The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-31 00:00:00

That convention died on the Commencement of the war
between Spain and England, in 1796, and has never since
been revived.
The British Plenipotentiary next" endeavours to prove
that, even if the Nootka Sound convention had ever ex-
isted, the position of Great Britain in regard to her claim,
whether to the whole or to any particular portion of the
Oregon territory is at least as good as that of the United
States." In order to establish this position he must show
that the British claim is equal in validity to the titles
both of Spain and the United States. These can never
now be separated. They are one and the same. Diffe-
rent and diverging as they may have been before the
Florida treaty, they are now blended together and iden-
tified. The separate discoveries, explorations, and set-
tlements of the two powers previous to that date must now
be considered as if they had all been made by the
United States alone. Under this palpable view of the
subject, the undersigned was surprised to find that in the
comparison and contrast instituted by the British Pleni-
potentiary between the claim of Great Britain and that
of the United States, he had entirely omitted to refer to
the discoveries, explorations, and settlements made by
Spain. The undersigned will endeavour to supply the
omission.

But Wore he proceeds to the main argument on this
point, he feels himself constrained to express his surprise
that the British Plenipotentiary should again have invoked
in support of the British title the inconsistency between
the Spanish and American branches of the title of the
United States. The undersigned cannot forbear to con-
gratulate himself upon the fact, that a gentleman of
Mr. Pakenham's acknowledged ability has been reduced
to the necessity of relying chiefly upon such a snpport
for sustaining the British pretensions. Stated in brief,
the argument is this : the American title is not good
against Great Britain, because inconsistent with that of
Spain ; and the Spanish title is not good against Great
Britain, because inconsistent with that of United
States. The undersigned had expected something far
different from such an argument in a circle. He had
anticipated that the British Plenipotentiary would have
attempted to prove that Spain had no right to the north-
western coast of America ; that it was vacant and un-
appropriated ; and hence, under the law of nations, was
open to discovery, exploration, and settlement by all
nations. But no such thing. On this vital point of his
case he rests his argument solely on the declaration
made by the undersigned, that the title of the United
States to the valley of the Columbia was perfect and com-
plete before the treaties of joint occupation of October,
1818, and August, 1827, and before the date of the
Florida treaty, in 1819.
But the British Plenipotentiary ought to recollect that
this title was asserted to be complete, not against Spain,
but against Great Britain ; that the argument was cone
ducted not against a Spanish but a British Plenipoten-
tiary ; and that the United States, and not Great Bri-
tain, represent the Spanish title. And further, that the
statement from which he extracts these declarations was
almost exclusively devoted to prove, in the language
quoted by the British Plenipotentiary himself, that
Spain had a good title, as against Great Britain, to the
whole of the Oregon territory." The undersigned has
never, as before observed, instituted any comparison
between the American and Spanish titles. Holding both
—having a perfect right to rely on both, whether jointly
or separately—he has strongly asserted each of them in
their turn, fully persuaded that either the one or the
other is good against Great Britain ; and that no human
ingenuity can make the Spanish title, now vested in the
United States, worse than it would have been had it re-
mained in the hands of Spain.
Briefly to illustrate and enforce that title shall be the
remaining task of the undersigned.
And, in the first place, he cannot but commend the
frankness and candour of the British Plenipotentiary
in departing from the course of his predecessors, and
rejecting all discoveries previous to those of Captain
Cook, in the year 1778, as foundations of British title.
Commencing with discovery at a period so late, the
Spanish title, on the score of antiquity, presents a
strong contrast to that of Great Britain. The under-
signed had stated as as historical and " striking fact,
which must have an important bearing against the
claim of Great Britain, that this convention (the Nootka)
which was dictated by her to Spain, contains no pro-
vision impairing the ultimate sovereignty which that
power has asserted for nearly three centuries over the
whole western side of North America as far north as
the 61st degree of latitude, and which had never been
seriously questioned by any European nation. This
had been maintained by Spain with the most vigilant
jealousy ever since the discovery of the American con-
tinent, and had been acquiesced in by all European Go-
vernments. It had been admitted even beyond the lati-
tude of 54 40 north, by Russia, then the only power
having claims which could come in collision with Spain;
and that, too, under a sovereign peculiarly tenacious of
the territorial rights of her empire."
These historical facts had not been, as they could not
be, controverted by the British Plenipotentiary,although
they were brought under his particular observation, and
were even quoted by him with approbation, for the pur-
pose of showing the inconsistency of the several titles
held by the United States. In the language of Count
Fermin de Nunez, the Spanish Ambassador at Paris, to
M. de Montmorin, the Secretary of the Foreign Depart-
ment of France, under date of June 17, 1790: "By the
treaties, demarcations, taking possession, and the most
decided acts of sovereignty exercised by the Spaniards in
those stations from the reign of Charles IL, and autho-
rised by that monarch in 1692, the original vouchers for
which shall be brought forward in the course of the ne-
gotiation, all the coast to the north of the western
America, on the side of the South Sea, as far as beyond
what is called Prince William's Sound, which is in the
tilst degree, is acknowledged to belong exclusively to
Spain."

