The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-13 00:00:00

WONDERFUL DISCOVERY.

A. PERMANENT CURE for the TOOTH-
ACHE is instantly effected by the application of the
GREGORIAN PASTE, prepared by the Rev. GORMAN
GREGG, sole Inventor. Also for the Ear-ache and Tic-do-
loreux. The above soothing, painless, and perfectly innocuous
nerve killer, has at length effected that grand desideratum since
the creation, viz., the CURE of TOOTHACHE. Trial only
will convince you of its efficacy.
Genuine at 3, Opera Areade,:Pall Mall East (late of 64, St.
Paul's), where all e•untry, foreign, and other orders are exe-
cuted; 78, St. James's-street; and at several respectable Me-
dicine Venders.

FEMALE AGRICULTURAL LA-

BOURERS.

There is a numerous section of labourers in this
country, whose condition is greatly neglected, who,
because they cannot agitate, and have none to take
their cause in hand, are almost utterly forgotten—we
mean female labourers ! The factory operatives have
had the aid of high and influential names to plead their
cause. They have had their Sadlers and Ashleys.
There were two classes of females employed in agri-
cultural work—the young and the middle-aged. The
first are generally engaged for six months, and the
second class by the day or week. The first dwell in
their employer's house—the second frequently in
most uncomfortable huts. The first are secured in food
and lodgings—the second are generally allowed their
cottage free, or at a nominal rental. The first arc paid
half-yearly wages, and the second are paid about
eighteenpence per diem, with the exception of broken
days, which are generally deducted. The same parties,
if skilled in factory work, would receive probably
six shillings per week. There is thus a difference of at
least one-half in wages betwixt tho factory and the
agricultural female labourer. The latter is exposed to
every wind that blows, to sun or shower, unless
she consults her health and comfort by forfeiting
her earnings, and that she cannot afford, while
her physical strength is sufficient for the task.
The rural female labourer has fresher air, a
better atmosphere, but frequently more unwomanly
labour. We have been accustomed to measure the
civilisation of nations by the state of female society.
We regard the Indians of America as a savage people,
because the hardest toil is reserved for the weaker sex.
And, upon this principle, there may be some truth in
the title of a work lately published, styled " England
a Half-Civilized Nation," for we doubt if many parts of
field labour in which females are employed are at all
congenial to their nature, or favourable to the develop-
ment of their better qualities.
Upon the other hand, it is asserted that a rural life
presents fewer temptations to vice than that of a factory
life ; and we know that amongst country people there
exists a strong prejudice against the latter. We know
nothing of the temptations, but something of the facts ;
and we have no hesitation in stating our belief to be,
that the balance of morality does not hang in the di-
rection generally supposed. We have great doubts
that out-door labour is not the most favourable to fe-
male morality, and we rather think that if the subject
was more closely examined, the result would startle
very many who are resting upon a totally unproved
opinion.
,It might be a curious question, " How can people be
supported on eightpence per day ?"—and a still more
strange inquiry might have been made into one case with
which we were acquainted, where a widowed female
" brought up" a family of six children upon this pittance,
assisted by the labours of her children, when they were
able to work. Such cases are numerous, though seldom
heard of. The female agricultural labourer toils on
quietly and uncomplainingly, a neglected and forgotten
being. Her home affords but a scanty shelter against
the winter blast, but therewith she is contented. Day
after day brings hard labour, and only the Sabbath-day
affords rest. But there are few apparently more con-
tented people than the middle-aged of this class. They
have lost all ambition, and unrepiningly live through
their days. Nobody, out of their own rank, knows how
they do live, and few care to inquire. The busy world
knows nothing, and cares nothing for them, and they
know or care equally little about it.
The only mode in which their condition could be
rendered more comfortable seems to be by the exten-
sion of manufactures. In Ayrshire, thousands of females
gain a comfortable livelihood by embroidery and needle-
work, at their own firesides, for the Edinburgh and
Glasgow markets. In Saxony, very many females follow
the trade of stocking-weaving ; and the introduction
of stocking frames amongst the peasantry is the prin-
cipal reason of the superiority of the Saxon manu-
factures in this branch. Linen-weaving has been in-
troduced to a great extent amongst females in For-
farshire and the Mearns, but it is a laborious, ungain-
ful, and unseemly employment. In some English coun-
ties, and in the " far north," females gain more by straw-
plaiting than they could do by out-door labour. The
laltbranch of labour, very possibly, could not be under-
taken except in particular districts. But there are
other sources of employment which might be suitably
and easily commenced, and which would tend to ame-
liorate the condition, and ease the labour of a long-
suffering and patient race, who should not be forgotten
because they do not complain.—Aberdeen Banner,

AUSTRALIND.—The new settlement inWestent
Australia is the point to which emigrants as well as colo-
nists appear to be most anxious at present to proceed.
The Western Australian Company, who possess large
tracts of land near Port Leschcnault, to which they have
given the name of Australind, arc about to despatch thither
a very powerful surveying establishment, to prepare the
way for their Chief Commissioner and the first body of
colonists, who are to sail in a few weeks.
_ _ _

