Sitting of 22 March 1843

Preamble
MINUTES. NEW MEMBER SWORN.—Right Hon. Thomas Berry Cusack Smith, for Ripon.
.BILLS.Public.—Reported.—Dogs.
Private.—1°. Sutherland Roads; Holbeath and Lochgelly Railway; Burry, etc. Navigation; Saltcoats Harbour; Haddenham Inclosure; Deptford Poor and Improvement; Tay Ferries,
Reported.—Cardigan Market; Lancaster Lunatic Asylum.
3°. and passed;—Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal; Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway; Liverpool Gas.
PETITIONS PRESENTND. By Sir H. Fleetwood, Messrs. Ewart, Brotherton, and G. W. Wood, and Dr. Bowring, from Preston, Prescott, Higham, Billington, Burnley, Levens, Helsington, Casterton, Barbon, Middleton, Pres ton Richard, Farleton, Huttonroof, Hincaster, Under barrow and Bradleyfield, Nethergraveship, Killington, Lambrigg, Docker, Hawkshead, Natland, Old Hutton, New Hutton, Scalthwaite Higg, Crook, Claife, Bowness, Undermillbeck, and Greyregg, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.—By Lord Duncan, from Bath, against portions of the American Treaty.—By Mr. R. Trevor, from Llandovery, for Amend. of Bankruptcy Act.—By Sir R. Inglis, from Oxford, Ax-bridge, and Dunster, for Church Extension, and from Bath, against the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. S. Wortley, from Tower Hamlets, and some London Parishes, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By Mr. G. Knight, from Lambeth, for Redemption of the Tolls on the Bridges in the Metropolis.—By Sir, W. Clay, from Hackney, against the Education Clauses in the Factory Bill.—By the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from Lewes, for Amending the Parochial Assessment Act.—By Mr. Christopher, from Gainsburgh, against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.—From Aylesbury, in favour of the Dogs Bill.—From Ennis, Lower Creggan, and Inno shannon, against the Irish Poor-law.—From Samuel Gordon, for holding the next Session of Parliament in Dublin.—From Tenterden, Berks, Godstone, North Droxford, and Rochester, against Union of Sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.

FRAUDS IN THE CUSTOMS—SMUGGLING.
Mr. Divettsaid that reports were prevalent respecting the discovery of extensive frauds in the Customs. Silks and other goods to a large amount, it was
1286
said, had been smuggled, and it was added that the guilty parties had been allowed to compromise. He had little doubt that the current statements were exaggerated, but a strong impression upon the subject prevailed, and the injury and discouragement to the fair trader by such transactions were obvious. Seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place he wished, therefore, to put to him two questions—First, whether, in point of fact, any such compromise had been made? Second, if they had been made, whether there would be any objection, with a view to the protection of the fair trader, to make the public acquainted with the names of the parties against whom informations had been laid, when those informations had ended in conviction and compromise? He believed that such had been the course in the Excise department, and he saw no reason why the rule should not be extended to the Customs.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that as the hon. Member had been good enough to give him notice of his intended questions, he had made immediate inquiry at the Custom-house on the subject. He found that the Board of Customs had entered into no compromises as to the recent seizures of silks, or any other seizures, and that they would not enter into any such compromises. As to the publication of the names of convicted parties, he saw no objection to it, excepting during the pendency of proceedings; the hon. Member would be aware that until the parties were convicted such publication would be disadvantageous.
Mr. Divettadded that he had met a gentleman extensively engaged in the silk trade, who had informed him that it was a regular thing on going into a French silk warehouse to be asked whether the goods should be sent through the Customs or "under the moon;" if "under the moon," ten percent. more was charge.
Subject at an end.

DOGS EMPLOYED IN DRAWING.
Mr. East Mr. East moved the further consideration of the report on the Dogs Bill.
Mr. D. Barclayobjected to the measure as partial in its operation and most oppressive to the poor, and moved that the report be further considered on that day six months.
Mr. Ewartbelieved that all bills affecting trade should originate in a committee

1287
of the whole House. As that necessary rule had not been complied with in the present case, he suggested that the bill could not proceed.
The Speakersaid that this measure was not one of that nature contemplated by the rule which required bills affecting trade to be founded upon a resolution in committee of the whole House.
Lord A. Lennoxopposed the amendment and stated that it was by no means an unfrequent occurrence for dogs to be driven forty or fifty miles a day, in the county of Sussex. The noble Lord referred to the evidence of Mr. Sewell, given before a committee of the House in 1838, to show that the hard working of dogs led to hydrophobia.
Mr. Humeopposed the motion and supported the amendment. The decision of a committee on the subject of cruelty to animals had reference to the use of dogs in crowded streets. There was an act against cruelty to animals, and dogs were included in that act. Was it because here and there two or three persons might abuse the trust which was reposed in them, with respect to these brute animals, that therefore it was necessary to legislate for the protection of dogs? He recollected that since he had been in Parliament a bill was brought in to abolish the use of pewter pots, because so many of them had been stolen; why, the Legislature might as well have passed an act to abolish the use of silver plate; and it was on that ground that the bill was thrown out. Now he was as anxious as any man could be to prevent the exercise of cruelty to animals; but, at the same time, he wished to protect the interests of those whose very livelihood might depend on the labour of dogs. Look at the use of dogs in Kamschatka. The hon. Member for Oldham, he was sorry to observe, was not then present; but he had on a former occasion stated the fact that whole troops of dogs were engaged or employed in smuggling goods between the frontiers of Belgium and France. He had received a letter from a gentleman who had heard that it was in contemplation to put down the use of dogs as beasts of burthen or draught; and on the subject of cruelty to animals, this party referred to a case of the then Duke of Richmond's hounds following a stag with its leg broken for one hour and a half. Now, if the Legislature would bring in a bill to pre-
1288
vent men from being yoked together to draw carts, he should say that something good might be done, and he would gladly second such a motion, and in such case the hon. Member might carry out the law against cruelty to animals. He hoped the House would not allow this measure to go on, or that at least they would defer its further progress till after Easter.
.Sir R. Inglisdid not think that any argument had been adduced sufficiently strong to induce the House to adopt the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Barclay). He begged to tender his best thanks to the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Arthur Lennox) for the part he had taken in reference to this bill. The objection to the use of dogs drawing burthens in the crowded streets of the metropolis was equally applicable to narrow and crowded streets of country towns.
Sir G. Stauntontrusted, that the bill would pass without alteration. The statement of the noble Lord relative to the employment of dogs in Sussex was perfectly accurate, and as the House had already sanctioned the principle of the measure, he hoped it would pass.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question. Ayes 100; Noes 54:—Majority 46.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T.