Compared with this ancient claim of Spain, acquiesced
in by all European nations for centuries, the claim of
Grass Britain, founded on discoveries commenced at so
lift a period as the year 1778, must make an unfavour-
aMe first impression. _ .

Spain considered the north-west coast of America as
exclusively her own. She did not send out expeditions
to explore that coast, for the purpose of rendering her
title more valid. When it suited her own convenience,
or promoted her own interest, she fitted out such ex-
peditions of discovery to ascertain the character and ex-
tent of her own territory ; and yet her discoveries
along that coast are far earlier than those of the
British.

That Juan de Fuca, a Greek in the service of Spain,
in 1592, discovered and sailed through the strait now
bearing his name, from its southern to its northern ex-
tremity, and thence returned by the same passage, no
longer admits, of a reasonable doubt. An account of the
voyage was published in London in 1625, in a work
called "The Pilgrims," by Samuel Purchas. This ac-
count was received from the lips of Fuca himself at
Venice, in April, 1596, by Michael Lock, a highly re-
spectable English merchant.
During a long period this voyage was deemed fabu-
lous, because subsequent navigators had in vain at-
tempted to find these straits. Finally, after they bad
been found, it was discovered that the descriptions of De
Fuca corresponded so accurately with their geography,
and the facts presented by nature upon the ground, that
it was no longer possible to consider his narration as
fabulous. It is true that the opening of the straits
from the south lies between the 48th and 49th parallels
of latitude, and not between the 47th and 48th parallels,
as he had supposed; but this mistake may be explained
by the inaccuracy so common throughout the sixteenth
century in ascertaining the latitude of places in newly-
discovered countries.

It is also true that De Fuca, after passing through
these straits, supposed he had reached the Atlantic, and
had discovered the passage so long and so anxiously
sought after, between the two oceans; but from the total
ignorance and misapprehension which prevailed at that
early day of the geography of this portion of North
America, it was natural for him to believe that he had
made this important discovery.
Justice has at length been done to his memory, and
these straits which he discovered will, in all future time,
bear his name. Thus, the merit of the discovery of the
straits of Fuca belongs to Spain; and this nearly two
centuries before they had been entered by Captain Ber-
keley, under the Austrian flag.
It is unnecessary to detail the discoveries ofithe
Spaniards as they regularly advanced to the north from
the settlements on the western coasts of North America,
until we reach the voyage of Captain Juan Perez, in
1774. That navigator was commissioned by the viceroy
of Mexico to proceed, in the corvette Santiago, to the
60th degree of north latitude; and from that point to
examine the coast down to Mexico. Ile sailed from San
Bias on the 25th January, 1774. In the performance of
this commission he landed first on the north-west coast
of Queen Charlotte's Island, near the 54th degree of
north latitude ; and thence proceeded south along the
shore of that island and of the great islands of Quadra
and Vancouver; and then along the coast of the conti-
nent, until he reached Monteroy. He went on shore,
and held intercourse with the natives at several places;
and especially at the entrance of a bay, in latitude 291
dog., which he called Port San Lorenzo—the same now
known by the name of Nootka Sound. In addition to
the journals of this voyage, which render the fact incon-
testible, wehave the high authority of Baron Humboldt
inits favour. That distinguished traveller, who had
access to the manuscript documents in the city of
states that " Perez and his pilot Estevan
Martinez left the port of San Bias 24th January, 1774.
On the 9th August they anchored (the first of all Euro-
pean navigators) in Nootka roads, which they called the
port of San Lorenzo, and which the illustrious Cook,
four years afterwards, called King George's Sound."
In the next year (1775) the viceroy of Mexico again
fitted out the Santiago, under the command of Bruno
Ifeceta with Perez, her former commander, as ensign,
and also a schooner, called the Sonora, commanded by
Juan Francesco de la Bodega y Quadra. These vessels
were commissioned to examine the northlvst stern coast of
America as far as the 65th degree of latitude, and sailed
in company from San Blas on the 15th March, 1775.
It is unnecessary to enumerate the different places on
the coast examined by these navigators, either in core.
pany or separately. Suffice it to say, that they landed at
many places on the coast from the 41st to the 57th de-
gree of latitude, on all of which occasions they took pos-
session of the country in the name of their sovereign,
according to a prescribed regulation ; celebrating mass,
reading declarations asserting the right of Spain to the
territory, and erecting crosses with inscriptions, to com-
memorate the event. Some of these crosses were after-
wards found standing by British navigators. In rela-
tion to these voyages, Baron Humboldt says, " In the
following year (1775, after that of Perez), a second
expedition set out from San Bias, under the command of
Heceta, Ayala, and Quadra. He discovered the mouth
of the Rio Columbia, called it the Entrada de Heceta, the
peak, of San Jacinto (Mount Edgecomb, near Norfolk
Bay), and the fine port of Bucareli. I possess two very
curious small maps, engraved in 1788, in the city of
Mexico, which give the bearings of the coast from the
27th to the 58th degree of latitude, as they were disco-
vered in the expedition of Quadra."
In the face of these incontestible facts, the British

