The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-03-25
THE "SPARKS' MAP"


The London press, with few exceptions, are
very clerer, on the subject of the suppressed
map, which Mr. Webster did not show 10
Lord Ashburton, and some of their coresPon-
dents are very blackguard and abusive on the
subject.
IL seems TO be thought by them that Mr. Web
ster's duty, not only as nego,iator, but man
of honor, required him to exhibit that map, and
TO give TO il an authority almost, If not entirely
decisive against The validity Of the claim OF the
United States.
From what we have seen in those papers, as
well editorial articles as reports OF debates IN
Parliament, we infer that the people OF England
are satisfied that they have. for once at least re-
linquished something, submitted TO something
and not had, as they usually do have, altogether
their own way. They have not been able 10
bully in their usual downright and characteristic
English fashion but, owing to various clrcum-
stances, have been obliged TO "knuckie under"
little This fact SO shocking to their PRIDE,
they are most anxious TO conceal, and have
seized with grea, avidi,y upon the matter OF the
non-exhibi,ion of the map" holding II out as
accounting for any apparen, yielding, and as 60
ing TO show that their English honesty and fair
dealing has been overresched and that, by dis
. honorable practices, they have been led to DO
something, under deception, which no consider
alions of any nature would have led them 10 DO,
had they no, been thus deceived.
They will by no means confess the real plain
truth, which, however, Lord Brougham had the
manliness to avow, and which is, that for any
surrender Of territory by England to the United
States, peace with this country was full eqo'-
valent, or was SO considered at'the time the
Treaty was made. Ii may not be agreeable 10
English pride 10 admit il, aud il will doubtless
be Indignantly denied, but it is nevertheless
true, that, in August, lSl2, England was not in
- particularly favorable position for engaging in
war with the United States. The war in In
dia had been eminently disastrous, and no one
could predict where, or when, or how, the dis
asters would terminate the war in China, I'M
der Captain Elliot, had not been very successful,
and seemed likely to draw largely upon the
Government for supplies Of men and money,
for armies and fleets.
Under these circumstances, and unsettled at
home, too, with great and growing popular dis
tress and discomfort, it was an object, and
great object, to keep the peace with the United
States and while obtaining the best terms pos
sible, in the matter OF territorial arrangement,
not to sacrifice that object to any minor con-
sderations Of mere boundary.
Now, whatever the valorous and chivarous
correspondents Of the Times and Chronicle.
the Spectator and the Examiner may say, or
swear to the contrary, people will believe that
Ahshans, and Chinese, and Birmingham ope-
ratives had more influence in settling the terms
of the Treaty of Boundary, as far as England
was concerned, than all the maps ertant from
Mitchelps down, and all the arguments in the
world, made, or that could be made and had
Mr. Webster showed the map" England
would Just as readily have acceded, as she did
accede, to the terms Of the boundary as they
now stand.
1t was not matter depending for adjustment,
on argument or proof OF both these, We think
we had enough on our side to convince the
world but both were controverled, denied, ant
disregsrded by England.
1t was no part Of the English scheme TO ar
que the point. So Lord Ashburion repeatedly
tells Mr. Webster, in his published couespon
dence In his letter Of June 3D. 1s42, be says
"I believe that | may confidently conclude, from
what has passed in the preliminary conference,
which | have had the honor Of holding witt
you, that we concur in the opinion that no al
vantage would be gained by reverting to the in
terminsbe discussion, on general grounds, OF
which each party considers their claims respec
lively to rest"
Again, in his letter Of June 81, Lord A. says
at It's already agreed that we abstain from a con
tinued discussion Of the arguments by which the line
Of the two countries respectfully tanned and
have so well observed this rule, that have not eve
communicated TO you volume Of controversial mat
ter which brought with me, sc, &C.
In his letter Of July sih, Mr. Webster, says
- .-'sYou correctly say that, in our confer
ences on the boundary question, we have both bee
OF opinion that no advantage would be gained by re
sorting, At this time, to the discussion at length
the grounds" &c, sc.
SO a discussion of respective rights, and III
exhibition of Arguments and proof, was not tn
object Of the negotiators, as both Of them de
clare.
They were forced, by the letters Of the Main,
Commissioners into some general arguments,
is true, but got rid Of the discussion as quick,
a, possible, Lord Ashbur'on remsrkipg, in hi
letter Of July llth:
81 shall now, sir, close what have to say on th
controversial part Of this question. should no, bsu
treated Of a, ALL but from respect to the gentlemen
from Maine, SC, SC. Our immediate business i
with the compromise Of what Is not otherwise {,
be settled"