thing, insist on having the thing settled in your own way, and if they won't consent, let it remain unsettled.' But Lord John merely says you might have got better terms if you had held out for them; that he thinks Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett would have arranged it here more favorably for us than Lord Ashburton did there; that if Lord Aberdeen had proposed such and such terms to Mr. Everett they would have been agreed to in America, and that Lord Ashburton gave up certain things for which he did not obtain a just equivalent-all of which is mere gratuitous assumption, and may be true or may be false. However, he owned that the public was disposed to be satisfied with the treaty, and he did not deny my assertion that Palmerston had committed a blunder in attacking it with such violence."

Greville's Memoirs, Nov. 27, 1842, vol. 1, 2d ser.

"A great sensation has been made here by the publication of the proceedings in the secret session of the Senate at Washington when the treaty was ratified. This brought out the evidence of Jared Sparks, who told them of Franklin's letter to Vergennes, and of the existence of the map he had marked, with a boundary line corresponding precisely with our claim. People cry out lustily against Webster for having taken us in, but I do not think with much reason. Lord Ashburton told me it was very fortunate that this map and letter did not turn up in the course of his negotiation, for, if they had, there would have been no treaty at all, and eventually a scramble, a scuffle, and probably a war. Nothing, he said, would ever have induced the Americans to accept our line and admit our claim, and, with this evidence in our favor, it would have been impossible for us to have conceded what we did, or any thing like it. He never would have done so, and the matter must have remained unsettled, and after all, he said, it was a dispute de lana caprina, for the whole territory we were wrangling about was worth nothing, so that it is just as well the discovery was not made by

us.

At the same time, our successive Governments are much to blame in not having ransacked the archives at Paris, for they could certainly have done for a public object what Jared Sparks did for a private one, and a little trouble would have put them in possession of whatever that repository contained."

Greville's Memoirs, Feb. 9, 1843, vol. 1, 2d ser.

"The loose nomenclature adopted in that treaty [that of 1783 between the United States and Great Britain] in the attempt to define the boundaries of the United States and British possessions was the cause of all the subsequent bickerings and angry feeling. The northwest angle' of Nova Scotia was referred to, but there was ample room for endless difference of opinion as to what was the northwest angle. The 'highlands' which divide certain rivers were mentioned, but no one could decide where they were. In 1833 the arbitration of the King of Holland was sought, and the decision, as usual in foreign arbitrations, went much against England. About two-thirds of the disputed territory were given to the United States; yet England would have considered herself bound by the award had not the United States rejected it. At last, in 1842, Lord Ashburton was requested to go to Washington for the purpose of making a new treaty, and he succeeded in his mission so far as signing a treaty was concerned, but to this hour the people on the Canadian side consider that Lord Ashburton permitted himself to be duped, and that their interests were in consequence

S. Mis. 162-VOL. II- -12

177

mercilessly sacrificed. There were stories of spurious maps and false boundary lines, and for many years there was a large party in England, as well as in the colonies, in which the deepest anger could be stirred by the mere mention of the Ashburton capitulation.' To Mr. Croker, however, the new treaty appeared a reasonable and fair solution of the problem, and he defended it with the zeal which never failed to animate him when he believed that he was right. Seven twelfths of the territory were given to the United States, and the remaining five-twelfths to Great Britain.

"The story of the map appeared in a score of different shapes at the time, and in itself it was very curious. Before Lord Ashburton arrived at Washington, a map of the whole region in dispute was discovered by Mr. Jared Sparks, at Paris, and upon this map Benjamin Franklin had marked with a strong red line' the boundaries of the United States as fixed by the treaty of 1783. This line indicated precisely the boundary originally claimed by Great Britain-running south of the Saint John's River, and between its headwaters and those of the Penobscot and the Kennebec. It gave all the "No Man's Land' to Great Britain. It is evident' wrote Mr. Sparks, that the line from the Saint Croix to the Canadian highlands, is intended to exclude all the waters running into the Saint John's.' The difference to the colonies was immense; but the American negotiators kept the map under lock aud key, and Lord Ashburton was not allowed to see either that or Mr. Jared Sparks's letter. The Americans yielded a little of their claims, and thus got the credit with the public of acting with generosity. Great Britain thought she had made a good bargain by surrendering seventh-twelfths of the territories which she would have obtained had the map been produced. When the facts became known in England it did not tend to increase the public satisfaction with the Ashburton treaty; and as to the feeling stirred up in Canada, readers of Judge Haliburton's Works may still be able to form some faint idea of it, although he dealt with the subject only from the light and humorous point of view. Even now it would be hard to persuade an old provincial that the Ashburton treaty was not one of the most unjust agreements ever entered into between two great powers.