Plenipotentiary says "that Captain Cook must also be
considered the discoverer of Nootka Sound, in conse-
quence of the want of authenticityin the alleged previous
discovery of that port by Perez." And yet Cook did not
even sail from England until the 12th July, 1776, nearly
two years after Perez made this discovery. The chief
object of Cook's voyage was 'the discovery of a north-
west passage, and he never landed at any point of the
continent south of Nootka Sound. It is true, that in
coasting along the continent, before he reached this place,
he had observed Cape Flattery, but he was entirely igno-
rant that this was the southern entrance otthe straits of
Fuca. In his journal he admits that he had heard some
account of the Spanish voyages of 1774 and 1775, before
he left England; and it is beyond question that, before
his departure, accounts of the voyage of Quadra had
been published both in Madrid and London. From
Nootka Sound Cook did not again see land until he
reached the 57th degree of north latitude.
In 1787, it is alleged by the British Plenipotentiary
that Captain Berkeley, a British subject, discovered the
Straits of Fuca; but these straits had been discovered by
Juan (le Fuca, nearly two centuries before. Besides, if
there had been any merit in this discovery of Captain
Berkeley, it would have belonged to Austria, in whose
service he u as, and under whose colours he sailed, and
cannot be appropriated to Great Britain.
And here it is worthy of remark that these disco-
veries of Cook and Berkeley, in 1778 and 1787, are all
those on which the British Plenipotentiary relies pre-
vious to the date of the Nootka Sound Convention, in
October, 1790, to defeat the ancient Spanish title to the
north-west coast of America.

The undersigned will now take a position which can-
not, in his opinion, be successfully assailed ; and that is,
that no discovery, exploration, or settlement, made by
Great Britain on the north-west coast of America,
after the date of the Nootka Sound Convention, and
before it was terminated by the war of 1796, can
be invoked by that Power in favour of her own
title, or against the title of Spain. Even according to
the British construction of that Convention, the sove-
reignty over the territory was to remain in abeyance
during its continuance, as well in regard to Great
Britain as to Spain. It would, therefore, have
been an open violation of faith on the part of Gre-tt
Britain, after having secured the privileges conferred
upon her by the convention, to turn round against her
partner, and perform any acts calculated to divest Spain
of her ultimate sovereignty over any portion of this
country. 7he palpable meaning of the convention was,
that during its continuance the rights of the respective
parties, whatever they may have been, sholld remain
just as they had existed at its commencement,
The Government of Great Britain is not justly charge-
able with any such breach of faith. Captain Vancouver
acted without instructions in attempting to take posses-
sion of the whole north-western coast of America in
the name of his sovereign. This officer, sent out from
England to execute the convention, did not carry with
him any authority to violate it in this outrageous
manner.