Thomas Foster and John Taylor, two lads, eight
or nine years of age, were charged at Hull, last week, with
stealing some apples and other fruit from a garden on the
Holdernesse-road, about half.past flur o'clock in the morn-
ing. The prisoners were ordered to be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour for seven days.
ENIIGRATWN.—There ate at present at the
port of London alone no Fewer f.an 23 vessels on the
berth, taking in goods and passengers for Sydney, New
South Wales; 8 Icr Hobart Town and Launceston; 4 for
Port Philip, and 5 for South Australia ; being a greater
number of emigrant ships for the Southern Hemispbcre on
the berth at one time than was ever previously known.
Cheltenham has been rapidly filling for the last
fortnight,-the warm 'weather having indneed bundredatof
fasbionables to visit the far-famed waters.
HULL Cou.EGE.—The office= of Principal of
Hull College will be vacant in the course of the ensuing
autumn, as Mr. Burrows bas accepted the appointment of
private tutor to the Duke of Sutherland's eldest son, the
, Marquis of Stafford.

(Extracts from Correspondence relating to the Boundary
; between 'the British Possessions in North America
' and the 'United States of America, under the Treaty
of 1783. Presented to bOih Houses of Parliament
by command of her Majesty, July, 1840.)
VISCOUNT FALMERSTON TO MR. FOX.
[Extract.] Foreign-office, June 3, 1840.
I send you herewith three copies of the resort and
. map presented to her Majesty's Government by Colonel
Mudge and Mr. Featherstonhaugh, the Commissioners
only copies
within
ot fh the
n the reportls t andfe whwhdoe
before
dayshottyhr,
who were employed last year to survey the disputed
territory.
nittsishathvee
You will immediately transmit to Mr. Forsyth two
Majesty's
been eewe
nni t l itonof
coursel taGhyeot
Government
rsnndb mse
reporte on
theftethinataptilessaeyidnogctuhmaet
Majesty's
si
a her a
Parliament,r
Majesty's
eact
jvfe
scr
btonyuum,
str et Gen thatoy; v
Govern-
ment
respect towards the Government of the United States,
that a document bearing upon a question of
much interest and importance to the two countries
should, in the first place, be communicated to the Pre-
sident. You will further state, that the British Go-
vernment continues to feel an unabated desire to bring
the long pendirrg questions about the boundary be-
tween the United States and the British possessions in
North America to a final and satisfactory settlement.
It, is obvious that these questions must be beset with
various and considerable inherent difficulties, or they
would not have remained open ever since the year
1783, notwithstanding the man.-e; and earnest endea-
vours made by both Governments to bring them to an
adjustment.
But her Majesty's Government do not abandon the
hope that the sincere desire felt by both parties to ar-
rive at an amicable arrangement will at length be
crowned with success.
The best clue to guide the two Governments in
their future proceedings may perhaps be derived from
an examination of the cause of past failure ; and the
most prominent among these causes has certainly been
a want of correct information as to the topographical
features and physical character of the district in dis-
pute. This want of adequate information may be
traced as one of the difficulties which embarrassed the
Netherlands Government in its endeavours to decide
the points submitted to it in 1830.
It has been felt by the British Government, by the
United States Government, and even by the Govern.
ment of the contiguous State of Maine.
The British Government and the Government of the
United States agreed, therefore, two years ago, that a
survey of the disputed territory, by a joint commission,
would be the measure best calculated to elucidate and
solve the question at issue.
The President accordingly propesed such a Commis-
sion, and the British Government consented to it ; and
it was believed by the British Government that the ge-
neral principles upon which the Commission was to be
guided in its local operations had been settled by mutual
agreement, arrived at by means of a correspondence
which took place between the two Governments in
1837 and 1838.
,The British Government accordingly transmitted in
April of last year, for the consideration of the Presi-
dent, the draught of a convention to regulate the pro-
ceedings of the proposed Commission.
The preamble of that draught recited textually the
agreement which had been come to by means of notes
which had been exchanged between the two Govern-
ments ; and the articles of the draught were framed,
as her Majesty's Government considered, in strict con-
formity with that agreement.
But the Government of the United States did not
think proper to assent to the Convention so proposed.
That Government did not, indeed, allege that the
proposed Convention was at variance with the result of
the previous correspondence between the two Govern-
ments ; but it thought that Convention would establish
a joint Commission " of mere exploration and survey,'
and the President was of opinion that the step next to
be taken by the two Governments ought to bear upon
its face stipulations which must necessarily lead to a
final settlement under some form or other, and within a
reasonable time. The United States' Government ac-
cordingly sent to you, for transmission to her INlajesty's
Government, a counter-draught of Convention varying
considerably, as Mr. Forsyth admitted, in some parts
from the draught as proposed by her Majesty's Go-
vernment. But Mr. Forsyth added, that the United
States Government did not deem it necessary to com-
ment upon the alterations so made, as the text of the
counter-draught will be found sufficiently perspicuous.
Her Majesty's Government certainly might have ex-
pected that some reasons would have been given, to
explain why the United States Government declined to
confirm an arrangement which was founded on propo-
sitions made by that Government itself, and upon modi-
fications to which that Government had agreed ; or
that, if the American Government thought that the
draught of convention thus proposed to it was not in
conformity with the previous agreement, it would have
pointed out in what respect the two differed.
Her Majesty's Government, however, in the present
state of this question, concur with the Government of
the United States in thinking that it is on every ac-
count expedient that the next measure to be taken by
the two Governments should contain, in its details, ar-
rangements which should necessarily lead to some final
settlement ; but they think that the convention which
they proposed last year to the President, instead of
being framed so as to constitute a mere Commission of
exploration and survey, did, on the contrary, contain
stipulations calculated to lead to the final ascertainment
of the boundary which is to be determined.
There was, however, undoubtedly an essential differ-
ence between the British draught and the American
counter-draught. The British draught contained no
provision embodying the principle of arbitration. The
American counter-draught did contain such a provision.
The British draught contained no provision for ar-
bitratior,.because the principle of arbitration had not
been proposed on either side during the negotiations
upon which that draught was founded, and because,
moreover, it was understood at the time that the prin-
ciple of arbitration would be decidedly objected to by
the United States.
But, as the United States' Government have ex-
pressed a wish to embody that principle in the proposed
Convention, the British Government is perfectly willing
to accede to that wish. You are, therefore, instructed
to state to Mr. Forsyth that her Majesty's Government
consent to the two principles which form the main
foundation of the American counter-draught—namely,
first, that the Commission to be appointed should be so
constituted as necessarily to lead to a final settlement
of the questions at issue between the two countries ;
and, secondly, that in order to secure such a result, the
Convention by which the Commission is to be created
should contain a provision for arbitration upon points as
•
to which the British and American Commissioners may
not be able to agree.
You will, at the same time, say, that there are some
matters of detail in the American counter-draught
which her Majesty's Goverment could not adopt, but
that you will, by a very early opportunity, receive an
amended draught to be submitted to the consideration
of she President ; and that you will, at the same time,
be instructed to propose to the President a local and
temporary arrangement, for the purpose of preventing
collisions within the limits of the disputed territory.
The following are some extracts :
REPORT.