Duncombe, T.

A'Court, Capt.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Acton, Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Adare, Visct.

Emlyn, Visct.

Adderly, C. B.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Antrobus, E.

Fielden, J.

Arkwright, G.

Ferrand, W. B.

Ashley, Lord

Ferrand, W. B.

Astell, W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Baring, rt. hon. F.T.

Flower, Sir J

Barnard, E. G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Borthwick, P.

Fuller, A. E.

Broadley, H.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Brotherton, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Bruce, Lord E.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Buckley, E.

Gore, M.

Butler, hon. Col.

Greene, T.

Byng, G.

Grimston, Visct.

Byng, rt. hon. G.S.

Hamilton, W. J.

Cardwell, E.

Hardy, J.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hindley, C.

Christopher, R. A.

Hodgson, F.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hodgson, R.

Clayton, R. R.

Hogg, J. W.

Cripps, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Denison, E. B.

Houldsworth, T.

Dickinson, F. H.

Howard, Lord

Douglas, Sir H.

Hughes, W. B.

Douglas, Sir C.E.

Humphery, Ald,

1289

Hussey, T.

Repton, G. W. J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Rice, E. R.

Lambton, H.

Round, C. G.

Law, hon. C. E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Legh, G. C.

Shirley, E. P.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Smith, A.

Mahon, Visct.

Somerset, Lord G.

Mainwaring, T.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Marjoribanks, S.

Stanley, E.

Miles, P. W. S.

Stuart, Lord J.

Morgan, O.

Thornhill, G.

Mundy, E. M.

Tollemache, J.

Neeld, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Trotter, J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Wodehouse, E.

Paget, Col.

Wood, B.

Palmer, R.

Wood, G. W.

Peel, J.

Worsley, Lord

Plumridge, Capt.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Powell, Col.

Praed, W. T.

TELLERS.

Protheroe, E.

Lennox, Lord A.

Pusey, P.

Staunton, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hutt, W.

Ainsworth, P.

Ker, D. S.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Bailey, J. Jun.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Baring, H. B.

Mangles, R. D.

Bernal, R.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Mitchell, T. A.

Buller, C.

Muntz, G. F.

Clay, Sir W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Cochrane, A.

Ord, W.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Pakington, J. S.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Pulsford, R.

Denison, W. J.

Ross, D.R.

Dennistoun, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Disraeli, B.

Scott, R.

Divett, E.

Smythe, hon. G.

Duncan, Visct.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Duncan, G.

Tancred, H. W.

Elphinstone, H.

Thornely, T.

Ewart, W.

Vane, Lord H.

Gibson, T. M.

Wall, C.B.

Gore, hon. R.

Walsh, Sir J.B.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Walter, J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F. G.

Wawn, J.T.

Wood, C.

Hastie, A.

Wrightson, W.B.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Hume, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Barclay, D.

Report received and agreed to.
On the motion that the bill be read a third time on the following day.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved as an amendment that the bill be read a third time on April 24th.
The House again divided on the question that the words "to-morrow" stand part of the question. Ayes 97; Noes 46:—Majority 51.
[We publish the List on the first division only.]

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Sir Charles Napierhad listened with great attention and pleasure to the very lengthened speech of the noble Lord who brought forward the motion, as well as to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which was not very short, though he was one of those who thought that if hon. Gentlemen would make shorter speeches they would make more impression on the House, whilst the fatigue of hon. Gentlemen would be a great deal less. Considering, however, that the noble Lord had to go over sixty years of negotiation and diplomacy, he did not think that he could have condensed his speech more than he did. The right hon. Baronet had got up to answer that speech with considerable warmth, and with an excited manner; and he (Sir C. Napier) thought it often happened that when the right hon. Baronet failed in argument, he endeavoured to fetter their judgment by the power of his eloquence, and also by the strength of his action. He confessed that he always admired the right hon. Baronet, but towards the end of his speeches his audience seemed considerably bewildered, so eloquent was the right hon. Baronet's language, and so expressive was his manner. Last night, a mist, something like a dream, had come over his eyes during the right hon. Baronet's speech, which had almost the effect of mesmerism, and obliged him to retire from the House, so as to prevent his hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, in every word of which he agreed [laughter.] He ought to have said that he had read it this morning. The part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which had particularly struck him was that containing his observations as to the right of visit. He confessed that when he had taken up the article in the Ashburton treaty, relative to the right of search, he had thought that it was totally and entirely given up. He would read to the House the eighth article of that treaty.
"Article VIII.—The parties mutually stipulate, that each shall prepare, equip, and maintain in service on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron, or naval force of vessels, of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty guns, to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of each of the two countries for the suppression of the slave-trade; the said squadrons to be independent

1291
of each other, but the two Governments stipulating, nevertheless, to give such orders to the officers commanding their respective forces, as shall enable them most effectually to act in concert and co-operation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may arise, for the attainment of the true object of this article; copies of all such orders to be communicated by each Government to the other respectively."
He really did think that most Gentlemen reading that article would be impressed with the notion that the right of visit was given up, or compromised, by the right hon. Baronet. But the right hon. Baronet had taken a very different view of that article from the American President, and Mr. Webster. He could fancy perfectly well the conversation which took place between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster as to that article, for it was arranged by conversation, there was no writing passed on the subject. He could easily conceive that Lord Ashburton told Mr. Webster that he must insist on the right of search, and that Mr. Webster replied to the noble Lord, "America can never concede the right, but we will send a certain number of vessels to the coast of Guinea; you shall board all the vessels of other states, and we will board those hoisting the American flag." The agreement was, that the Americans should send eighty guns to the coast of Africa. Did ever man see such an article in a treaty before, either here or anywhere else? If the article had specified the number of ships, it might have done; but it only said that they were to keep eighty guns; it did not say what the size of the eighty was to be. Twenty swivels might be mounted on a small schooner, and then four schooners of twenty swivels each would comply with the treaty. The construction of that article had already led to a difference of opinion between the American President and the right hon. Baronet. Whether the opinion of Lord Ashburton agreed with that of Mr. Webster he did not know, but he was glad that the right hon. Baronet had disclaimed such a construction altogether. In referring to the letters between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton he would only read one extract relative to the right of visit in the event of a war. Mr. Webster entered into a long argument against the abuses of the right and he (Sir C. Napier) did not deny that there was great justice in much that he said. Mr. Webster said,
1292
"The American government then is prepared to say that the practice of impressing sea men from American vessels cannot hereafter be allowed to take place. That practice is founded on principles which it does not recognize, and is invariably attended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such formidable magnitude as cannot be submitted to."
What did that amount to but simply this, that if we should be unfortunately engaged in a war with France or with any other country—if British seamen should desert and go to American ships, British officers would not be permitted to go and take them out. He thought that Lord Ashburton ought, and that the Government should have instructed him, to put forward our claim intelligibly. He feared that the moment we were engaged in a war the first thing America would do, if we pressed our own seamen, would be to declare war against this country. The right hon. Baronet had taunted his noble Friend with having been ten years a member of the administration, without having settled this question. The House knew well that such questions as these were not easily settled; but he thought when the right hon. Baronet taunted his noble Friend with having left the matter unsettled, he should have gone a little further back, and should have gone as far as the treaty of Ghent. At that time we were in possession of a great part of this land; we had power to settle this question, and we need not have left it un settled for forty or fifty years. The right hon. Baronet also taunted his noble Friend, that after the reference to the King of Holland he had remained undecided whether he would accept or with draw from the award. Now, what did that prove? It only proved that the noble Lord was willing to do everything he possibly could, with honour, to obtain peace with America, by the award given by the King of Holland. Now he would observe, that it was a very difficult thing for negotiators to accept awards given by a foreign power, whom they conceived to be the arbitrators between them, and after that refuse to abide by the treaty. One was perfectly honourable, and the other was perfectly dishonourable, and that was the name he would give to this treaty. He would now come to the boundary treaty at once. It appeared to him that the noble Lord signed that treaty, not knowing

