The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-28 00:00:00

The cause of the threatened rupture with America is
the old grievance of the Boundary Question—a ques-
tion which, but for the criminal conduct of ministers,
might have been settled long, long ago. The irrita-
tion arising from this dispute has lately been renewed
on the other side of the Atlantic ; and it will be seen
by a correspondence between Mr. Fox, the British mi-
nister at Washington, and Mr. Forsyth, the American
Secretary of State, that the affair has assumed a very
warlike aspect. The Americans have become alarmed
at the defensive preparations made by the British au-
thorities in New Brunswick and the Canadas, in for-
tifying all their frontier posts, and assembling a
strong force, which is estimated at twenty thousand
regular troops, to be ready for action at a moment's
warning. On the other hand, the aggressions of the
inhabitants of Maine, the state in or adjoining to which
the disputed territory lies, have given just cause of
complaint to the British minister. The President in-
sists on the duty of supporting the state of Maine in
its claims, and declares that " no apprehension of the
conseqtiences (that is war) alluded to by Mr. Fox, can
be permitted to divert the government and people of
the United States from the performance of their duty
to the state of Maine." In short, the American go-
vernment are determined to seize, vi et armis, the ter-
ritory which that state demands, and the British go-
vernment are equally determined, vi et arrais, to re-
sist it. _

And resist it they must—if they would retain pos-
session, that is, of our North American colonies ; for
the road, which forms at all times the most direct route
from Europe to Canada, and during half the year, the
winter six months, is the only British thoroughfare to
Quebec, the capital of those colonies, runs through the
very tearitory which the state of Maine insists upon
seizing—we mean the road from Fredericktown, New
Brunswick, to the St. Lawrence. To resist this auda-
cious demand of the Americans. we say, our govern-
ment is in duty bound. So far from condemning such
resistance, involving us, though it inevitably must, in
war with America, we consider it indispensable. But
we do condemn our government for having rendered
such resistance necessary, by their criminal conduct;
and we shall presently show what abundant reason we
have for doing so. .
. .

We have before us an " Exposition of the causes
and the consequences of the Boundary Differences be-
tween Great Britain and the United States, subse-
quently to their adjustment by arbitration"---addressed
to the Chamber of Commerce of Sheffield, in compli-
ance with their request, by that truly able and high-
minded diplomatist, David Urquhart, Esq. Ifhe ".Ex-
position" has. not been published; but a copy of it has
very opportunely fallen into our hands, and we are
happy to avail ourselves of a portion of it, which re-
capitulates the history of the question in dispute, and
shows that the Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston,
has committed a violation of national compact, and
betrayed the public interests—the fearful consequences
of which we are now about to suffer in a bloody war
with America. The portion we allude to is as fol-
lows :

Great Britain and the United States are bound, by the
Treaty of Ghent, to submit differences respecting the Boun-
dary to an arbiter, and to be bound by his decision. The
peace of those States reposes on that Treaty. To violate it,
on any one point, is to abrogate it in all. The violation of
the stipulation which renders arbitration final, would be
abrogation of all international ties subsisting between those
States.

The two governments have signed a convention, on the
29th September, 1827, executory of the stipulation of the
Treaty of Ghent, and binding themselves to accept, as final
and exclusive, the award which the arbiter should pronounce ;
and to carry it, without reserve, into immediate execution.
This international compact had solely reference to, and was
to be fulfilled in, the single act of the adoption of the award,
when rendered. _ _ _

In conformity with this public deed, and on the faith of
these obligations, the King of Holland was requested by the
High Parties " to be pleased to take upon himself the arbi-
tration of their differences ;" and that prince did so under-
take that office.

On the 10th of January, 1831, the King of Holland pro-
nounced his decision.

The King of Great Britain immediately expressed to the
King of Holland, his acquiescence in that decision.
The King of Great Britain did not so express to the United
States, his acquiescence in that decision.
The United States made no communication on the subject
either to the King of olland or to the British government.
In December, 1831, the British government communi-
cated to the United States the acceptance of the award by
Great Britain, and requested to know what the United States
proposed to do.
The United States gave no answer.
In the month of July, 1832, the Senate of the United States
advised the President not to accept the award ; and also ad-
vised him to open a new negotiation with Great Britain.
Communication to that effect was made in July 21st, 1R32.
On April I,lth, 1833, after an interval of nine months from
the period of the American communication, and two years
and three months after the rendering of the award, the re-
ceipt of this communication is acknowledged by the British
government ;—the setting aside of the award, by America,
acquiesced in ; and a proposal for new negotiations adopted.
On the 29th December, 1835, the English government sig-
nified to the American government, that it distinctly with-
drew its assent to the award of the King of Holland, which
it then designates as a " territorial compromise, recom-
mended."

From April, 1833, to January, 1838, sixteen notes are ex-
changed between the British minister. at Washington, and
the American Secretary of State, containing proposals for
negotiation, counter proposals, refusals, and counter-re-
fusals. . .