-office, April 16, 1840.
requiring us to proceed to
nature
'ast
ninstruc-
tions,dated July 9, 1839,
pnecdtisinpgute' between her
M y Lord—ln
gnrtteohsie your
G Government
eortrnhdmos Lordship's
and to 'report' report' which of the
her Majesty's province of New Brunswick, fornt theof ptuhre
United States of America, -
configurationpl sBejeosft
ym,sa Governmentlt malting g
o init t• ehsti g a taion territorynds
the
eat source to the cud
three following lines presents the best defined continuity
to
er
h
of highland range :
~ 1. The line claimed by the British Commissioners
from the source of the Chaudiere to Mar's Hill.
the
western
po. Theint at
extremity
wlinehi which
h fromoaf
the due north line. i i
tnthheee
drawn
Ba sourcey of
from
oocaleurs, intercepts
mf
" 3. The line claimed by the Americans front the
source of the Chaudiere to the point at which they
make the due north line end.
" We have the honour to present the following Re-
port of our proceedings, and of the results which we
have arrived at, So. :---
" We have to ask your Lordship's attention to the
fact, that upon reaching the scene of our operations, we
learned that they were to be carried on in a wilderness,
where net a human being was to be met with, with
the exception of a few settlers upon the Roostuk
mites west of the St.
river, about forty John's river,
and of a few wandering Indians employed in the chase,
or occasionally of some American lurnberers ; and
that our endeavours to procure from any quarter
correct topographical information of the interior
of the disputed territory were unavailing, the
most superficial and contradictory opinions being
entertained upen the frontiers as to the sources of the
streams, and as to the direction in which it would be
most advisable to push our investigations, with a due
regard to that economy of time which we were Com-
pelled to observe. This wilderness, thus situate, had
never, we believe, been crossed in the direction it was
necessary for us to take by persons capable of describ-
ing the country with anything approaching to accuracy,
and consequently all the maps which we bad seen
proved in the end remarkably defective. Indeed, had

we not been so fortunate as to engage in onr serviee
two intelligent Indians, who had become somewhat
familiar with the country, by having frequently made it
the scene of their hunting grounds, and whose rude
maps, traced upon sheets of the bark of the birch tree
served often to guide us, a great portion of our time
might have been lost in cutting our communications
through forests and almost impenetrable swamps, upon
. injudicious courses, for the purpose of transporting our
provisions, instruments, and canoes. Thus engaged,
we had not only to keep in view the main object of your
Lordship's instructions, but to bring the general topo-
graphy of the country into a more accurate form, in
order .that the map to be made to accompany this Re-
port might be an intelligent exponent of the physical
geography of the country. This became an important
branch of our undertaking, which had to be applied
to the whole area between the Bay of Chalcurs
and the south-western sources of the St. John ;
thence, north-westwardly to the highlands claimed
by the United States as the highlands of the treaty
of 1783, in 46 deg. 27 min. ; and eastwardly thence at
various points of the highlands thus claimed by tha
United States as far as the waters running into Lake
Metis, in north latitude 48 deg. This last point was
reached at the setting in of the winter season ; and the
party on that service had but just completed their ob-
servations when they were compelled to hasten to the
coast by very rigorous weather, ice having formed on
the lakes and streams.