1293
the man with whom he was acting. He quite forgot that Mr. Webster was what the Americans called a "smart man." In almost the first communication from Mr. Webster, it was pretty plainly stated what the Americans wanted. The noble Lord seemed to think that, as it was known that he had a great love and affection to America, and that as he had distinguished himself as an opponent of the last war with that country, and as he also objected to all the trash, as he termed it, of negotiation, that he should be able to induce the Americans to come forward, and treat him with the same kindness and candour which he was prepared to show to them. He would be the last person to find fault with Lord Ashburton coming to the point; but when he came to the point, he would have wished to have seen him stick to it. Now Lord Ashburton, it appeared, in his first communication to Mr. Webster, stated:—
"The territory, in controvery is, for that portion of it at least which is likely to come to Great Britain by any amicable settlement, as worthless for any purposes of habitation or cultivation as probably any tract of equal size on the habitable globe; and if it were not for the obvious circumstance of its connecting the British North American provinces, I believe I might venture to say that, whatever might have been the merit of our case, we should long since have given up the controversy, and willingly have made the sacrifice to the wishes of a country with which it is so much our interest, as it is our desire, to maintain the most perfect harmony and good will."
In the subsequent communication—
"In considering on the map a division of the territory in question, this remarkable circumstance must be kept in mind, that a division of acres by their number would be a very unequal division of their value. The southern portion of this territory, the valley of the Aroostook, is represented to be one of the most beautiful and most fertile tracts of land in this part of the continent, capable of the highest state of cultivation, and covered with fine timber, while the northern portion, with the exception of that small part comprised within the Madawaska settlement, is of the miserable description I have stated. It would be no exaggeration to say that one acre on the Aroostook would be of much more value than ten acres north of the St. John. There would be, therefore, no equality in making a division of acre for acre."
Again, in the same letter, he stated that it was impossible to give up the Madawaska settlement:
1294
"The inhabitants have professed great apprehensions of being surrendered by Great Britain, and have lately sent an earnest petition to the Queen, deprecating that being done. Further, this settlement forms one united community, all connected together and living some on one and some on the other side of the river, which forms a sort of high road between them. It seems self-evident that no more inconvenient line of boundary could well be drawn, than one which divides in two an existing municipality; inconvenient as well to the inhabitants themselves, as to the authorities under which they are to live. There would be evident hardship, I might say cruelty, in separating this now happy and contented village, to say nothing of the bickerings and probable collisions likely to arise from taking in this spot the precise line of the river, which would, under other circumstances, satisfy us. Indeed, I should consider that such a separation of these industrious settlers, by placing them under separate laws and governments, a most harsh proceeding, and that we should thereby abandon the great object we should have in view of the happiness and convenience of the people, and the fixing a boundary the least likely to occasion further strife."
Here, then, the noble Lord had clearly and distinctly declared that in no way could he be induced to abandon this settlement; but he said that he could give up the navigation of the St. John, and also yield up the position at Rouse's Point. Now, what was the answer Mr. Webster made to this: he said that it was perfectly inadmissible to allow Great Britain to retain the Madawaska settlement, and he also said that the river St. John was a most excellent boundary, and that therefore the portion of the Madawaska settlement to the south of the river must belong to the United States. He said,—
"The experience of the world, and our own experience, shows the propriety of making rivers boundaries whenever their courses suit the general objects."
He maintained, when it suited his purpose, that they should take the line of the river St. John, and that it was excellent as far as the mouth of the Madawaska river; but then that it was not sufficient. Mr. Webster said this for some time, but when he found the river turned at right angles to the south, he declared that it would be highly improper any longer to follow this line, and proposed to run a line of boundary up to Long Lake, which would include a territory the United States wished to get possession of. Mr. Webster said,—
"The next question is, how far upward