Without this treaty, he would have been a mere in-
truder; under it, Great Britain had a right to make
discoveries and surveys, not thereby to acquire title, but
merely to enable her subjects to select spots the most
advantageous, to use the language of the convention,
for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with
the natives of the country, or of making settlements
there."

If this construction of the Nootica Sound Convention
be correct—and the undersigned does not perceive how
it can be questioned—then Vancouver's passage through
the Straits of Fuca, in 1792, and Alexander Mackenzie's
journey across the continent in 1793, can never be trans-
formed into elements of title in favour of Great Britain.

But even if the undersigned could be mistaken in these
positions, it would be easy to prove that Captain John
Kendrick, in the American sloop Washington, passed
through the Straits of Fuca in 1789, three years before
Captain Vancouver performed the same voyage. The
very instructions to the latter, before be left England, in
January 1791, refers to this fact, which has bee❑ com-
municated to the British Government by Lieutenant
Meares, who has rendered his name so notorious by its
connexion with the transactions preceding the Nootka
Sound Convention. It is, moreover, well known that the
whole southern division of the straits had been explored
by the Spanish navigators Elisa and Quimper—the first
in 1790, and the latter in 1791.

After what has been said, it will be perceived how
little reason the British Plenipotentiary has for stating
that his Government has, "as far as relates to Van •
couver's Island, as complete a case of discovery, ex-
ploration, and settlement, as can well be presented, giv-
ing to Great Britain, in any arrangement that may be
made with regard to the territory in dispute, the
strongest possible claim to the exclusive possession of
that island."

The discovery thus relied upon is that of Nootka
Sound by Cook, in 1778: when it has been demonstrated
that this was first discovered by Perez, in 1774. The
exploration is that by Vancouver, in passing through the
Straits of Fuca in 1792, and examining the coasts
of the territory in dispute, when De Fuca himself had
passed through these straits in 1/92, and Kendrick
again in 1789; and a complete examination of the
western coast had been made in 1774 and 1775, both by
Perez and Quadra. As to possession, if Meares was
ever restored to his possessions at Nootka Sound, what-
ever these may have been, the undersigned has never
seen any evidence of the fact. It is not to be found
in the journal of Vancouver, although this officer was
sent from England for the avowed purpose of witnessing
sueh a restoration. The undersigned knows not whether
any new understanding took place between the British
and Spanish Governments on this subject ; but one fact
is placed beyond all doubt, that the Spaniards continued
in the undisturbed possession of N,,,,t1z. Sound until the
year 1795, when they voluntarily abandoned the place.
Great Britain has never, at any time since occupied this
or any other position on Vancouver's Island. Thus, on
the score of either discovery, exploration, or possession,
this island seems to be the very last portion of the ter-
ritory in dispute to which she can assert a just claim.
In the meantime, the United States were proceeding
with the discoveries which served, to complete and con-
firm the Spanish American title to the whole of the
disputed territory.
Captain Robert Gray, in June, 1789, in the sloop
Washington, first explored the whole eastern coast of
Queen Charlotte's island. . _