" We have troubled your Lordship with these re-
marks and incidents, not ;for the purpose of showing
that our duty was accompanied with a greater degree
of personal inconvenience than was contemplated by us
on accepting the charge we have been honoured with,
but to account, in some measure, for the delay in the
sending in of our Report. Your Lordship will please
further to understand, that after our return to Frede-
ricton, in New Brunswick, with the various information
acquired under such circumstances as we have described,
a great part of that information had to be applied to
such surveys of the northern parts of the province of
New Brunswick as existed in the Crown Land-office at
Fredericton, in such manner as that, by transferring the
results of our labours to the accurate outlines of the
offs cial surveys, a map worthy of the public confidence
might he constructed ; and that in consequence of its
being enjoined upon us in our instructions to return to
England when the season should no longer permit us to
continue our operations, we entrusted the task of filling
up the outlines of the official surveys to an intelligent
person belonging to the Crown Laud-office, who had
been in our service in the capacity of surveyor and com-
missary ;* but the final result of his labours, owing to
circumstances beyond his control, and to adverse winds,
arrived in England a month later than the period it was
expected, and it has been only by using unremitting dili-
gence that we have been able to prepare the compre-
hensive map herewith submitted with this report." . . .

We have endeavoured in the preceding pages to ex-
plain how, from very inadequate causes the public in the
United States have been led to entertain such strong
but erroneous opinions of the right of that country to the
disputed territory.
In regard to the ancient occupation of the country,
we have shown that the concessions made by the Go-
vernment of France in 1684, of lands lying north of the
46th degree of north latitude, were ordered to be held
of the Governor of Quebec. _ . _

But the fief of Madawasca was granted by the French
Government in 1683, one year before this last period,
and eight years before the Charter of William and
Mary was granted to the colony of Massachusetts in
1691 ; and, although that fief is held under its origi-
nal title to this day, the United States nevertheless claim
it as lying within the disputed territory. Other con-
cessions of a similar character exist, and it could
be proved that Canadian and New Brunswick jurisdic-
tion obtained uninterruptedly in the disputed territory
without any adverse claim having
beenup to the year
put
in
nbr 1814,
by
tbeunited States.
With respect to the due north line, which was run
in 1817 and 1818, and which we have traced on the
map, a very general misunderstanding obtains respect-
in.. it. That line was never intended to have any va-
lidity as a practical execution of the treaty, or to be
anything but an experimental and exploratory line to
aid in the examination of the country for discovering
the " highlands" of the treaty. The j')int Commission-
ers, indeed, did, as we have already stated, authorise an
" actual survey," of a due north line from the source of
of the Saint Croix, and that survey was undertaken ;
but it was almost immediately afterwards abandoned
in consequence of the imperfection of the method
adopted, and on account of the disagreement of the
surveyors. As respects the due north line, then,
nothing has been accomplished by the two Govern-
ments. Nevertheless the United States, acting as though
the due north line had been surveyed and agreed
upon by both parties, and as though any part of the
disputed territory adjacent to it had been formerly ceded
to them by Great Britain, have already taken possession
of the country to within twelve miles of the town of
Woodstock, in New Brunswick, and have erected a
strong military fort and barracks at a place called Houl-
ton, which has been for some time garrisoned by a de-
tachment of the United States' army.
There is yet another point to which we desire to draw
the attention of your Lordship.
Had the award of the King of the Netherlands been
accepted by both countries, the treaty, nevertheless,
could not have been executed ; for when the line along
the " thalweg" of the St. John had got to its termina-
tion up the St. Francis, and had taken its western de-
parture thence, according to that award, it never would
as we have heretofore shown, have come within 40 to
50 miles of the " north-westernmost source of the Con-
necticut River," where the award of the King of the
Netherlands directs it to go.
It is also to be remarked, that a fluctuating state of
things, wich as existed in former times in that part of
North America, of which the territory now in dispute
with the United States forms a portion, could not fail
to produce, at different periods, numerous maps, where
the lines of demarcation between parties claiming ad-
versely to each other would be laid down in such a man-
ner as to enforce, as much as possible, the claims of
parties interested in the establishment of those several

