The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-05 00:00:00

of our federative union. In the sae tntime the obligations im-
posed by treaties or conventional arrangements should be sa-
credly respected." Here was, in the first place, an assertion
that the title of the United States was clear and unquestion-
able. In the next place, that the title was perfected by the
emigration of certain parties from the United States. In the
third place, there is an assertion that before any long time the
institutions of the United States would be extended to that

territory, and that the new States would form a part of the
federal union. It was upon this subject that he wished, after
the appeal of the President to the people of the United
States, to call the attention of the House.—(Hear.)

He, wished to show how far the President of the United State;

was justified in declaring his intention, without the sanction of
any treaty or convention, of occupying this territory. In a
matter of this kind it was necessary to inquire into the usage
by which a right to any territory hitherto unfixed and un-
claimed was claimed. With regard to an uninhabited country
there might be a title by ancient discovery, by treaty or con-
vention, or thirdly by settlement and occupation. Now what
was the right of the United States, as he gathered it from re-
perts made so long ago as 1825 and 1826, by a Committee of
the House of Representatives ? With regard to ancient dis-
covery the United States claimed al the rights that were de-
rived from Spanish discovery, but he would not much regard
a discovery at the end of the 16th century, which consisted of a

landing of +a
few hours on the coast, withliut any attempt made
to perfect it by occupation. But even on the point of prior dis-
covery he would be ready to meet the President of the United
States, and would contend for the discovery of Sir Francis
Drake in 1578 as compared with the discovery of the Spanish
navigator in 1592. Then with regard to the question of
treaty; but before he went into that he would state what was
the position of what was galled the Oregon Territory.
It might be considered as the territory lying between the
Rocky mountains and the Pacific, from east to west, and be-
tween latitude 40 or 42 and 51 from north to south. Now, as

far-as he could ascertain, that large territory did not appear to
have been the subject of stipulations between the countries of
Europe till late in the last century. It was said by America
that the treaty of Utrecht referred to that territory, but he
could not find any reference to it in that treaty, and there did
not appear to him to be any claim on that ground. It was
said again tl at the treaty of 1763, the treaty of Paris, gave to
France or Spain, or to one or other, all the territory to the
west of the Mississippi. It so happened that on a late occa-
sion he found it necessary to read the negotiations which had
taken place with regard to the treaty of Paris, and had con-
suited the various dispatches which passed between the Duke
of Bedford and the French Minister, and it was clear from

those documents that the only question between France
and England at that moment was as to the set-
tlement between Canada and Louisiana.—( Hear, hear.)
By the treaty Canada was ceded to England, and Louisiana to
France, with the exception of some parts to the east of the
Miisissippi. They must then consider whether Louisiana, as
it was then held by France, comprehended any portion to the
west of the Rocky Mountains, and upon this a very excellent
pamphlet had been published by Mr. Faulkener.—(Hear,
hear.) It appeared, from the instructions sent by Louis XI V.
to M. Croissade, who was at that time at the head of the Go-
vernment of Louisiana, that he did not consider Loui-
siana extended so far as the Rocky Mountains. It would
appear that it was considered to extend to the country
westward of the Missouri and • the Mississippi. There
was nothing, therefore, in the treaty of 1763. from
which it could be inferred even by implication that any title
was created to the territory beyond the Rocky Mountains.
Next they came to the claims which it was said arose from the