In the autumn of the same year, Captain John Ken-
drick—having in the meantime surrendered the com-
mand of the Columbia to Captain Gray—sailed, as bad
been already stated, in the sloop Washington, entirely
through the Straits of Fuca.
In 1791, Captain Gray returned to the North Pacific
in the Columbia, and in the summer of that year exa-
mined many of the inlets and passages between the 54th
and 56th degrees of latitude, which the undersigned
considers it unnecessary to specify.
On the 7th May, 1792, he discovered and entered
Bultinch's harbour, where he remained at anchor three
days, trading with the Indians.
On the 11th May, 1792, Captain Gray entered the
mouth of the Columbia and completed the discovery of
that great river. This river had been long sought in
vain by former navigators. Both Meares and Van-
couver, after examination, had denied its existence.
Thus is the world indebted to the enterprise, perseve-
rance, and intelligence of an American captain of a
trailing vessel for their first knowledge of this, the
greatest river on the western coast of America—a river
whose head springs flow from the gorges of the Rocky
Mountains, and whose branches extend from the 43d to
the 53d parallels of latitude. This was the last and
most important discovery on the coast, and has perpe-
tuated the name of Robert Gray. In all future time
this great river will bear the name cf his vessel.
It was true that Bruno Haceta, in the year 1775, had
been opposite the Bay of the Columbia ; and the cur-
rents and eddies of the water caused him, as he rema.rks,
to believe that this was " the mouth of some great river,
or of some passage to another sea ;" and his opinion
seems decidedly to hare been that this was the opening
of the strait discovered by Juan de Fuca in 1592. To
use his own language : " Notwithstanding th 3 great dif-
ference between the position AlikeS Bay and the passage
mentioned by De Fuca, I hliOnttle difficulty in con-
ceiving that they may be the stiine, having observed
equal or greater differences in the latitude of other capes
and ports on the coast, as I shall show at its proper
time ; and in all cases the latitude th s assigned are
higher than the real ones."
Heceta, from his own declaration, hti er entered
the Columbia ; and he was in doubt whettrar the open-
ing was a mouth of a river or an arm oal*sea ; and
subsequent examinations of the coast fiy:*her navi-
gators had rendered the opinion universallha.t no such
river existed, when; Gray first bore the 4:llperican flag
across its bar, sailed up its channel for Awenty-five
miles, and remained in the river nine days, trading with
the Indians.
The British Plenipotentiary attempts to depreciate the
value to the United States of Gray's discovery; because
his ship (the Columbia) was a trading, and not a na-
tional, vessel. As he furnishes no reason for thisAis-
ainetion, the undersigned will confine himself to the re-
mark that a merchant vessel bears the flag of her coun-
try at her mast.head,: and continues under its jurisdic-
tion and protection, in the same manner as though she
had been commissioned for the express purpose of making
discove4a. Besides, beyond all doubt, this discovery
was made by Gray ; and to what nation could the benefit
of it belong, unless it be to the United States ? Certainly
not to Great Britain. And if to Spain, the United States
are now her representatives.
Nor does the undersigned perceive in what manner
the value of this great discovery can be lessened by the
fact that it was first published to the world through the
journal of Vancouver, a British authority. On the con-
trary, its authenticity being thus acknowledged by the
party having au adverse interest, is more firmly esta-
blished than if it had been first published in the United
States.

From a careful examination and review of the subject,
the undersigned ventures the assertion, that to Spain
and the United States belong all the merit of the disco-
very of the north-west coast of America south of the
Russian line, not a spot of which, unless it may have
been the shores of some of the interior bays a]d inlets,
after the entrance to them had been known, was ever
beheld by British subjects, until after it had been seen
or touched by a Spaniard or an American. Spain pro-
ceeded in this work of discovery, not as a means of ac-
quiring title, but for the purpose of examining and sur-
veyini; territory to which she believed she had an incon-
testable right. This title had been sanctioned for cen-
turies by the acknowledgment or acquiescence of all the
European Powers. The United States alone could have
disputed thititle, and that only to the extent of the
region watered by the Columbia. The Spanish and
American titles, now united by the Florida treaty, can-
not be justly resisted by Great Britain. Considered to-
gether, they constitute a perfect title to the whole terri-
tory in dispute, ever since the 11th of May, 1792, when
Captain Gray passed the bar at the mouth of the Co-
lumbia, which he had observed in August, 1788.
The undersigned will now proceed to show that the
title of the United States, at least to the possession of

the territory at the mouth of the Columbia, has been
acknowledged by the most solemn and unequivocal acts
of the British Government.

After the purchase of Louisiana from France, the Go-
vernment of the United States fitted out an expedition,
under Messrs. Lewis and Clarke, who, in 1805, first ex-
plored the Columbia, from its source to its mouth, pre-
paratory to the occupation of the territory by the United
States.

In 1811, the settlement of Astoria was made by the
Americans near the mouth of the river, and several
other posts were established in the interior along its
banks. The war of 1812 between Great Britain and the
United States thus found the latter in peaceable posses-
sion of that great region. Astoria was captured by
Great Britain during the war. The treaty of peace con-
cluded at Ghent in December, 1814, provided that "All
territory, places, and possessions whatsoever, taken by
either party from the other during the war," &c. &c.,
" shall be returned without delay." In obedience to the
provisions of this treaty, Great Britain restored Astoria
to the United States ; and this is admitted in the most
solemn manner, not only that it had been an American
territory or possession at the commencement of the war,
but that it had been captured by British arms during its
continuance. It is now too late to gainsay or explain
away these facts. Both the treaty of Ghent, and the
acts of the British Government under it, disprove the
allegations of the British Plenipotentiary, that Astoria
passed " into British hands by the voluntary act of the
persons in charge of it," and that it was restored to the
United States in 1818, with certain well-authenticated
reservations.