lines. Previously to the war with France, in 1756,
when the great conflict for power in North America
began between the two nations, many maps of North
America were produced in England in which the Bri-
tish claims were extended by lines of demarcation to
the river St. Lawrence. These grew out of the war
titles which have been spoken of; and new editions of
such maps appeared, even after the grants made by the
British Crown had been virtually revoked by the va-
rious treaties of peace which have been enumerated.
The British Colonies in North America were especially
interested in keeping the French to the left bank of the
St. Lawrence, and it was probably more with a view to
the protection of those colonies than for the sake of
mere dominion that the British Government claimed
all the country east of the Kennebec and north

to the St. Lawrence. The claims of Great I
Britain to that extent are recorded upon va-
rious maps ; but, nevertheless, we do not find
that, either previously to the expulsion of the
French power from North America, when the whole
country fell under the rule of the King of Great Britain,
or subsequently to the peace of 1763, the northern
boundary of Massachusetts was ever settled. This
being the case, the existence of maps published in Eng-
land from the peace of Utrecht in 1713, down to the
present time, exhibiting the claims of Great Britain car-
ried out to the river St. Lawrence, or even representing
a due north line, reaching to suppositious " highlands"
near to the St. Lawrence, would furnish no evidence
in support of the claim of Massachusetts to extend its
territory to such highlands, even if such highlands ex-
isted at all, or if they could be traced to the north-
western-most head of Connecticut river, whither they
arc required by the treaty to go.
By the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, Great Britain
acquired by cession from France "all Acadie according
to its ancient limits." These limits extended to the
46th degree of north latitude. By the peace of 1763
France ceded to England the whole of her possessions
north of the 46th degree to the river St. Lawrence.
The title of England had then, therefore, become
clearly established to the whole of that country, whilst
no evidence appears of the right of Massachusetts to
any part of it.
The boundary of Massachusetts bad never been settled
previously to the peace of 1783, and nothing passed
upon that occasion which could give to Massachusetts
any reason to suppose that her boundary would then be
enlarged beyond her charter limits. The policy of
England necessarily changed with the acknowledgment
of the independence of her old colonies, and her pro-
tection was now peculiarly due to others rather than to
those who bad voluntarily estranged themselves from
her connexion.
Yet all the people of the United States, asserting
claims so directly injurious to the British colonial in.
terests, have not scrupled, by their legislative authori-
ties, to use the most violent language upon this subject,
calling into question the integrity of Great Britain, and
representing the just assertion of her right to the terri-
tory in dispute as an act which dishonoured her. Im-
putations to this effect, accompanying statements of the
American claims, founded upon such objectionable
grounds as we -have.exposed in this Report, have been
diligently circulated throughout the United States, and
in all the capitals of Europe.
All the material arguments and facts which have oc-
curred to us being thus brought under the notice of
your Lordship, we proceed to close our Report with a
summary of the foregoing pages :----
1. We have, in the first place, endeavoured to show

that we should have been acting inconsistently with the
information which we possess, and with the facts which
we have to report, if we had adopted the ground which
the official British agents who have preceded us in the
investigation of this Boundary Question, relied upon as
essential to the maintenance of the British view of the
question ; viz. that the Boundary intended to be esta-
blished by the 2d Article of the Treaty of 1783, was
to be a line distinct from the southern boundary of the
province of Quebec as established by the Royal Pro-
clamation of 1763. In opposition to that erroneous im-
pression, we have felt it our duty to show that those
lines were one and the same thing. Indeed the very
definition in the point of the Treaty, viz., the coinci-
dence of the due North Line with the Highlands,
proves that the Commissioners for negotiating the
treaty of 1783, considered the " Highlands" of the
treaty to be one and the same thing with the southern
boundary of the province of Quebec ; for if Nova
Scotia had extended further to the north, or to the
west, than the point where the due north line was to
intersect the Highlands, that point would have been the
north-east angle of the State of Maine, but could not
have been the north-west angle of Nova Scotia. For
the true north-west angle would have been still further
to the north or to the west, at whatever point the
western boundary of Nova Scotia touched the southern
boundary of the province of Quebec.

2. We have given some historical notices of the pe-
riods when the lands on the river St. Lawrence and on
the Bay of Fundy were first discovered and settled by
the French, with a view to show that it was long pos-
terior to the settlements thus made by the French that
any part of those countries came into the occupation of
the English ; that every such occupation was incidental
to a state of war ; and that invariably, on the restora-
tion of peace, every part of those countries so occupied
was restored to France, down to the Peace of Utrecht
in 1713.

3. We have shown that, in 1603, the Sieur de
Monts received letters patent from his Sovereign,
granting him the country now called Maine and New
Brunswick, to the 46th degree of north latitude ; in
which letters patent the Word " Acadie" was first used
as the name of the country : and that, at the Peace of
Utrecht in 1713, France made her first cession to Eng-
land of any of her possessions in that part of North
America, ceding for ever to the British Crown " all
Acadie according to its ancient limits."

