courts for alleged political offences, which, if punishable at all, were only cognizable by the authorities of their own country.

These attacks on the rights of citizens of the United States having formed the subject of a correspondence between the British minister at Washington and the American Secretary of State, which it is understood has been transmitted to Lord Dudley, the undersigned does not deem it necessary to enter into the details of the different individual acts of exclusive jurisdiction that have been matters of complaint, but hastens to a case which he is instructed to bring particularly under the consideration of his majesty's government, with a view to the redress of which it may be susceptible. John Baker, a citizen of the United States, residing on a tract of land situated at or near the junction of the Meriumticook with the St. John's river, and held by him under a deed from the states of Massachusetts and Maine, was arrested in his own domicile, on the 25th of September last, under circumstances of aggravation. While Mr. Baker and his family were asleep, his house was surrounded by an armed force, and entered by a person of high official character in the province of New-Brunswick, by the command of whom Mr. Baker was seized and conveyed to Frederickton, and their committed to jail, where he is still confined on a charge of an alleged misde. meanour, growing out of a denial of British jurisdiction in the territory where he had settled, as above stated, under the authority of a grant from two states of the American union. This transaction having received the special consideration of the President of the United

States, the undersigned has been charged to call upon the government of Great Britain to interpose its authority with the provincial government, in order to the liberation of Mr. Baker, and to the granting to this American citizen a full indemnity for the wrongs which he has suffered by the seizure of his person within the limits of the state of Maine, and a subsequent abduction and confinement in jail at Frederickton.

The undersigned is further instructed to require, that the government of New-Brunswick shall cease from the exercise of all and every act of exclusive jurisdiction within the disputed territory, until the question of right is settled by the two governments of Great Britain and the United States.

The motives which have led to these demands may be sufficiently inferred from a consideration of the occurrences already cited. In declaring, through the undersigned, that it cannot consent to the exercise of any separate British jurisdiction, within any part of the state of Maine, as it understands the limits of that state to be defined by the treaty of 1783, prior to the decision of the question of title, the government of the United States is only protesting against unjustifiable encroachments on its sovereignty, and asking from Great Britain what it is willing on its side to accordthat forbearance which the present state of the controversy most strongly inculcates. Indeed, it is only by adopting such a course that the collisions, which would arise from an attempt by each party to give effect to its own pretensions, can be avoided. The importance of abstaining from any act, which might jeopard the amicable relations between the two powers, was

early perceived; and instances have not been wanting in which they have both been restrained by considerations of prudence and mu tual respect, from exercising acts of exclusive jurisdiction within the disputed territory. To a complaint made so far back as the year 1818, by Mr. Bagot, at that time his majesty's minister in America, of irregular settlements attempted by citizens of the United States on the lands in controversy, the most ready attention was paid. On the other hand, licenses to cut timber, granted by the provincial authorities, have been revoked, and the practice of cutting and removing the timber has been understood by the government of the United States to have been discontinued. Recent cases have also occurred, in which the interposition of the American government, requested by Mr. Vaug. han, has been promptly accorded in the spirit of that rule, of the expediency of which no better evidence can be required, than the necessity which has given rise to the present communication. The

undersigned purposely avoids any observations which can lead to a premature discussion on points which are to be submitted to a tribunal selected by the two powers. However unanswerable he may conceive the arguments by which the claim of his country to the territory in question may be sustained, he is aware that it can be attended with no advantage to adduce them on the present occa. sion.