In reply to the first of these allegations, it is true that
the agents of the (American) Pacific Fur Company,
before the capture of Astoria, on the 16th of October,
1818, had transferred all that they could transfer—the
private property of tho Company—to the (British)
North-west Company; bat it will scarcely be contended
that such an arrangement could impair the sovereign
rights of the United States to the territory. Accord-
ingly, the American flag was still kept flying over the
fort until the Ist December, 1813, when it was captured
by his Majesty's sloop-of-war Rackoon, and th• British
flag was then substituted.
That it was not restored to the United States " with
certain well-authenticated reservations," fully appears
from this act of restoration itself, bearing date 6th
October, 1818. This is as absolute and unconditional
as the English language can make it. That this was the
intention of Lord Castlereagh clearly appears from his
previous admission to Mr. Rah of the right of the
Americans to "13a reinstated, and to the party in posses-
sion while treating on the title. If British Ministers
afterwards, in dispatches to their own agents, the con-
tents of which were not communicated to the Govern-
ment of the United States, thought proper to protest
against our title, these were, in effect, but mere mental
reservations, which could not affect the validity of their
own solemn and unconditional act of restoration.

But the British Plenipotentiary, notwithstanding the
American discovery, of the Columbia by Captain Gray,
and the exploration by Lewis and Clarke of several of
its branches, from thrfir sources in the Rocky Mountains,
as well as its main channel to the ocean, contends that
because Thompson, a British subject in the employment
of the North West Company, was the first who navigated
the northern branch of that river, the British Govern-
ment thereby acquired certain rights against the United
States, the extent of which he does not undertake to
specify. In other words, that after one nation has dis-
covered and explored a great river, and several tributa-
ries, and made settlements on its banks, another nation,
if it could find a single branch on its broad waters which
had not been actually explored, might appropriate to
itself this branch, together with the adjacent territory.
If this could have been done, it would have produced
perpetual strife and collision among the nations after the
discovery of America. It would have violated the wise
principle consecrated by the practice of nations, which
gives the valley drained by a river and its branches to
the nation which had first discovered and appropriated
its mouth.

But, for another reason, this alleged discovery of
Thompson has no merits whatever. His journey was
undertaken on behalf of the North West Company for
the mere purpose of anticipating the United States in
the occupation of the Columbia—a-territory to which no
nation, unless it may have been Spain, could with any
show of justice dispute their right. They had acquired
it by discovery and by exploration, and were now in the
act of taking possessicn. It was in an enterprise under-
taken for such a purpose that Thompson, in hastening
from Canada to the mouth of the Columbia, descended
the north, arbitrarily assumed by Great. Britain to be
the main, branch of the river. The period was far too
late to impair the title either of Spain or the United
States by any such proceeding.
Mr. Thompson, on his return, was accompanied by a
party from Astoria, under Major Stuart, who established
a post at the confluence of the Okinagan with the north
branch of the Columbia, about six hundred miles above
the mouth of the latter.