1295
this boundary ought to be observed, and along which of its branches. This question would be easily settled, if what may be called the main branch of the river in this part of it, differing from the general character of the rivers iu this region of country, did not make a sudden turn. But if we consider the main branch of the St. John's that which has been recently usually so denominated, your Lordship observes that near the mouth of the Madawaska it turns almost at right angles, and pushes its sources towards those of the Penobscot. Contiguity and compactness of territory can hardly be preserved by following a stream which makes, not occasional windings, but at once so great a deflection from its previous course. The Madawaska is one of its branches or principal sources, and, as the map shows, is very much a continuance of the line of the principal river from the Great Falls upwards. The natural course would, therefore, seem to be to continue along this branch."
Was it not extraordinary, that Mr. Webster should for a certain purpose find the line of the river St. John an excellent boundary, but as soon as it appeared that the line of that river would trench on the American territory, he refused to deal with a right angle turn in the river to the south, but when there appeared a right angle turn to the north, he wished to adhere to it. It was quite true, that in this letter to Lord Ashburton, he did not exactly insist on this point; but he proposed that a line of boundary should begin in the line of the St. John's, where that river is intersected by a due north line extended from the source of the St. Croix, thence proceeding westerly, by the middle of the main channel of that river, to a point three miles westerly of the mouth of the Madawaska, thence by a straight line to the outlet of Long Lake. For the credit of Lord Ashburton, he was bound to state that his Lordship had, on that occasion, shown himself equally firm with Mr. Webster, and had told him decidedly that such a line was inadmissible. He wished his Lordship had shown himself equally as capable in argument with Mr. Webster. Lord Ashburton said, You object to the river boundary when it trends to the south of the river St. John, but you wish to take possession of a settlement to the north of the river. Now I wish he had been equally as firm with respect to the Madawaska settlement and Rouse's Point. Mr. Webster did not directly state that he should persist in insisting on the Madawaska and the line of the St. Francis, but he sent Lord Ashburton some long re-
1296
solutions from the commissioners of Maine, in which they intimate that if Great Britain was not willing to give up the Madawaska settlement, it would be better to give up the negotiation at once, and the sooner Lord Ashburton packed up his traps and started for England the better. Immediately on receiving this communication, Lord Ashburton should have said in reply to this, We will go to the St. John's, and remain there, and you may drive us out by force if you can. The noble Lord should have directed that the English flag should be hoisted, and if he had done so, and had shown a disposition to retain possession of the territory, America would not have dared to have gone to war, for she had neither navy, nor army, nor money, nor credit; and, with our large steam force, nothing could have been easier than to have sent 5,000 men there in a few days, and to have kept them there until we got a settlement from the Americans. This was the proper mode of dealing with those men who demanded everything from us, and refused to give anything. He now came to the slip of land called Rouse's Point, which Lord Ashburton had offered to give up on condition of our being allowed to retain the Madawaska settlement, but which he gave up without being able to retain the Madawaska settlement which he ought not to have abandoned. The gallant Member for Liverpool last night gave a description of the mode in which he carried on the government of New Brunswick, and no doubt in every situation in which he had been placed the gallant Officer acted in a manner that was honourable to himself and creditable to the country; he could not, however, agree with the gallant Member in the manner in which he dealt with Rouse's Point. This place was situated at the mouth of Lake Champlain; and if it was not already a strong point it could easily be made very strong. The hon. and gallant Member said that it was an offensive and not a defensive point, and therefore it was of little use, and could be abandoned without any great sacrifice on our parts. Good God! if this was to be the case, and such an argument was to be acted upon, this country might as well give up Gibraltar, which was certainly an offensive point. He could show the gallant General that American officers entertained a very different opinion from him as to the

1297
value of this point. As a proof of this he would refer the gallant Member to the report drawn up by an American officer, and laid before Congress, on the national defences and national boundaries. He stated:—
"A work here (now the boundary line), on Lake Champlain, may be made to command the pass of the lake, and is considered by far the most important of any proposed on the whole line of frontier. The position of Lake Champlain is somewhat peculiar; while Ontario, Erie, Huron, and Superior, stretch their whole length along the frontier (forming in fact, the boundary), Champlain extends deeply into our territory, and while its southern extremity reaches almost to the Hudson, it finds its outlet to the north in the St. Lawrence, nearly midway between Montreal and Quebec, the two great objects of attack. This is undoubtedly the course by which the British possessions can be most effectually assailed; while at the same time it would afford to the enemy, possessing a naval superiority, equal facilities for bringing the war within our own borders, if it be left unfortified. It therefore becomes necessary to fortify a point, as near the line as possible, to shut out the enemy's vessels, and thus effect the double object of protecting the interior shores of the lake from the predatory attacks to which they would be otherwise exposed, and of securing it to ourselves, as a channel by which our troops and supplies may be rapidly thrown forward to the points of attack and defence."
It appeared, then, that we had conceded to America Rouse's Point, which their ministers told us was the point, of all others, from which it would be most easy for Great Britain to attack the American settlements. By doing so, you had also taken from them the necessity of fortifying the opposite points, and thus you made a surrender in this matter of the utmost importance to them, without obtaining the slightest equivalent. With regard to the Madawaska settlement, he had for gotten to refer (as he had intended) to a letter of Lord Sydenham to Mr. Fox which would show the importance which that noble Lord attached to it. That noble Lord said:—
"Mr. Webster's proposal goes not merely to the retention by the United States of the block-house at the mouth of the Fish river, and the establishment there of a military force in the place of the civil possee at present in occupation of that post, but to confine the occupation of the territory in dispute by her Majesty's forces to the north bank of the St. John's, thereby virtually excluding them from affording protection, if required, to her Ma-
1298
jesty's subjects on the south bank of that river, on which, as you have justly stated, a large population is extended, whose claims for such protection could not be overlooked or neglected. Such a proposition I consider wholly inadmissible. The Madawaska settlement, as you are aware, extends along both banks of the river; and it would be impossible to refuse to her Majesty's subjects, whether resident on the one or the other bank, that protection to which they are justly entitled, or to abandon that jurisdiction which has been uninterruptedly exercised ever since Canada became part of the British empire."
In a letter also of Mr. Fox, our Minister at Washington, to Mr. Webster, he found it stated that,
"With regard to the suggestion of adopting the channel of the river St. John as a temporary boundary between the two parties, I must at once state, that her Majesty's authorities can, under no circumstances, consent to relinquish the exercise of British jurisdiction through the Madawaska settlements, which extend along the south bank as well as along the north bank of the St. John's; and that the right will be reserved of provisionally stationing a force of British troops in any part of those settlements, either south or north of the St. John's, where it may be found necessary for the due protection of the inhabitants."
Now he would venture to say, that if the noble Lord who brought forward the present motion, had been at the head of the Foreign-office, he would sooner have cut off his right arm than have allowed America to take possession of this settlement. It was perfectly evident that the Americans had demanded the frontier which had been given them for no other purpose than that it might serve them as a point of support and a means of aggression, if they should ever go to war with England. He had no hesitation in saying that the man who could thus yield up the just claim of Great Britain, could neither be a wise minister nor a bold negotiator. It was asserted by Lord Ashburton, and admitted by Mr. Webster, that the lands on the boundary of the river St. John were good for nothing, and incapable of maintaining a population. If this were the case, what made the Americans so extremely anxious to obtain pos session of this territory, unless it might serve them as a point from which to make an attack in case of their being engaged in a war with England? He was satisfied that every man who looked impartially at this treaty, must admit that it was a most unwise and impolitic measure. He could understand