The undersigned also regards as inadmissible all attempts to defend the exercise of British authority, in the territory referred to, during the time which may intervene before the decision of the arbiter is

made, by asserting a title derived from possession. Considering the grounds on which the claims of the United States are founded, it is not perceived how arguments drawn either from first occupancy or immemorial possession can be made to bear on the final determination of the principal subject in discussion between the two countries, or how they can affect the question of temporary jurisdiction. Before the independence of the United States, not only the territory in dispute, but the whole of the adjoining province and state, was the property of a common sovereign. At the time of the division of the empire, the United States and Great Britain defined, in express terms, their respective territorial limits, and it will not, it is presumed, be asserted that, on concluding the treaty of 1783, jurisdiction of the one party over the country allotted to it was less complete than that which was granted to the other over its territory. The treaty by which the separation of the dominions of the two powers was effected, may be assimilated to a deed of partition between individuals holding property in common. From the exchange of ratifications, the only doubts which could arise were necessarily restricted to the interpretation of its language. Nor has any thing occurred since the revolutionary war to vary the rights of Great Britain and America. The object of the 5th article of the treaty of Ghent was merely to direct the practical business of surveying and marking out the boundary line, in order to give effect to previous stipulations.

To avoid, however, any miscon struction that might be drawn from his silence on the subject of a pos

sessory title, the undersigned deems it proper to declare that NewBrunswick can adduce no claims by which a jurisdiction derived from prescription, or the first occupancy of the country, can be sus. tained; and he is far from admitting that, in this view of this case, the pretensions of the United States are less valid than those of Great Britain.

It appears, from the best information that can be obtained, that no settlement had been made in the territory at present in dispute, prior to the American revolution; that subsequently to that event, a small one was formed at or near the Madawaska, by French from Nova Scotia, who had always previously resisted the English authority; and that, though some grants of land may have been made to these settlers, by the provincial government, before the determina. tion of the river St. Croix, in pur. suance of the treaty of 1794, the acts of authority which took place were few and doubtful, nor is it believed that they were, till very recently, known to, much less ac. quiesced in by Massachusetts, to whom, till the separation of Maine, the jurisdiction as well as soil be. longed. There was little occasion for the employment of criminal process among the relics of a primitive population, as these settlers were represented to be of a "mild, frugal, industrious, and pious character," desirous of fiuding a refuge under the patriarchal and spiritual power of their religion. For the arrangement of their civil affairs of every description, including their accidental disputes and differences among themselves, they were in the habit of having recourse to a tribunal of their own establishment,

formed of one or two arbiters associated with the Catholic priest.

The settlement on the Aroostook was made within the last six years, partly by citizens of the United States, partly by British subjects, but with an impression, entertained by the whole community, that they were establishing themselves on American territory. It was not, indeed, till within three or four years, that the provincial government undertook to subject these settlers to civil process; and last summer, for the first time, proceed. ings for trespass and intrusion on the crown lands were instituted against them.

The opinion of Great Britain, as to the practical jurisdiction exercised over the territory in dispute, so late as the year 1814, may be seen by a reference to the proceedings at Ghent. When proposing a revision of the boundary line of Maine, with reference to convenience, and asking the tract now contested as a cession, for which compensation was elsewhere to be made, it is asserted by the English plenipotentiaries, "that the greater part of the territory in question is actually unoccupied;" and strenuous as were the efforts of his majesty's ministers to adjust such a variation of line as might secure a direct communication between Quebec and Halifax, it no where appears, that a fact so im. portant to their object as the actual settlement of the country by persons recognising British authority, was conceived to exist.

At as early a period as the gra. dual advance of population required, the usual preliminary measures were taken by Massachusetts, with a view to the settlement of the vacant lands on her eastern frontier.

In 1801, a grant of Mars Hill was made to certain soldiers of the revolution by a public act of the legislature of the state, which was followed by similar proceedings in favour of others. That the country was not occupied, in conformity to these grants, is to be ascribed to the delays usually attendant upon the settlement of an exposed frontier, and to interruptions grow. ing out of apprehensions of hostilities with the neighbouring province, which were realized by the declaration of war made by the United States against Great Britain in 1812. Not only have many acts of authority in the territory now in dispute been subsequently exercised by the states of Massachusetts and Maine, but in 1820, the enumeration of the settlers on the Madawaska took place under the supreme authority of the United States, and without, as far as can be ascertained, any remon. strance on the part of Great Britain, or of the province of NewBrunswick.