discoveries of navigators, and the settlements made on the
coasts. In the year 1785, the question arose with regard to
Nootka Sound. That settlement was attacked and destroyed
by the Spaniards. The English Government demanded re-
dress from the Spanish Government, that redress was given to
them, and terms were agreed on with regard to the future oc-
cupation of the country. Those terms showed that the country
was considered as one to which no valid claim of sovereignty
could be established by either party. It appeared that neither
the English nor the Spanish Governments had formed such
settlements there as to give a valid title to the territory. He
could refer the /louse to the Convention agreed on at the
Eiturial, in relation to this subject, which would be formed in
" Hertslet's Commercial Treaties." By the sth article of that
Convention, it was agreed that the subjects of either country
should have free access to the territory to carry on their
trade without molestation from the other. It was agreed that
all parts of the north of the Spanish settlements should be open
to the subjects of both countries, but that neither Spain nor
England should finally settle there for the purpose of assuming
the sovereignty of the country. Now it did not appear that
Spain had any settlements to the north of latitude 40. At all
events, she had none so far north as the mouth of the Co-
lumbia River. By the treaty, it was open either to Great
Britain or to Spain to perfect the discovery of the country,
and to establish and make settlements in consequence of such
discoveries. Captain Vancouver, after that convention had
been entered into, was sent by the British Government to make
discoveries, and to take possession, in the name of the King of
Great Britain, of such territories as he might discover. He
now came to another part of the claim of the United States—
viz., that which was founded on alleged priority of discovery.
It appeared that a merchant vessel, called the Columbia, com-
manded by Captain Grey, had discovered an inlet, which Capt.
Grey supposed to he the inlet to some river. This was in the
month of May, 1792. After remaining at anchor in that inlet
for some time, and sending out boats for the purpose of ascer-
taining the limits of the bay, and ascertaining that it was not
the inlet of any river, the vessel sailed out into the Pacific
Ocean. This was clear from the statement made by Captain
Grey, for he said, that after some days having found what they
thought was the channel of a river, they discovered their mis-
take, for what they had discovered was clearly no channel, and
they returned. Shortly after, Captain Vancouver arrived, and
he not only entered the inlet, but he sent his first-lieutenant,
Lieutenant Broughton, in his boat, to go down the river.
Lieutenant Broughton was more successful than Captain Grey
had been, for he not only discovered the entrance to the Columbia
river, but he proceeded up that river to a considerable distance.
Captain Vancouver took possession of it and Nootka Sound in
the name of the King of England, and this was a valid pos-
session. It had been stated in an American pamphlet, which
he held in his hand, that the district of Louisiana included all
the land on the east side of the Mississ'ppi and the Rocky
Mountains—that district included between the land claimed by
Spain on the one side, and by Great Britain on the other ;
but unless Louisiana was included in that part of the territory
west of the Rocky Mountains, it ought not to have been in-
cluded in the convention. With regard to the cession by
Spain, the only cession they had any right to make was under
the convention with Great Britain relative to Nootka Sound.
There was a convention between Spain on one hide, and Great
Britain on the other. The two Powers afterwards went to
war, and it was used as an argument, on the part of the United
States, that in consequence of that Great Britain had lost all
title which it claimed under the convention. The eff..ct
was, that the convention was renewed by an additional article
in the treaty between this country and Spain, in 1814, there-
fore they could only succeed to such title as Spain held in 1814.
It was a title to settle and trade in that territory. Then he would
come to the third question, which was the most important of
all the modes of establishing a title—he meant the title by
occupancy and settlement. The question now for them to
consider was, whether there was what the President of the
United States called a title, real and unquestionable, to be
made out of occupancy and settlement. He had already stated
that there was a settlement in Nootka Sound, and that
there was also a settlement made by the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany in the Oregon territory. In 1811, as was stated by
Washington Irving, Mr. Aston made a settlement in Colom-
bia. Shortly afterwards there was a war, and the question
was who should take possession of the Astonian territory. The
settlers, in the meantime, agreed with a company, called the
North Western Company, for the sale of that colony. That
sale was effected after the treaty of the year ISIS, when all the
property taken during the war was thought right to be restored
to the United States. The North Western Company and the
Hudson's Bay Company were then united by Act of Parlia-
ment. There was another company then instituted, called
the Pacific Fur Company, which had ended in a total failure, in
consequence of the Hudson's Bay Company having entered
into a more enlarged spirit of trade, and were obliged to sell