1299
the feeling of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government at the time he accepted office, who, finding, as he did, the country engaged in a war with China, and having received the accounts of the disasters in Affghanistan, was naturally anxious to settle all differences with America with as little delay as possible; and knowing, as he did, Lord Ashburton's intimate connection with the United States, he selected him as the individual most likely to adjust these differences. It would appear that the noble Lord was sent out with the determination to settle the question at issue, no matter how disadvantageous the settlement might be to Great Britain. With regard to the disasters in Affghanistan, he had no hesitation in saying, that if the gallant Sale, or Pollock, or Nott, had commanded at Cabul when the disturbances broke out, that no disaster would have occurred; he, therefore, did not think that it was very fair or proper for the right hon. Gentleman to allude to what took place at the opposite side of the world, as a justification of the sacrifices which were made in this treaty. He would only add, that if the noble Lord went to a division he would vote with the noble Lord.
Mr. Disraelisaid, that he was not surprised, although the hon. and gallant Commodore had found fault with the length of the two speeches which were delivered at the commencement of the debate, that he should, nevertheless, have said one word in favour of that which had emanated from the noble Lord; for it happened, that he (Mr. Disraeli) had that day met two spirited horses, which, he believed, had run over an old woman, and, upon inquiry, was informed, that they belonged to Commodore Napier, who was paying a visit to Lord Palmerston, and who appeared to have been crammed for the delivery of what he called a condensed speech. To that speech of the noble Lord he had listened with uninterrupted attention, and unbroken admiration. He did not consider that speech to have been too long. It was distinguished by that knowledge of his subject which always characterised the addresses of the noble Lord, when he dwelt upon any topic connected with the office over which he had presided. It exhibited one of the most complicated questions that had ever perhaps been introduced in a popular assembly in a manner
1300
the most luminous he had ever listened to. It was, without doubt, a great Parliamentary exhibition, he might add, one of the most able he could well recall. He would say unquestionably so, but for one circumstance. All that it required to make it a memorable display in the history of our Parliament was, that the noble Lord should never himself have been a diplomatic actor in the lengthened diplomacy he had criticised. Had the noble Lord never had anything to do with those circumstances which he had yesterday explained to them so perspicuously, his speech would have been complete. The noble Lord had called their attention to a treaty which had settled a question that had been longer in agitation than probably any other in our diplomatic annals; and the noble Lord objected to that treaty because it embodied terms which were, in point of fact, more favourable than those which the noble Lord himself was some years ago prepared and anxious to accept under the award of the King of the Netherlands. That was a point which the noble Lord had not denied. [Lord J. Russell: No.] The noble Lord said "No." But would that noble Lord deny that the treaty of Washington gave us a greater amount of territory, a better barrier, and a more efficient boundary, than the award of that Sovereign arbitrator which had been repudiated by the United States, and which the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) was so long and anxious a solicitor to the United States to accept? The noble Lord could not deny that. He meant, no doubt, to say, as the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, had said yesterday that circumstances were changed; that that award had been refused by the United States; and that since we had withdrawn our adhesion to it, fresh information had been obtained. That was the position which the noble Lord and his Colleagues adopted, and to which he would presently address himself. He would first express his own deep regret that the award of the King of Holland had not been accepted. He would himself have preferred that that award should have been accepted in 1831, than that we should now, in 1843, enjoy the advantages of the treaty of Washington; because, by the settlement of the King of Holland, we should have avoided the insurrection in Canada. We might not, perhaps, have had a boundary so efficient, or a territory so extensive; but let the

1301
House consider, whether they looked to political influence, or to the amount of expenditure which had been incurred, that the consequence of the settlement of 1831, would have been to prevent the insurrection in Canada. Let him remind the House, before it agreed to the motion of the noble Lord, what were really the terms, divesting them of all diplomatic mystification, which had been gained for this country by Lord Ashburton, in the treaty of Washington; let him remind the House what those terms were, simply, truly, and clearly. Lord Ashburton had relinquished one strip of land, which was a border near the counties of Vermont and New Hampshire, and had also given up an angle of land which was formed by the sources of the Connecticut river. These were the two portions of territory which the noble Lord had consented to abandon, but we received an equivalent for that portion our title to which had not been disputed. For the strip of land we abandoned near Vermont, we received a strip of land contiguous to New Brunswick. While for the surrender of the angle of land formed by the sources of the Connecticut. Lord Ashburton obtained the concession of a district of territory, which afforded an important military frontier. As regarded extent of territory—and the arrangement was confined to these points—we had renounced about 100,000 acres, and we had received in return nearly 1,000,000 acres, which, as he had observed, embraced a most important military frontier. We had received such a settlement of boundary line as regarded Quebec, that at no point was the boundary of Maine nearer to Quebec than the nearest point of the undisputed frontier of the United States. So far as he had stated, and he had done so accurately, the advantages were clearly on the side of England. "But," said the noble Lord, "you have given up the free navigation of the St. John's." supposing we had, he still maintained that relinquishing 100,000 acres, and obtaining 1,000,000, including a most important military frontier, gave us the best of the arrangement, or at least proved that the arrangement had been adjusted with a due consideration to the claims of either party. But nothing could be more erroneous than the statement which had been made, in the House and out of it, about the free navigation of the St. John's, as
1302
if we had renounced some important rights, as if we had sustained some great and unheard-of loss, and extended to America some great and important advantage. If hon. Members would look to the treaty itself, that delusion would soon vanish. That river was fixed upon as the boundary between the two countries; and he was sure the House would admit, that the navigation of that river, washing the shores of the two countries, should be open to those two countries. The article in the treaty of Washington gave no greater ad vantages to the United States than to us; but when the navigation of America, under that treaty, entered into that part of the country which was our own on both sides of the St. John, then the navigation of America was subject to the laws of Eng land. We had, in fact, only by the 7th article of the treaty, opened the navigation of the St. John, to the inhabitants of both countries through which it flowed; we had only acted on a principle which the abstract law of nations laid down, and which he was certain every treaty for the last 150 years regulating the boundaries of rivers had recognised over and over again. But supposing we had extended to the Americans the navigation of the St, John's, and that that was a great advantage to them—would the House omit to observe, that in the seventh article of the treaty of Washington America had extended to England an equivalent advantage in granting to us the free navigation of the St. Lawrence. Under the treaty of Ghent certain diplomatic arrangements were made as to the navigation of the St. Lawrence. It appeared, however, that there were separate channels in the river St. Lawrence, on both sides the Long Sault islands, and Bouchart Island, the channels in the river Detroit, on both sides of the island Bois Blanc, and between that island and both the Canadian and American shores. The navigation of the river St. Lawrence, then, might be taken as being divided at this spot into two channels, one of which was broad and shallow and almost dry, and, therefore, often unnavigable in the summer; this was the Canadian channel. The American channel was much narrower, but was of considerable depth, and was always open. This division of the navigation of the river between the two countries at this place, was made by one of the articles of the treaty of Ghent, and ever