In the case of the land on which his unfortunate fellow citizen, now imprisoned at Fredrickton, was arrested, the undersigned would remark, that though it is situated in a section of country to which the general description of Madawaska is applied, the territory on which Mr. Baker and other Americans have established themselves, is to the west of the ancient settlement of the French Acadians, and it is believed that no part of the country where they reside, that is to say, of the track on the St. John's be. tween the Meriumpticook and St. Francis rivers, has ever been in the possession of persons acknow. ledging allegiance to the British government. It thus appears that,

to justify the unwarranted exercise of power, specially complained of, is wanting even the apology of for mer usage, unsatisfactory as that would be.

The undersigned is not ignorant of the inconvenience which may arise from the disorder and anarchy to which the inhabitants of the controverted district may be exposed, should no authority be exercised over them, either by the United States or the neighbouring British province. This is, howe ver, an evil, to remedy which does not necessarily demand the interposition of New-Brunswick more than of the state of Maine. It is an inconvenience which the United States cannot consent to remove by subjecting American territory to a foreign jurisdiction. It is believed that, should the settlers be left to themselves, they will insti tute some form of government adapted to their condition, as was done for a long time on the Madawaska; that whether they do or not, it will be competent to the governments of Maine and New. Brunswick, within their respective acknowledged limits, to guard against any disorders. At all events, the government of the United States cannot consent to the exercise of any exclusive British authority within the contested ter. ritory, founded on the plea of necessity; and, as many of the settlers are intruders on the soil, they can have no right to complain of any disorders among themselves, resulting from their own unauthorized acts of intrusion.

The undersigned, on this occa. sion, cannot avoid observing, that the inconveniences which confessedly arise from the unsettled state of the boundary between the do.

minions of the United States and Great Britain, constitute a most powerful reason for the adoption of every measure calculated to insure a prompt decision of the main question at issue. A convention, formed with a view of submitting the conflicting decisions of the commissioners under the fifth ar. ticle of the treaty of Ghent to the arbitration of a friendly sovereign or state, having received the assent of both the high contracting parties, become obligatory on them by an exchange of their respective ratifications on the second of April last. In the same official communication in which the undersigned acquainted the earl of Dudley with his authority to exchange the ratification of the president of the United States for that of the king, he announced his haing received iustructions in relation to the further arrangements contemplated by the convention; and no effort on the part of the United States, which could, with propriety, be made, has been wanting to fulfil, literally, the stipulations by which the contracting parties engaged to proceed in concert to the choice of a friendly sovereign or state, as soon as the ratifications should be exchanged.

The undersigned would fail in obedience to his instructions, were he to conclude this note without declaring to lord Dudley that, while the president hopes that the British government, participating in the desire which he most anxiously feels to avoid all collision on account of the temporary occupation of the territory in contest, will effectually interpose its authority to restrain the provincial government from the exercise of any jurisdiction over it, such an interpo.

sition alone will supersede those precautionary measures which the government of the United States will otherwise feel itself constrained to adopt.

The undersigned has the honour to renew to lord Dudley the assu rance of his highest consideration. W. B. LAWRENCE.

16, Lower Seymour-street, 5th May, 1828.

Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Clay.
Legation of the U. S.

London, 26th June, 1828. Sir,-After having, at our con. ference on the 19th instant, disposed of the business in relation to the arbiter, lord Aberdeen directed the conversation to the subject of the jurisdiction to be exercised over the disputed territory pending the suit. He seemed to consider an exclusive authority derived from a regular government to be indispensable; and subsequently proceeded to maintain that to Great Britain this jurisdiction belonged, at least till his majesty was dives. ted of it by the decision of the ar. biter.

In replying to the observations on the first point, I had little more to do than to repeat the explanations with which you had furnished me, and of which I had availed myself in my official note to lord Dudley. I cited the government which the settlers on the Madawaska had established, in order to point out how the evils of a temporary anarchy might be, in a great degree, obviated, without the interposition of either Maine or New. Brunswick. I referred, as I had done in conversation with his lordship's predecessor, to the opinion expressed last summer by Mr. Canning, in an interview with Mr.