In the next year (1812) a second trading post was
established by a party from Astoria, on the Spoken,
about six hundred and fifty miles from the ocean.
It thus appears that, previous to the capture of them
by the British, the Americans had extended their posses-
"ins up the Columbia six hundred and fifty miles. The
mere intrusion of the North West Company into this terri-
tory, and the establishment of two or three trading posts
in 1811 and 1812, on the bead waters of the river, can
surely not interfere with, or impair the Spanish Ameri-
can title. What this company may have done in the in-
termediate period until the 20th October, 1818—the date
of the first treaty of joint occupation—is unknown to the
undersigned, from the impenetrable mystery in which
they have veiled their proceedings. After the date of
this treaty neither Great Britain nor the United States
ro,,en.raa,l any ant affpr'ine• their claims to the
disputed territory.
To sum up the whole, then, Great Britain cannot rest
her claims to the north-west coast of America upon dis-
covery. As little will her single claim by settlement at
Nootka Sound avail her. Even Belsham, her own histo-
rian, forty years ago, declared it to be certain from the
most authentic information, " that the Spanish flag flying
at Nootka was never struck, and that the territory has
been virtually relinquished by Great Britain."
The agents of the North West Company, penetrating
the continent from Canada, in 1806, established their
first trading post west of the Rocky Mountains, at
Fraser's Lake, in the 54th- degree of latitude ; and this,
with the trading posts established by Thompson—to
which the undersigned has just adverted—and possibly
some others afterwards previotis to October, 1818, con-
stitutes the claim of Great Britain by actual settlement.
Upon the whole, from the most cazeful and ample ex-
amination which the undersigned has been able to be-
stow upon the subject, he, is satisfied that the Spanish
American title, now held by the United States, embrac-
ing the whole territory between the parallels of 42 deg.
and 54 deg. 40 min., is the best title in existence to this
entire region ; and that the claim of Great Britain to
any portion of it has no sufficient foundation. Even
British geographers have not doubted our title to the
territory in dispute. There is a large and splendid
globe now in the department of State, recently received
from London, and published by ,Maltby and Company,
" manufa3turers and publishers to the Society for the
Diffusion of Useful Knowledge," which assigns this ter-
ritory to the United States.
Notwithstanding sueh was and still is the opinion of
the President, yet, in the spirit of compromise and con-
cession, and in deference to the action of his predeces-
sors, the undersigned, in obedience to his instructions,
proposed to the British Plenipotentiary to settle the
controversy by dividing the territory in dispute by the
49th parallel of latitude, offering, at the sume time, to
make free to Great Britain any port or ports on Van-
couver's island south of this latitude, which the British
Government might desire. The British Plenipotentiary
has correctly suggested that the free navigatioa of the
Columbia river was not embraced in this proposal to
Great Britain ; but, on the other hand, the use of free
ports on the southern extremity of this island had not
been included in former offers.
Stich a proposition as that which has been made, never
would have been authorized by the President, had this
been a new question.
Upon his accession to office, he found the present ne-
gotiation pending. It had been instituted in the spirit
and upon the principle of compromise. Its object, as
avowed by the negotiators, was not to demand the whole
territory in dispute for either country ; but in the lan-
guage of the first protocol,." to treat of the respective
claims of the two countries to the Oregon territory, with
the view to establish a permanent boundary between
them westward of the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific
Ocean."

Placed in this position, and considering that Presidents
Monroe and Adams had, on former occasions, offered to
divide the territory in dispute by the forty-ninth parallel
of latitude, he felt it to be his duty not abruptly to arrest
the negotiation ; but so f.tr to yield his own opinion as
once more to make a similar offer.

Not only respect fur the conduct of his predecessors,
but sincere and anxious desire to promote peace and
harmony between the two countries, influenced him to
pursue this course. The Oregon question presents the
only intervening cloud which intercepts the prospect of
a long career of mutual friendship and beneficial com-
merce between the two nations, and this cloud he desired
to remove.

These aro the reasons which actuated the President to
offer a proposition so liberal to Great Britain.
And how has this proposition been received by the
British Plenipotentiary? It has been rejected without
even a reference to his own Government; nay, more,
the British Plenipotentiary, to use his own language,
" trusts that the American Plenipotentiary will be pre-
pared to off.r some further proposal for the settlement
of the Oregon question more consistent with fairness and
equity, and with the reasonable expectations of the Bri-
tish Government."

Under such circumstances the undersigned is in-
structed by the President to say that he otves it to his
own country, and a just appreciation of her title t.:-) the
Oregon territory, to withdraw the proposition to the
British Government which had been mad© under his
direction,; and it is hereby accordingly withdrawn..
In taking this necessary step the President still
cherishes the hope that this long- pending controversy
may yet be finally adjusted in such a manner as not to
disturb the peace or interrupt the harmony now so
happily subsisting between the two nations.—The under-
signed avails himself, &c.,

JAMES BUCIIANAN.
The Right lion. R. Pakenham, &c.

On Saturday last, J. D. Llewelyn, Esq., and a
party of three or four friends, in a sporting excursion on the
Penllergare estate, bagged seventy-four head of game in th-
course of a few hours.—Cambrian.

BANKS AT BANBURY.—The old-established bank-
ing firms of Messrs. Cobb and Messrs. Gillett and Tawney
have announced their intention of retiring in April next, the
business being merged into one chartered banking company.
The London and County Joint-Stock Banking Company havn
announced their intention to open a branch at Banbury.—
Oxford Journal.