1303
since that time, if the channel on one side of the river was shallow, our vessels could not pass through the American channel without asking permission. He contended, therefore, that, by opening the navigation of this important river to both nations, we had gained more than an equivalent to any sacrifice that could be made by opening the navigation of the river St. John. So far, therefore, as the treaty was concerned, we had obtained the navigation of a river for the navigation of a river. But the noble Lord had dwelt upon two other subjects on which he said the honour of the country had been trifled with. The first of these was the cession of Rouse's point, on which the gallant Commodore had also dwelt with great confidence. It was not for him to contest the value of military positions with the hon. and gallant commodore, but he would place before the House simple facts, the inferences to be drawn from which were, in his mind, so irresistible that he felt disposed to leave the question to the impartial consideration of the House, convinced that no opinion of any military man could mystify the decision to which they ought to come. Lake Champlain was an American lake, the upper part of which ended in a river. Rouse's point was a fortification about two miles from this river, and could command the lake only in its vicinity. Where Lake Champlain emptied itself into this river, or rather, farther up, were two forts which commanded the lake, one of them being situated in the middle of an island called Isle aux Noix. Rouse's-point did not command the lake. [Sir Charles Napier: "The entrance to the lake."] That was what he denied. Rouse's-point was two miles from the entrance. The entrance to the lake was commanded by these two strong forts—one from the middle of an island, and the other contiguous. But the fort of Rouse's-point was really not a fort of consequence; America had neglected it; it was at present in ruins; he believed it never would be rebuilt, or if it were to be rebuilt, he was sure the Americans would choose a more important position. But it could not hold for a moment in comparison with our fortifications in the river. He knew that the noble Lord would reply to this view of the settlement of the boundary, by assuming that the disputed territory was one to which we had a clear right and title. Now he denied the right of
1304
that assumption. The great fallacy of the case of the noble Lord and the school which he represented was, the clear assumption from the origin that there was no question that England was entitled to all the disputed territory. The making assertions of this kind was a very common affair; but mere assertions of this kind would not satisfy foreign nations. The fact was, that this was the whole point at issue, and the noble Lord had never succeeded in proving to any impartial persons that England alone had a just claim to this territory. The noble Lord had said a great deal about the reports of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh; but it appeared from documents on the Table, that soon after he had received these reports, which he alleged last night were conclusive as to the justice of our claim, that he wrote to the United States, and strongly urged a renewal of negotiation to settle the question. They had heard the case respecting the original title to the disputed territory discussed so often that one was unwilling to dwell upon it, and if he alluded to it, it was only because he thought he might offer some considerations to the House which might have the effect of influencing their minds upon the subject. Which of the two countries was really entitled to the disputed territory was not a matter of mere political curiosity. Peace was maintained between countries not merely by treaties, but by the Governments and countries between which those treaties were entered into having a general and profound conviction that they were fair and equitable agreements. If it rankled in the minds of the people that this treaty of Washington was an inconvenient settlement, or that it had been made with a great sacrifice on either side great public mischief might be the result. He would not, therefore, venture to express an opinion, which under our circumstances was now unnecessary, as to which country had the best title to the disputed territory; but he would offer one fact to the House, which he thought would cause them to pause before they so boldly and so decidedly, and so uncompromisingly as of late was the fashion in journals and in Parliament, come to a decision on the subject. He believed that a very general opinion prevailed in favour of the Washington treaty, as an advantageous settlement of a great and difficult question; but he believed that the opinion was

1305
equally general, that we had a right to the disputed territory, and could afford to be generous of our right. Now, he questioned whether that right was not of a very doubtful character; and he should offer but one fact to the House never before introduced to its notice, which he thought might have the effect of producing on their minds not a dissimilar impression. They had all heard of a map with a broad red line; which map, making out the boundary according to the original claim of the English Government, was discovered apparently in the archives of the Foreign-office in Paris, subsequent to the settlement of the question, and had been talked of and written of by many who had never seen it. He, however, perhaps, was in a position to speak of it with more authority, than some Members of the House, for he had seen it. It was a map eighteen inches square, and was drawn by D'Anville. He believed, that it was one of the smallest maps that D'Anville had ever drawn. It was not, by the bye, a map of the disputed territory, nor a map of Canada, but a map of the whole of North America; and, consequently, this broad red line—[Lord John Russell: Strong.] Well, this strong red line would itself occupy no slight part of the disputed territory. In fact it blotted out no inconsiderable portion of the State of Main, which could occupy but a very small space in a map of North America, eighteen inches square. That was the map by D'Anville, but there was in Eng land another map, which he (Mr. Disraeli) supposed was the map yesterday referred to by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, of far greater dimensions, and which was also marked with a strong red line, giving the limits according to the American claim. That was the map drawn by Mitchell—a map which was recognised as of authority, having been brought from the collection of his late Majesty King George 3rd, who, it was well known, had taken a great personal interest in the affairs of Canada and of North America generally. Now, it might be a question whether any argument at all ought be raised on these marked maps. It was not he who raised it; yet as so much stress had been laid upon these circumstances, he was bound to state that evidence existed, which, if they were forced to decide on such a question, must, in his opinion, force them to a conviction
1306
that the map drawn by Mitchell, was the map which guided the American negotiators, and none other. On this point he would trouble the House with an extract, which bore directly upon it, from the private correspondence of Dr. Franklin. There was a letter from Dr. Franklin addressed to Mr. Livingstone, after the settlement of the treaty; he had found it not in the work of Mr. Jared Sparks, but in a book published a quarter of a century ago, by Mr. Temple, the grand son of Dr. Franklin, and which contained all the private and diplomatic correspondence of Dr. Franklin while at Paris. In that letter he writes,
"I am perfectly clear in the remembrance that the map we used in tracing the boundary was brought to the treaty by the commissioners from England, and that it was the same that was published by Mitchell twenty years ago." … "I remember, too, that in that part of the boundary (Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine) we relied much on the opinion of Mr. Adams, who had been concerned in some former disputes concerning those territories, and that the map we used was Mitchell's map, Congress was acquainted with it at the time by a letter to their Secretary for Foreign Affairs."
He had already stated, that D'Anville's map was so small that no person could form any satisfactory opinion from it, and besides this, there was a total want of all proof to connect this famous Paris map, which was only one out of some thousands, with Dr. Franklin. Now, Dr. Franklin at the time was extremely ill: his illness continued for about two months, and he had not been present at any of the meetings of the negotiators at which the boundaries had been arranged. This circumstance he, in his correspondence, repeatedly referred to, and in one of his letters he congratulated the Congress upon the arrival of Mr. Adams (by whom the boundaries had been settled), who "was so well acquainted with the country." He might also observe, that even if this French map had been addressed to Dr. Franklin, that fact, under the circumstances, proved nothing, for Dr. Franklin was one only of four negotiators, the others being Mr. Adams, Mr. Laurens, and Mr. Jay. Above all, the existence of such a map did not appear in the journals of the commissioners, nor in the report made by them to Congress. Again, nobody seemed to know that the very preliminary articles of peace, drawn up by Dr. Franklin, had been pub-