"The British Government, it must be added, caused a search to be instituted at Paris for Franklin's map. Strange to say, that map was not found, but another was, on which a thick red line had been traced, giving all the disputed territory to the United States. This was indeed an extraordinary coincidence,' and to this day it has never been explained."

Croker Papers, 1841-'42; vol. 2, p. 393.

"I ought to have written to you before, and I suppose it is now too late to do so, but I will auswer your question at a venture, although I hope to have the opportunity of talking the matter over with you at Peel's to-morrow.

"1. Your first question is the Dutch award. I auswer that it was an honest judgment. It was unfavorable to us, but it proceeded on the principle on which almost all arbitrations are conducted, viz, that of mutual concessions. The territory in dispute was not very unequally divided between us. So far from the decision of the King being fairly attributable to any feelings of resentment in consequence of our political conduct in the Netherlands, the Americans rejected it because he

was so notoriously under our influence, and because he had lost his independence with the loss of Belgium.

"2. You next inquire about Livingston's proposal. Palmerston delayed to notice it for eight or nine months, as far as I can learn, for no particular reason at all. This is the opinion in the office.

"When he did reject it he gave a very bad reason for doing so, when he required the previous assent of Maine. This was the business of the Central Government, and not ours. If we had the Government at Washington committed to the principle, this quarrel with the State of Maine was of no consequence to us, and, indeed, ought rather to have been encouraged.

"But I do not think Palmerston was so very wrong in rejecting Liv ingston's proposal. There is no doubt that he would have carried his northwest line across the Saint John's until he found the highlands, which, according to his interpretation of the treaty, could only be to the north of the Saint John's. No doubt had he diverged from the due north line he would have found highlands to the south of the Saint John's, but he would have said that these did not fulfill the conditions of the treaty of dividing waters, &c.

"Ashburton was not instructed to renew Livingston's proposal, but on the contrary, to give no encouragement to it if it should be reproduced. "3. You must know by this time why I expressed myself greatly dissatisfied with the message of the President. The manner in which he treated the subject of the right of search was really scandalous. His mention of the Oregon question was also most uncandid. When he talked of pressing us to enter into negotiation he had in his pocket a most friendly overture from us which he had already answered favorably.

"Ashburton had full instructions upon this subject, and if he had remained long enough in the United States I have no doubt that it would have been settled. But the pressing affairs being brought to a close he was naturally desirous of returning home.

"4. I think we have no strict public right to complain of Webster in the affair of Franklin's map. It was most fortunate that it was not discovered by us before the treaty was concluded, for it might not have been easy for us to proceed with such evidence in our possession. We must have gone to an arbitration before the end of which war would probably have ensued. Convincing as the letter and map must be to any impartial man, they have not convinced the Americans, who still maintain their line of boundary in spite of them.

"Although we cannot complain of Webster so as to vitiate the agree ment, it is a piece of concealment and of disingenuousness which must inevitably produce an unfavorable impression against him in all honorable minds.

"It is a strange thing that neither letter nor map are to be found at Paris; at least we have hitherto failed in doing so. But we have found another map altogether in favor of the American claim. I will tell you the particulars of this curious affair when we meet to-morrow."

Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Croker, Feb. 25, 1843. Croker Pap., chap. xxii, 1841–’42, vol. 2, 398.

With reference to Mr. Livingston's proposal, above noticed, the following note is appended in the Croker Papers:

"Mr. Livingston was then the Secretary of State in General Jackson's Cabinet. He proposed that a scientific survey of the disputed

6

territory should be made, and that from the highlands,' when found, a line should be drawn straight to the head of the Saint Croix, and that this should be regarded as the northeastern boundary of the United States. This proposition, it was generally admitted, would have given the whole or the greater part of the disputed territory to England. But Lord Palmerston first pigeon-holed it for some months, and then saddled it with conditions which made it impossible for the United States to accept it. This was universally considered a great mistake on the part of England."