4. We have endeavoured to show by various conces-
sions granted by the French Government to its subjects,
north of, and adjoining to, the 46th deg. parallel of north
latitude, that the Government of Quebec, when pos-
sessed by France, had jurisdiction as far south as that
parallel. _ _

5. By our Map A, we show that a line drawn along
that parallel connects the head waters of the Chaudiere
River, with a point not more than five miles north of
that branch of the St. Croix River, where a monument
has been erroneously placed, and with a point not more
than forty-two miles north from the most western waters
of the St. Croix.
6. We have endeavoured to show that the claims of
the colony of Massachusetts Bay to extend its territory
to the St. Lawrence, iu virtue of the grant of the Sa-
gadahoc country by Charles 11. to the Duke of York,
in 1664 ; in virtue of the renewal of the charter in 1674 ;
and in virtue of the charter granted by William and
Mary in 1691, are without weight ; seeing that the grant
of 1664 was revoked by the treaty of Breda in 1667 ;
and that the title to the Sagadahoc country, accruing
by the renewal of the grant in 1674, as well as the
title to Nova Scotia—both of which countries were an-
nexed to the colony of Massachusetts Bay in the grant
of 1691—were revoked by the treaty of Ryswick in
1697, which restored to France all she had possessed
before the declaration of war.

7. It is shown that the Charter of William and
Mary, of 1691, does not extend the grant of the Sa-
gadahoc country to the St. Lawrence, but only grants
the lands " between the said country or territory of
Nova Scotia and the said river of Sagadahoc, or any
part thereof," so that the extreme interpretation of this
grant would require, for the northern limit, a line pass-
ing between the head water of the St. Croix River and
the source of the Sagadahoc or Kennebec River, which
would nearly coincide with a line passing between the
western waters of the St. Croix and the Highlands
which divide the Kennebec from the Chaudiere.

8. We show that the northern boundary of the colony
of Massachusetts Bay had never been settled ; that the
right of that colony to go to the St. Lawrence was de-
nied by the British Government soon after the Peace
of Utrecht in 1713, and has never since been admitted ;
that as late as 1764, a question was entertained by the
Lords of the Board of Trade whether Massachusetts
had any right whatever to lands in the Sagadahoc ter-
ritory ; and that at the Peace of 1713 that question
had not been settled.

We also adduce the opinions of some distinguished
Americans that Massachusetts had no claim to go to
the St. Lawrence.

9. It is shown that there is no evidence of any expec-
tation having been entertained on the part of the re-
volted colonies, that they would be permitted, at the
restoration of peace, to have their bouneary extended
north of the River St. John ; that on the contrary, the
Congress, in 1782, instructed the negotiators to have,
if possible, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia esta-
blished at the western source of the St. John's River,
and to propose that river, from its source to its mouth,
as the boundary between the two countries ; and that
upon the Government of Great Britain refusing to ad-
mit their proposition, they abandoned it, and agreed " to
adhere to the charter of Massachusetts Bay, and to the
St. Croix River, mentioned in it."

10. It will appear that the phraseology used in these
instructions of Congress to their negotiators, in which
the north-west angle of Nova Scotia is stated to be at
the source of the St. John, has been transferred to the
2d article of the treaty of 1783 ; the only difference
being, that in the latter, the River St. Croix is substi-
tuted for the River St. John, and that the highlands are
directed to be reached from the St. Croix by a due
north line.

11, We show that the " Highlands" of the treaty
had been, as early as 1755, described by Governor Pow-
nall, and that he describes them as dividing the St.
Francis and the Chaudicre, from the Kennebec, and
from all the branches of the Penobscot.
We also show that he states the different branches
of the Penobscot to extend from west to cast along the
southern front of the country now called the disputed
territory ;
_ _ _

That the topographical description of the southern
boundary.of Quebec contained in the Royal proclama-
tion of 1763, and the description of the boundary of
Nova Scotia contained in the commissions of some
Royal Governors, were taken from Governor Pownall's
paper; _ . _

- -And that the language used in the boundary descrip-
tions quoted from the secret journals of Congress, and
the language used in the second article of the treaty of
1783, was but a copy of that which is to be found in
the documents last mentioned.