1307
lished with his own manuscript notes upon every article of the treaty, and that upon the 4th article there was this note, which at least would show to the House what, a mistake it was to suppose (as the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, had supposed) that this had been a treaty scrambled up without any know ledge, and under an entire misconception, and that this had arisen from the employment of persons who were ignorant upon the subject, the localities and their details. There never had been a treaty negotiated with more labour, or conducted by men of more ability, than the treaty of 1783, between this country and the United States. Now this was Dr. Franklin's note on the preliminary articles:—
"The Court of Great Britain insisted on retaining all the territories comprehended within the province of Quebec by the act of Parliament respecting it. They contended that Nova Scotia should extend to the river Kennebec; and they claimed not only all the lands in the western country and on the Mississipi, which were not expressly included in our charters and governments, but also all such lands within them as remained ungranted by the King of Great Britain. It would be endless to enumerate all the discussions and arguments on the subject. We knew this Court (Versailles) and Spain to be against our claims to the western country, and having no reason to think that lines more favourable could ever have been obtained, we finally agreed to those described in this article. Indeed, they appear to leave us little to complain of and not much to desire. Congress will observe, that although our northern line is in a certain part below latitude 45, yet in others it extends above it, divides the Lake Superior, and gives us access to its western and southern waters, from which a line in that latitude would have excluded us.".. "The map used in the course of our negotiation was Mitchell's."
Now, he should like to know how any person could get up and make a speech, or sit down and write an article for a newspaper, upon the conduct of the American Minister against such irresistible documentary evidence as this—against evidence which went directly to prove that the map used was an English map. This established the fact that D'Anville's map had never been appealed to; if it had it ought to have been in the Foreign-office. There, however, it had not been obtained, but had been got from France, while we had found Mitchell's map in the collection of our Sovereign of that day, who had taken an intense interest in
1308
American Affairs, and who, when he got hold of the map marked by Mr. Oswald, added to his collection that map, which was all he had left after the loss of his American provinces. If they were to go by maps, which he was far from maintaining this was irresistible evidence, he (Mr. D'Israeli) contended, in favour of the original claim of the United States. He had mentioned just now that the important matter had not been attended to in a slovenly manner by the Government of the day, and that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, who had laid down that the origin of all the difficulties and misconceptions which had arisen was the employment of persons incompetent for the offices they had been called to fill, had made an observation which was perfectly unwarranted by facts. The Minister of that day was a man inferior to none who had ever guided the destinies of this country—he was a man who, independent of his natural ability, was remarkable for his amount of information—a man who combined within himself qualities which in ministers are rare—a man equally celebrated for his economic knowledge and his extensive acquaintance with external affairs. No man had jester views on commerce than Lord Shelburne; and even when out of office, when information on foreign affairs was required, his successors had been obliged to send to Calne. Lord Shelburne was moreover, peculiarly eminent for his knowledge of America and of American colonies. He had the whole diplomatic body under him, from which to select an instrument for his purpose. The diplomatic body in those days were renowned for their abilities and information, though at a subsequent period, in con sequence of the system pursued by Mr. Pitt, we had withdrawn from the world; and a long war had deprived the country of the opportunity of forming public men competent to advance external interests. This was not the case in 1782, 1783. In those years there existed men formed in the school of Lord Chatham—in those years the greatest diplomatists flourished. And what had Lord Shelburne done? He selected for this important affair Mr. Oswald. Now, that appointment had not only at the time been violently attacked, but the treaty Mr. Oswald formed had been vociferously and actively criticised by a powerful Parliamentary party in both Houses. That opposition

1309
too had been supported by a great writer who then adorned the Whig party—he meant Lord George Sackville, who had been more than suspected of being the author of Junius's Letters. There was besides a certain noble Viscount who then took a great interest in the foreign affairs of the country, in which he had himself once been employed, and who came forward to criticize the treaty which Mr. Oswald had effected. That noble Viscount designated the treaty as worse than a "Saratoga capitulation." So the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) might perceive that even invective was not al ways original. But what had Lord Shelburue said, when the noble Viscount to whom he alluded, attacked the appointment of Mr. Oswald and his treaty with all the critical bitterness which a thorough knowledge of the subject by an individual out of office could afford to the ranks of an opposition? What were the reasons which Lord Shelburne gave when the appointment of Mr. Oswald was attacked and his treaty criticized in Parliament? Lord Shelburne said:—
"A noble Viscount asks why Mr. Oswald was appointed a negotiator against such odds? Because he was fitted for the great work in question by the qualities both of his head and his heart. He was inflexibly upright, had long and liberally been engaged in commerce, and was well versed in the local knowledge of America; no man therefore would deny Mr. Oswald's fitness for his station."
Now, he begged to recommend to the noble Lord who had brought forward the present motion this sentence as worthy of his consideration. He would beg to point out to the noble Lord's attention the qualities which Lord Shelburne thus stated to have recommended Mr. Oswald to the confidence of the Government; and he might thence observe that history was constantly repeating itself, and that the same circum stances will often produce the same situations and even the same characters. Circumstances, too, in one time might render it expedient for the Minister of England to say, "I want a man who is not a mere diplomatist. I want a man who has been long and liberally engaged in commerce, and who is also well versed in a local know ledge of America." Now, he had endeavoured to show to the House, first, that looking to the details of the treaty, which the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had not done, equi-
1310
valent had been given for equivalent—that a strip of land had been exchanged for a trip of land, that an angle of land had been given for a great military frontier, and, therefore, according to the noble Lord's (Lord Palmerston) own facts, this country had positively gained an advantage by the treaty effected by Lord Ashburton. He re minded the House that the boundary question had been sixty years under discussion, and might have led to a war but that we had given up strip for strip of land, an angle for a considerable district—100,000 acres for 1,000,000—and also a powerful military frontier. He had shown also that Rouse's point, as a military position, was utterly valueless, and he had given his reasons for so saying. True, it was that the hon. and gallant Commodore opposite (Sir C. Napier) had told the House that Rouse's point commanded the lake or river, but he (Mr. D'Israeli) had shown that it could not do so, because it was two miles distant from the point where the lake narrowed, and because the river was commanded by two important fortresses, within it, which were now, and he trusted always would be, in the possession of England. As to the sentimental outcry about the settlement of "Muscovado," as the hon. and gallant Commodore had been pleased to pronounce the name—a pronunciation which would make any one imagine that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had mistaken the settlement in question for "the sugar island," of which last night they had heard so much—he entirely agreed with the American Government, that if the river was recognised as a convenient boundary, it was ridiculous to depart from that principle for the moiety of a straggling settlement of fifty miles in extent. He thought that Lord Ashburton, with reference to the surrender of that settlement, might have been influenced by feelings of humanity. Suppose the treaty had not succeeded, and that war had commenced, what would have become of the "Madawaska settlers? They would have been the first victims of the war—plundered and massacred. But it was said that the river ought to have been taken as the boundary throughout. It certainly was not a principle in diplomacy to adopt a river as a frontier in every one of its windings. If the river had been found to be a convenient boundary, let it be taken as far as it would go as such, but if it had windings almost unparalleled in the

