Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1843-05-04

treaty came on in the House of Commons on
the 2lst of March. Lord PALMsRsroN made
a long and able speech, to which Sir ROBERT
PEEL made triumphant reply. Macaulay
and others followed, until the discussion was
prcmaturely ended on the second day for want
ola quorum. The Liverpool Times says,
that, Notwithstanding the ability with which it
the country.
EXTRACT FROM SIR ROBERT PEELS SPEECH.
There is more point which must
touch before l sit down. The noble lord has
| spoken at great length of map recently discov-
cred. Hear, hear1 He seems to think that
the map so discovered affords conclusive evidence
oil the justice of the British claims. Now, sir,
In the first place, let mo observe to the noble
lord, that contemporary maps may be-when the
words OF the treaty referred to by them are in
| themselves doubtful-they may be evidence Of
the intentions Of those who framed them, but the
treaty must be executed according to the words
contained init. lHear, hear.l Even if the map
were sustained by the parties, it could no: contra
vene the words Of the treaty; but the noble lord
considers that a certain map which has been
found in the archives of the foreign office at Paris
is conclusive evidence Of the business Of the Brit
ish claims. Now, sir, am not prepared to ac-
quiesce in any such assertion. Great blame has
| been thrown upon Mr.. Webster with respect to
this map. He has been charged with perfdy
and want of good faith in not having once dis
closed to Lord Ashburton the fact of his possess
| ing this map. Now, l must say that it is rather
hard, when we know what the practices Of
dipomatists and negotiatoTs, La taught say it
is rather hard to expect that the negotator the
part OF the United States should be held bound to
disclose to the diplomatist with whom he was in
treaty all the weak parts of his case; and think,
therefore, that the reflections cast upon Mr.. Web
ster-a gentleman of worth and honor-are, with
respect TO this matter, very unjust. This map
was, ii is true found in the archives fhe foreign
Office at Paris, and letter of DIR. Franklin was
also found, having reference to some map; but
there is no direct connection between the map
found and the letter of DIR. Franklin. Hear.
In general there is such reference in the case OF
maps referred to in dispatches; but there is none
In this case. There is nothing to show that the
map SO found is the identical map referred to by
Or. franklin in his letter; and nothing can be
more fallacious. than relying on such maps. For
let me state whatmay be said upon the other side
oil the question with respect to maps. We made
inquiry about those maps in the foreign Office at
Paris, and we could find none such as that in
| question at first We have not been so neglect
ful in former times with respect to the matter as
the noble Lord seems to think. We made in
quries, in 1896 and 1897. into the maps of the
foreign office at Paris, for the purpose of throw
ing light upon the intentions of the negotiators OF
! 1888. A strict search was made for any docu-
ments bearing in any way upon the disputed
question, but at that time neither letter map
could be found. However, there were afterwards
discovered, by gentleman engaged in writing a
history OF America, a letter and certain map,
supposed by him to be the map referred to in the
letter. In answer to our first inquiry, as l have
already stated, no such map could be discovered.
The first which we received from the foreign Of
hce at Paris was map framed in 1888 by DR..
Faden, geographer to the King Of England On
that map is inscribed, ga map of the boundary of
the United States, as agreed to by the treaty of
1888; by Mr.. Faden, geographer to the King"
Now, Sir, that map placed the boundary accord
pher to The British King Tfere S sno @ort,
which have here. political periodical of the
r time of 1888, called Beme's Journal II giyes a
full report of the debate ia Parliament upon the
treaty then being concluded and, in order to illus
trate the report, it also gives map of the bounda-
res between the countries as then agreed to-
That map, sir, also adopts the line claimed by the
United States. On subsequent inquiry at Paris,
we found map, which must be the map referred
to by Mr.. Jared Sparks. There is placed upon that
map broad red line, and that line marks out the
boundary as claimed by the British. 1t is proba-
bly, map by MIR. dAnville, of I746, and there
can be no doubt but that it is the map referred to
by Mr.. Jared Sparks; but we can trace no indca-
ton of connexion between it and the Despatch of
!, DIR. Franklin. To say that they were connected
: is mere unfounded inference. But there is still
another map. Herein this country-in the Ii
brary OF the late king-was deposited map, by
! Mitchell, of the date of l753-that map was in
the possession of the late King, and it was also
in the possession of the noble lord but he did not
communicate its contents TO Mr.. Webster. Hear,
hear. 1t is marked by broad red line, and on
that line is written "Boundary as described by
our negotator, Mr.. Oswald; :" and that line fol-
lows the claim Of the United States. Hear,
hear. That map was extended scale. 1t
was in possession of the late King, who was par
ticularly curious in respect to geographical in
quiries. On that map, repeat, is placed the
boundary line-that claimed by the United States,
and on four different places on that line, "Boun-
Diary as described by Oswald" Hear, hear.
Now do not say that that the boundary ul-
tmately settled by the negotiators; but nothing
can be more fallacous than founding claim up
on contemporary maps, unless you can also prove
that they were adopted by the negoliators; and
when the noble lord takes it for granted that if we
had resored to arbitration we should have been
successful in obtaining our claims, cannot help
thinking that the matter would be open to much
discussion. Indesd, do not believe that that
claim Of Great Britain was well founded that it
is claim which the negotiators intended TO ratfy.
l cannot say, either, that the inquiries which
have materially strengthened my conviction either
were, and nothing, think, can be more deusive
than that the expectation that, if referred to arb
tration, the decision would inevitably have been
given in your favor, in consequence Of the evil
dence of maps, which would not be trusted as
al. IL