12. We have drawn the just inference, that the
" highlands" which Governor Pownall speaks of ae
throwing down both the western and eastern branches
of the Penobscot are the highlands intended by the
treaty ; and we have adduced the contract of Jackson
and Flint with the State of Massachusetts in 1792, to
show that the land then granted was bounded on the
north by the highlands, thus heading all the branches of
the Penobscot ; and that those " highlands" were then
understood by the Government of the State of Massa-
chusetts to be the highlands intended by the treaty of
1783.
13. It is seen that the 2d article of the treaty of
1783 can never be executed until the two Governments
first agree which is the line of highlands that is to be in-
tersected by the due north line, since the treaty directs
the execution of the article to begin at a point which
can have no existence, until the due north line has inter-
sected highlands acknowledged by both Governments
to be those of the treaty.
14. We have discovered by a critical examination
of the Grant of Nova Scotia of 1621 in the original
Latin, that the passage which describes the western
boundary of the territory included in that grant, and
which boundary was agreed, at the time of the treaty
of 1783, to be the eastern boundary of Massachusetts,
in conformity with the provision contained in the
charter of Massachusetts of 1691, is susceptible of a
new interpretation varying in important particulars from
the received one ; and we show by a literal translation
of the Latin, that the boundary was intended to run
from the most western waters of the St. Croix to the
sources of the Chaudiere ; a line which it has been seen
coincides in a very striking manner with the boundary
in the Sieur De Monts' grant of 1603.
15. With reference to the great errors of Mitchell's
map in latitude and longitude, we have suggested some
remarkable considerations resulting therefrom. W e
have observed that if a line were protracted upon that
map between the most western sources of the St.
John and the western termination of the Bay of
Chalcurs, and were adopted as the boundary between
the two countries, the River St. John would fall to the
south of that line, and be within the United States.
Whereas by a line protracted between the above-
mentioned points, properly adjusted as to the latitude
and longitude as they exist in our map, the river St.
John would be left on the British side,and to-the nortb,
of the *boundary between the two countries. But,
though we have referred to Mitchell's map for the
purpose of showing how the mistakes in that map may
have contributed to account for the erroneous opinions
prevailing in the United States about the boundary
question, we are quite aware that Mitchell's map is not,
land cannot be, any authority on this question ; inas-
much as it is not mentioned or referred to, in any man.

17. We have shown that the terms " due north
line," which were originally used in the commission of
Montague Wilmot, Esq., in 1763, were inserted in that
instrument, because the sources of the St. Croix River
being to the south of those of the Penobscot, it was
necessary to direct a due north line to be drawn from
those sources as far as the southern boundary of the
colony of Quebec—a fact which goes far to identify that
boundary with the highlands of the treaty of 1783.
18. In adverting to the proceedings of the Com-
missioners appointed under the treaty of 1794 to inden-
tify the St. Croix River, we remark upon the erroneous
establishment of the point of departure for the due north
line, which has had a disturbing influence upon all at-
tempts subsequently made to execute the treaty. Had
the point of departure of the due north line been esta-
blished at the most western waters of the St. Croix,
agreeably to a just construction of the treaty of 1783,
it would have intersected highlands south of the Roostuc
River; and any further protraction cf the due north
line from that point of intersection could not have been
proposed, the treaty directing the due north line to go
to the highlands, and not to any further point.
19. In that branch of our Report entitled " The
Physical Geography of the Country," we havd shown
that the line of " highlands" claimed by the United
States to be the highlands of the treaty of 1783, even
if it were continuous, which it is not, and if it divided
the waters flowing in opposite directions, which it doe's
not, passes at least 50 miles to the north of the "north-
westernmost head of Connecticut River," and therefore
could not by any reasoning be shown to be the " high-
lands" of the treaty of 1783 ; those highlands being re-
quired by that treaty to go to the north westernmost
head of Connecticut River.
20. We have shown that the assumptions on the part
of some of the official agents of the United States,
both in relation to the continuity and to the dividing
character of their " highlands," and to the elevation
above the sea of the point they have stated to be the
north west angle of Nova Scotia of the treaty of 1783,
arc altogether unfounded in fact. That the conclusions
upon which they have iested the American case, instead
of being the legitimate results of practical investiga-
tion, arc unsubstantial inventions brought forward in the
absence of all real investigation ; conveying erroneous
ideas of the nature of the country ; and calculated to
mislead, not only their own authorities, but public
opinion in the United States and in Europe, as to tWe
merits of this question.

In concluding this Report, we have to ask the indul
Bence of ytur Lordship if it should appear to be less
complete than the importance of the subject required,
or would have admitted of. The very short period al-
loted for our personal examinations of the disputed ter-
ritory, was diligently employed by us, as long as the
swim permitted us to continue our investigations ; nor
were they discontinued until we had made ourselves
acquainted with the natural features of the country to
the extent required by the important end contemplated
in our instructions.

We are also aware that the somewhat complicated
history of this controversy might, in more able hands,
have been treated with greater ability, yet we venture
to ask your Lordship to rely upon the fidelity of all our
statements. If we may be thought to have occasionally
exceeded the precise line of our instructions, we rest our
justification on the great anxiety we have felt to vindi-
cate our country and our Government from imputations
as offensive as they are unfounded. lutimAtely allied as
Great Britain and the United States are, we have
thought it due to a question which has somewhat en-
dangered the peace happily subsisting between them,
that we should frankly explain some of the causes why
the two Governments have hitherto been defeated in
their earnest attempt to bring the dispute to an equitable
and amicable arrangement. If our strictures upon the
conduct of some of the agents of the two Governments
heretofore employed in ineffectual attempts to settle the
Boundary Question, should give pain in any quarter,
we can only say that the maintenance of British rights
and the preservation of peace did not appear to us to
admit of being compromised by personal considerations.
We have, therefore, stated things as 'we found them to
be, and have been impartial in the application of our re-
marks. Above all, we desire to say that we have not
intended to insinuate a doubt as to the good faith of
the Government of the United States in the progress of
this matter. On the contrary, we have regretted to see
that those irregularities on the part of some of its agerns
which it has been our duty to expose, could not fail to
mislead that intelligent Government, whose conduct
during the negotiations has been uniformly marked by
fairness. Notwithstanding the assertions which during
so long a period have been confidently urged, that the
United States alone can rightfully claim the territory in
question, we hope to have proved that the claim of
Great Britain does not, as has been alleged, rest upon
vague and indefensible grounds. but that she has always
had a clear and indefeasible title, by right and b) pos-
session, to the whole of the disputed territory : a title,
it is true, which has hitherto been somewhat obscuted
by its rather complicated history, and by the want of
that interest which countries in the state of a wilderness,
and remote from the mother county, sometimes fail to
inspire.

