERSTONHAUGH. We have authority for stating that Lord ABERDEEN has said, that he was not personally aware of the existence of this map till after the conclusion of the treaty, and that Lord AsнBURTON was equally ignorant of it till his return to England.

We understand that a line, from Lake Nipissing towards the source of the Mississippi, had once been drawn on this map, and has since been partially erased, though still visible. As the line is that which, in that quarter, had been proposed by the agreement of 8th October, 1782, it is probable that it was originally traced in conformity with that agreement, and was thus far the counterpart of that of Mr. JAY. But this line has been erased: and the eastern boundary of the United States is not on this map as on that of Mr. JAY, and in conformity with the said agreement, the River St. John from its mouth to one of its sources. On the contrary, the eastern boundary is on this map, found in the King's library, that described in the Preliminaries of Peace, viz: the River St. Croix from its mouth to its source, and thence a due north line to the highlands. And this line, distinctly marked on the map, and designated in several places as "the boundary described by Mr. OSWALD," carries the northwestern angle of Nova Scotia far to the north of the River St. John, and thence extends along the highlands as claimed by the United States. There can, therefore, be no doubt that, although the line, proposed by the contingent agreement of the 8th of October, 1782, had in the first instance been traced on the map, this was erased, and the boundary, established by the Preliminaries of 30th November, 1782, (since ratified verbatim by the definitive treaty,) was substituted and

to recognise. That was my firm opinion, but I confess that the speeches of Mr. RIVES, and Mr. J. SPARKS' discoveries in the archives, have not materially strengthened my convictions; I think they leave the question very much where it was."

marked on that map for the information of King GEORGE THE Third, by Mr. OSWALD himself, or some one under his direction.

Another map of Mitchell has been discovered in the State Paper Office in England, on which the boundary is traced with a red crayon according to the British claim: but this is of no authority, as it is not known by whom or when that line was traced. A copy of another map again exists here, which was published in 1784, under the auspices of the British Admiralty, and in which the boundary line is marked in conformity with the American claim.

There is a great similarity in the views of Sir ROBERT PEEL and Mr. WEBSTER respecting the weight to which those various maps are entitled. We will say, that unaltered engraved maps are good evidence of the general understanding at the time, so far, and so far only, as they all agree in some one respect. This was the case with respect to the highlands intended as the southern boundary of Canada by the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774, and also as regards the boundary intended by the Treaty of Peace. In both instances, all the cotemporaneous maps published in England agree without a single exception, and sustain the claim of the United States.

Mitchell's map, as issued, and without subsequent lines traced on it, is the acknowledged evidence of the knowledge which the negotiators of the treaty of 1782-3 had of the topography of the country. But boundary lines, subsequently traced on that or on any other map, prove nothing, unless it can be proved that they were adopted or traced by or with the knowledge of the negotiators. The only authentic maps of that character are that of Mr. JAY and that found in the King's library. The question is now settled: and we consider these and other maps simply as historical or explanatory documents, and such as it is the object of this Society to collect and to rescue from oblivion.

The map used by Mr. JAY, during the negotiations of 1782, was one of Mitchell. We have annexed a fac-simile transcript of its northeastern sheet. It differs in no respect from Mitchell's original map, but in its being colored, and having besides a red line proved to have been traced on it by Mr. JAY, designated in his hand-writing as Mr. Os

wald's line, and which is in conformity with the agreement of 8th October, 1782. It proves beyond doubt, that the dividing highlands intend ed by that agreement, (and which are described in the same identical words in the agreement and in the treaty of peace,) did, from the northern extremity of Mitchell's Medousa Lake to the northeastern source of the Penobscot, for a distance of more than one hundred and twenty miles, divide no other rivers, from those emptying into the River St. Lawrence, than tributary streams of the River St. John. This puts at rest the question respecting the intentions of the negotiators.

We do not pretend that the coloring, exclusively of that line, was done by Mr. JAY. It appears to have been previously executed by a map vender. The green southerly boundary of Canada is evidently intended to be drawn in conformity with the Quebec Act of 1774. The residue appears to be only Mitchell's dotted lines colored.