"The story of the map is undeniable, and has, I believe, been truly told. I shall have much to say about it when I see you, but it is rather an extensive subject to write about, and in some respects rather a delicate one. Jared Sparks, the American historian, rummaging in the archives of the French foreign office, first found the letter from Franklin to Vergennes referring to the map, which he instantly searched for and found in the midst of copies, maps, and charts at the depot of the office, and, though not doubting that he should find the American case confirmed, to his inexpressible surprise, he found the precise contrary. The map was, it seems, used to persuade Maine to yield, and subsequently to persuade the Senate to ratify, my capitulation. Mr. Rives, the reporter of the committee of the Senate to which the treaty was referred, reports that the committee were unanimously of opinion that the American right was not shaken by this discovery, but nevertheless give their opinion that it would not be safe to go to a new arbitration with such a document against them. The truth is that, probably, but for this discovery, there would have been no treaty, and if the secret had been known to me earlier I could not have signed it. 'Ainsi tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles.' The public are very busy with the question whether Webster was bound in honor to damage his own case by telling all. I have put this to the consciences of old diplomatists without getting a satisfactory answer. My own opinion is that in this respect no reproach can fairly be made, but the conduct of both President and Secretary is most extraordinary in the other matters relating to my treaty."

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Croker, Feb. 7, 1843. Croker Pap., chap. xxii, 1841-'42, vol. 2, 400.

In the same volume is another letter from Lord Ashburton to Mr. Croker, dated February 13, 1843, in relation to the treaty. In it he blames Lord Palmerston for not having had the French records searched. He adds that by the usages of diplomacy Mr. Webster was not bound to damage his own case, and he made no 66 personal pledge of opinion as to the intentions of the parties." The map was only conclusive as to Franklin's intentions, and not as to those of the other negotiators, or as to the meaning of the words of the treaty of 1783. Their intentions as to the Saint Croix have no weight against the subsequent determination, by treaty, what is the true Saint Croix and what is its head.

"Do nothing and say nothing at present about the treaty. So far as any Paris map is concerned, we are in the crisis of inquiry, and the present state of it is extraordinary.

66

Canning was at Paris in 1826; made search for documents relating to the boundary and treaty of 1783; could find nothing.

"Bulwer can find no trace of. a letter from Franklin; no trace of the map mentioned by Jared Sparks. But, strange to say, he does find a map, of which he sent us the tracing, a map apparently deposited many years since, which follows exactly with a crimson line the boundary claimed by the United States.

"Jared Sparks cannot have lied so enormously as this discovery would imply.

"Notwithstanding the failure to find it, there must, I think, be a letter from Franklin and a map just as Sparks describes. I tell you all I know at present. Bulwer is a very clever fellow, with great experience in such matters as that which he has been investigating. He writes two letters; one after a short interval; and in the second as well as the first says he cannot confirm the alleged discoveries of Jared Sparks."

Sir Robert Peel to Mr. Croker, Feb. 23, 1843. Croker Pap., chap. xxii, 1841-'42, vol. 2, 402.

"Pending the negotiation of the treaty of Washington, in the spring and summer of 1842, Mr. Webster was made acquainted with the existence at Paris of a copy of D'Anville's map of America on a small scale, on which the boundary between the British Provinces and the United States was indicated by a red line, in a manner favorable to the British claim. This map (which was soon extensively known as the red line map) had been discovered by President Sparks in the foreign office at Paris. He also found a letter from Dr. Franklin to the Count de Vergennes, from which it appeared that the boundary had been delineated by Dr. Franklin upon some map at the request of the count and for his information. There was no proof, however, that this letter referred to the map discovered by Mr. Sparks.

"After the negotiation of the treaty and the publication of the debates in the Senate on the question of its ratification, much importance was attached by the opposition press in England to this map, as proving incontestably the soundness of the British claims relative to boundary. It was also absurdly made a matter of reproach against Mr. Webster that he had not as soon as he became acquainted with the existence of this map communicated it to Lord Ashburton.

"So conclusive was this piece of evidence deemed in England in favor of the British claim, and so much importance was attached to it in the debates in Parliament, that it became necessary for Sir Robert Peel by way of offset to refer to another map not before publicly known to exist, namely, a copy of Mitchell's map, which had been used by Mr. Oswald, the British commissioner for negotiating the provisional treaty, and by him sent home to his Government. This map had been preserved in the library of George the Third, and with that library was sent to the British Museum. On this map the line as claimed by the United States is boldly and distinctly traced throughout its whole extent, and the words boundary as described by Mr. Oswald,' written in four places with great plainness. It was asserted by Lord Brougham in the House of Peers that these words are in the handwriting of George the Third.

"The writer of this note was assured by Lord Aberdeen that he had no knowledge of the existence of this map till after the conclusion of the Treaty of Washington. He was also assured by Lord Ashburton that he was equally ignorant of it till after his return from America. It