If it should be urged that the British agents, in
whose hands this question has heretofore been, have
sometimes taken different views of the subject, and
consequently expressed themselves in a manner incon-
sistent with the reasonings which we have used, we
may fairly attribute it to the want of that more accu-
rateinformation which we possess at this time. But it
becomes less surprising that they should have so acted
under the disadvantageous circumstances we have al-
luded to, when we see that the people of Maine, whose
legitimate home is conterminous with the country in
dispute, have not to this day examined the territory, as
they might done, with an accuracy that admitted of en
impartial judgment being formed, whether their claim,
as they have hitherto preferred it, was or was not tin),
in accordance with the language and intentions of the
Treaty of 1783. It is not to be concealed, that they
who were so much interested in the decision of the
question, and who, as it were, live upon the spot, have
contributed little or nothing to clear up the difficulties
attending upon the subject. Their acts seem princi-
pally to have been confined to surveying the land into
townships to be settled by their own citizens, and leav-
ing it to the next generations to assert the proprietor-
ship of them. Time will prove or disprove our state-
ments. We have had truth at all times for our guide,
and now confidedtly declare that if, upon concluding our
investigations, we had found reason to believe that the
claim of Great Britain was, in our judgment, a doubtful
one, we should have reported that fact to your Lord-
ship.
When this question shall receive a more calm and a
more careful examination in the United States, we be-
lieve that the American people, who are eminently
capable of forming a deliberate and sound judgment
upon this grave question, will be anxious that it shall
be decided according to the principles of strict justice,
and consistently with the reverence due to that Treaty
whence is dated the independence of their Government.
Finally, it gives us great satisfaction to be able to
state to your Lordship, that we have carefully examined
every branch of this important subject as it has come -
under our consideration ; and that conscientiously be-
lieving that tha claims of Great Britain to the whole of
the disputed territory are founded in justice, and are in
plain accordance with the 2d article of the treaty of
1783, and with the physicial geography of the country;
We report that we have found a line of highlands,
agreeing with the language of the 2d article of the
treaty of 1783, extending from the north-westernmost
head of the Connecticut River to the sources of the
Chaudiere, and passing from thence, in a north-easterly
direction, south of the Roostuc, to the Bay of Chaleurs.
The course of that line is traced out on the map A, ac-
companying our Report. Upon the left margin of this
map we have placed a section of the country along the
line as Lis as Lake Keeaquawgam; and upon the right
margin a perpendicular section along the exploratory
due north line, accompanying them both with barome-
trical elevations.

We further- report that there does not exist, in the
disputed territory, any other line of highlands which is
in accordance with the 2d article of the treaty of 1783 ;
and that the line which is claimed on the port of the
United States, as to the line of highlands of the treaty
of 1783, does not pass nearer than from forty to fifty
miles of the north-westernmost head of Connecticut
River, arid therefore has no pretension to be put for.
ward as the line intended by the treaty of 1783.
We have the honour to remain,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most ob.mlient and humble servants,
G. W. FEATHERSTONHAUGH.I Comosiisieners.
RICH. Z. MUDGE.

- - ---
NEWSPAPER READERS AND WRITERS.—.
As every district yields its crop of produce for the suste-
nance of life, so does it furnish its supply of intelligence
for the newspapers ; and in either case both the quantity
and the quality may vary, according to the season. Thera
are some people, however, who seem to think that " news
is to be had everywhere," and expect that we shall never fail
in supplying them with a certain gaantity every week. In.
deed, the difficulty is in making them understand the differ-
ence between public intelligence and private gossip. The
former,may jausefttlllnd interesting—tile latter, senseless, •
mischievous, libellotir,- and disgraceful to the character of
any respectable newspaper. It is our business to drew the
distinction. There are readers who assume a right to dic-
tate and criticise—a right to which they deem themselves
entitled in return for the extravagant outlay of 40. par
wet k I Founded on the presumption of this purchased right;
applications are frequently made to us, in the tolkiving
style ;—" Sir, Inert the following in your next NowsPli•
per, of which I am a Snbseriber and Constant
Warwick Advertiser. ti

r

_~
~i. „y.
_~/