1311
sinuosities of streams, baffling all arrangements, it ought to be, as it had been, rejected. He thought he had now adverted to every point in the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) which had reference to the boundary. He thought he had shown that our title to these lands was not that complete and perfect title it was often represented, and, on the whole, he hoped he had submitted some considerations to the House which might make it hesitate before it accepted the conclusions of the noble Lord. With respect to the conduct of the American Government, he must say, that he did not think that Mr. Webster was called upon to produce the map marked with the strong red line, even if it were the identical one to which the letter of Dr. Franklin referred. But when bitter invectives were uttered against the Americans—when charges of bad faith were brought against American statesmen—he must remind the House that Mr. Webster had in his hands, two months before the arrival of Lord Ashburton, the report of the American commissioners, which was the reverse of the report of the English commissioners; and which would have afforded a complete answer to Lord Ashburton. Mr. Webster did not produce that document, and for this reason, he understood that a special mission had been appointed on condition of compromise and a conventional line, and therefore it would be unwise to produce the old elements of misconception. He said this because he believed that the American people, speaking of them generally, taking no account of isolated instances of intemperate con duct of language, had acted throughout this business with sincerity, and the American statesmen with honour. There was only one other topic upon which he proposed to make any observation. The noble Lord opposite, (Palmerston), after disposing of the boundary, which, of course, was the real object of his motion, had adverted to another subject of the treaty. Great as was ever his admiration of the noble Lord's courage, he must confess he was astonished when the noble Lord last night advanced to the Table and delivered a lecture on the right of search, and that, too, especially addressed to France. That was an event which would astonish those, at least, who lived on the other side of the Channel. And undoubtedly Lord Ashburton had great
1312
difficulties to contend with, requiring the exercise of much ability to produce a settlement. But he would tell the noble Lord what was the greatest difficulty of Lord Ashburton; it was that unfortunate treaty of July, which created such an ebullition in France, and which was sympathetically communicated to America; it was that which, he believed, ultimately led to this unsatisfactory settlement with respect to the right of search. It was the conduct of the noble Lord in July 1840—it was the feeling of the French people that they had been insulted by the noble Lord, which had opened a communication in Paris with the American minister, and which had led to that misunderstanding with the two countries which had very nearly ended in our not having the Washington treaty at all, but a war with France and America. And the noble Lord had explained how it was that France had not negotiated the right of search treaty with him, as if his name had never before been coupled with the trans action—as if he himself was not one of the prime causes of the difficulties which Lord Ashburton had experienced! Why, the noble Lord had told them last night, as he told them on every occasion—that he was Minister of this country for ten years, and that he had maintained peace for those ten years, which was extremely wonderful, as once we had been on the point of declaring war against Russia, and once we had been on the point of receiving a declaration of war from France, and, as now was pretty apparent, had once been on the point of having a war with America. Though the noble Lord had avoided having three wars with three great countries, he had contrived, however, to secure three wars with three small ones. In 1840 the noble Lord signed a treaty which had alienated from this country the confidence, and he would say, the affection of a great and generous people. The noble Lord signed that treaty—the treaty of July, to extricate himself from the consequences of his own neglect in having permitted Syria, in 1831, to be invaded. Now, see how one thing led to another in this diplomatic history! That invasion of Syria had led to the occupation of Constantinople by the Russians, to consequent intrigues on the part of the noble Lord in Circassia, to retaliatory intrigues in Affghanistan, to the fatal invasion of that country, and as it had recently been avowed by the noble to the war in China. That invasion

1313
of Syria had produced also the treaty of July, and the war of the Levant. All these events sprung from that single act of the noble Lord, and now, according to the noble Lord, they must add to this catalogue the treaty of Washington. If it were an unsatisfactory treaty—if it were a settlement which had compromised the dignity, which might injure the interests of England, he told them they must look to that bench (the bench occupied by the late Ministers) for the cause of this treaty and this compromise, and there was the individual who yet was responsible for these consequences. But he would imitate the tone of the noble Lord; he would believe that the consequences might be lasting peace—and that not only with America, but with France, there might subsist relations of enduring amity. But equally certain was he, that that great result could not be obtained, if the interests of this country were intrusted to a Minister who had forfeited the friendship of France by one treaty which was unnecessary, and nearly cost us the friendship of America by not negotiating another treaty which was indispensable.
Mr. Hawesmeant to express an opinion on this question somewhat different from that which had been expressed by Gentlemen sitting on his side of the House. He was quite sure, however, that those with whom he was politically connected would give him credit for saying that he did so with great reluctance, and that nothing but a sense of public duty induced him to say a word on this occasion. He thought the origin of our differences with America was to be traced clearly enough to the attempt on the part of the negotiators to describe a line over a country which had never been explored or surveyed. Under these circumstances a line had been described and a treaty framed which had led to all the discussion and difficulty on this subject. Places and islands had been described in that treaty which did not exist.
An hon. Memberhaving observed that there were not forty Members in the House,
The House was counted, and adjourned at a quarter-past seven o'clock.