On the 10th of January, 1838, the British minister at
Washington receives, from the principal Secretary of State
for foreign affairs, a despatch containing these words :
"Both governments have agreed to consider the award of
of the King of Holland as binding on neither party; and the
two governments, therefore, are in this respect as free as they
were before the reference to that Sovereign was made."
Thus—The British Minister had accepted the award in the
name of the Crown ; had applied to that award the ante-
rior treaty stipulations; had signified to the King of Hol-
land his acceptance of it ; had signified to the American
Government his acceptance of it. He had not produced
it to the House of Commons ; he had resisted in his mi-
nisterial capacity the production of it in the House of
Commons ; he had refused to assign any reason for the
withholding of it. lie had obtained the rejection of it by
the American Senate—by an intimation that England was
not indisposed to open new negotiations ; he had submit-
• ted to that rejection ; he had acceded to a proposition of a
new negotiation ; he had himself offered projects of nego-
ciation ; he then withdrew the assent of the British Go-
vernment from the award altogether, and dually instructed
the Envoy at Washington, that both Governments were
entirely absolved from all obligations imposed upon them
by the award, and consequently imposed upon them by
the Convention of 1827 and the Treaty of 1814.
Further—He had suffered along series of aggressions against
the rights of Great Britain, and the prerogative and au-
thority of the Crown, to be perpetrated without obtaining
satisfaction, or demanding it ; without nicking remon-
strance, or even communication, to the Government by
whose subjects these crimes were committed, until he had
encouraged, sanctioned, and fully established, a deter-
mined
spirit of hostility to the fulfilment of the common
obligations of the two States, and until he had diploma-
tically set aside the rights of Great Britain in that ques-
tion. He had, moreover, by his positive declarations in
the House of Commons, excited the American people and
Government to resist the award, had fomented a spirit of
hostility, and encouraged the outrages of the population
bordering on the disputed Boundary.
Buf—The award of the King of Holland, founded as it is on
international compact, remains binding upon this country,
and upon the United States, so long as both are not ab-
solved front such obligations by the same authority as that
by which they were contracted.
Until such compact is entered into, the proposal of a new
negotiation on the part of a British Minister, being an at-
tempt to set aside an act, the fulfilment of a convention, is
an itisunaption of the prerogatives of the Crown. It is
therefore illegal, and is not binding on Great Britain.
The public safety requires an immediate inquiry •-ito the
conduct of the principal Secretary of State for Foreign Af-
fairs in regard to this question ; and if it appears that by his
acts, or his negligence, or even his ignorance, these alarm-
ing and unfortunate results have been brought about, then
are the means furnished, by which to restore our nationitl
position, and to transfer, from the Parliament and the Crown,
to the guilty Minister, the responsibility of such acts, by his
impeachment and condemnation.
- -

it is obvious, then. that her Majesty's whig-radical
ministers will be altogether responsible for the war
that is impending. They might have prevented it, had
tley done their duty ; but they have failed—shamefully
failed, in the duty they owed, alike to the crown and to
the country; they have violated a national compact,
betrayed the public interests, and, to all appearance,
involved the country in a war, the evils of which it is
impossible to foretell.
'We see, then, in this, as we have seen in many other
things, what a tremendous price the nation is paying
for a Whig-radical ministry.
" That man is a public enemy, who saps the foun-
dations.Of the common safety of nations." Such was
the opinion of one who well knew how to estimate
conduct so mischievous. And let us apply that opinion
to the case before us—let us see, as we soon may, how
direfully the men who now constitute her Majesty's
government, have "sapped the foundations of the
peace and common safety of nations," and we shall not
have much difficulty in coming to the conclusion, that
in order " to restore our national position," if we do
not " impeach and condemn," we must, at any rate,
dismiss those men, and that immediately, from the
councils of the Sovereign.

Napoleon in his prosperity was sometimes apt to lose his
head a little, and to speak as Richard 11. did in his " soi;;
row and grief of heart." i. e. " fondly, like a frantic man.
On the death of the last of the Stuarts being mentioned to
hitn, he said, " If they had but left a child eight years old I
would have placed him (411 the throne of Great Britain."
This was a miscalculation, as was the following. His im-
perial majesty had given instructions for altering the Salle de
Spectacles at the Tuilleries ; and one day he took Talma
with him to see the improvements he had suggested. They
were alone in a dim theatrical light, when Napoleon thus
addressed the tragedian :—" Do you know that there is many
an Englishman who would give a good round sum to be in
your place ? If one of their emissaries could surprise me
here, he would find it a good opportunity for getting rid of
me." Ah, sire !" exclaimed Talma, " you make me tremble
—should any one lie here concealed." " Don't be alarmed,"
returned the Emperor, tapping Talma familiarly on the
shoulder, " history respects itself too much to let me die in
a:trap like a hero of meto-Brame. lam persuaded she has
Something better in store for me.—Frarer's Magazine. '