their settlements to the Hudson's Bay Company. It was taken,
on good authority, that there were 20,000 people living in
this part of the Oregon territory, very few of whom were
citizens of the United States, and at the same time the
Hudson Bay Company had agents who had made settle-
ments throughout the country. It was obvious, seeing
the increase of relations which must take place be-
tween this country and our Indian possessions and China,
it was of the very first importance to have the com-
mand of that part of the coast. There might be ports as good.
or better, further to the north, in the neighbourhood of
Nootka Sound, but those ports were unapproachable. What
was the result of the statement which he had endeavoured to
make to the House on this difficult subject? Why, that with
regard to ancient discoveries, England had a better claim than
the United States. With respect to the treaties, the
United States had no ground whatever to rest. Upon the
ground of discovery, then, as well as by treaty, the claims of
thi- country were stronger to that disputed territory than those
of the United States.—(Hear, hear.) English subjects, for
thurnost part, occupied it, and English subjects were now en-
gaged in carrying on a traffic of great importance there.
Having thus, in a general manner, stated the claims of the re-
spective countries, he would, in general terms, allude to the
negotiations which had taken place between them. An impor-
tant negotiation was carried on in London between Mr. Rush,
on the part of the United States, and Mr. Huskisson and Mr.
Stratford Canning, on the part of England. Certain proposals
were made by Mr. Rush, amongst others that no culnnisation
should take place on the American boundary. The claim was
at once denied by Mr. Canning. The claim to the Oregon ter-
ritory was also peremptorily denied, but at the same time
Mr. Canning did authorise Mr. Huskisson to propose a com-
promise on this subject, and the line which had been agreed on
running along the 49th parallel of north latitude to the Rocky
Mountains should be carried on beyond the Rocky Mountains
to a [watch of the Columbian rives called the Magilicuddy
River, thence to the main stream of the Columbia, and this
was to be the boundary line between the two stations. Mr.
Canning would not give up the settlement north of the Co-
lumbia, because he wished to have the full advantage of the
harbour. He ( Lord J. Russell) thought this was a very
equitable proposal on the part of Mr. Canning. The proposal
was rejected by the American Government, and it became
necessary to renew the convention, by which it was agreed that
Great Britain and the United States should have the power to
occupy and settle, without claiming sovereignty over any part
of that territory. Such was the state of the queritsioo
en
down to the present time, but new events had now a for
,
The President of the United States had made a p
claim to the whole of that territory, and, in an unusuwaelrierothmanptnheeriyr
had called upon the people of the United States,
becoming
wives and children, to occupy it. The territory was
of more importance every year. After this statement of the
President it was impossible that the Government would not
endeavour to have a speedy solution of this difficulty. If they
would feel it impossible that the present unsettled state of re-
lations between the two countries should be allowed to con-
tinue without the danger that the people of the United States,
acting on the suggestion of the President, would endeavour to
disturb British subjects in the enjoyment of their rights,
which they held by treaty, and thus promote a state of relation
dangerous to the peace of both countries.—(Hear.) He
would say, with all moderation, that this country should not
abate anything of their just pretensions.—( Hear.) He would
not pretend to define what course the Government ought to take,
nor where they ought to draw the line, but he would say that
they would not propose anything less than Mr. Canning
had done with any regard to the interests of Great Britain.—
( Hear, hear.) He might be told that the Oregon territory
claimed by the United States was not of much value, and that it
del not matter much who possessed it. " Yes, Sir," (said the
Noble Lord), "but I say it does matter."—( Hear, hear.) A
large territory cannot be a matter of indifference, particularly
where our title is better arid jester, nor should it be yielded
under such circurest ances to what he might call the blustering
announcement—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," in which Sir R.
Peel loudly joined)--on the part of the President of the United
States. A communication with China and East India, and the
whole of South America, could not be a matter of indifference.
The surrender of such advantages to a foreign power could not,
he repeated, be regarded with indifference. It was not a matter
of indifference that the tone and character of England should
be lowered in a transaction carried on with the United States.
He thanked the House for the patience with which they had
listened to him whilst he made this imperfect statement.—
(Cheers, in which Sir Robert Peel joined.) He should
not have interfered if the matter had been left to
sliplomatic arrangement between Lord Aberdeen and Mr.
Buchanan ; but he felt that a Minister, from his position, could
not well introduce the matter; and so he thought it right to
tell the House and the people of this country what were their
rights.—(Cheers.) With this statement he I.,•onlileive the