has now to beg the attention of Mr. Lawrence to those which relate to the settlement in which he resided.

It is shown by the report of Mr. Barrell, and confirmed by the evidence on Baker's trial, that the Madawaska settlement was formed soon after the treaty of 1783, by British subjects, descendants of the original French colonists of New-Brunswick. It is stated on oath by Simon Hibert, a witness on the trial, who has lived forty years in the settlement, and had received a grant of land from the provincial government two or three years after he settled there, that he considered himself to have always lived under the government of New-Brunswick, and that all the Madawaska settlers lived under the same government. Testimony to the same effect is given by Mr. Fraser, a magistrate, who has been acquainted with the Madawaska settlers since 1787; and who further proves that the settlers had, to his own knowledge, for a long series of years, voted at elections like other subjects of the province of New-Brunswick; and finally, Mr. Barrell reports, that "the laws of New-Brunswick appear to have been always in force since the origin of the settlement; and that the settlers have acquiesced in the exercise of British authority among them, and have for many years had an organized militia."

It is further proved, by the evidence on the trial, and is admitted by Mr. Barrell, that the lands on which Baker resided form part of the Madawaska settlement; and the acts of Baker himself, and of his brother, who preceded him, show that they considered the land possessed by them successively to

be situate under the authority of the government of New-Bruns. wick.

It is, moreover, not an immate. rial fact, that the settlement thus originally formed, upwards of forty years ago, by settlers from New. Brunswick, was found by Mr. Barrell, at the period of his visit in November last, to contain, out of a population of 2000 souls, not more than twenty-five American settlers.

This exposition of the substance of the information collected by the agent of the United States, corroborated as it is by the evidence on oath given before the Supreme Court at Frederickton, together with the detailed narrative of the proceedings on the trial, will, the undersigned trusts, satisfy Mr. Lawrence that the opinion which he expressed in his note, "that no part of the tract in which Baker resided had ever been in the possession of persons acknowledging allegiance to the British government," is founded in error; and that full and substantial justice has been done to Mr. Baker. The undersigned will, therefore, proceed to the second point to which he has proposed to advert, namely, Mr. Lawrence's demand, "that the government of New-Brunswick should cease from the exercise of all and every act of exclusive jurisdiction within the disputed territory."

The consideration of this question naturally brings before the undersigned, Mr. Lawrence's assertion, "that New-Brunswick can adduce no claims by which a jurisdiction derived from prescription, or first occupancy of the country, can be sustained."

The reply to this allegation has been in a great measure antici

pated in the course of the prece ding observations on the case of John Baker. But the undersigned desires to call the attention of Mr. Lawrence more distinctly to the following important facts:

First, to the fact, (which the undersigned will state in Mr. Law. rence's own words,) that "before the independence of the United States, not only the territory in dispute, but the whole of the ad. joining province and state, was the property of a common sovereign." Secondly, to the fact, that the United States rest their claim to the possession of the territory upon the treaty of 1783; by which treaty the independence of the United States was recognised by Great Britain, and their boundaries attempted to be defined; thereby, in effect, admitting the previous title of Great Britain to the territory in question.

And, in the third place, to the facts, (which have either been proved upon oath, on Baker's trial, or admitted by Mr. Barrell, the agent of the United States,) that no actual delivery of the territory into the possession of the United States has hitherto taken place; that from and immediately after the conclusion of the treaty of 1783, whatever rights of sovereignty have been exercised in that territory, have, until the recent attempts of the state of Maine, been exercised by Great Britain; that the first settlers were colonial subjects of his majesty; that the inhabitants have always hitherto been treated as British subjects; that they have for many years voted at elections, like the other natives of the province; that they have long had an organized militia, and have considered themselves to be living un.

der British protection and jurisdiction; and that, until a very recent period, the right of Great Britain to exercise acts of sovereignty within this territory has never been called in question by the government of the United States. Even in the representation addressed by Mr. Clay to his majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Washington, on the 27th of March, 1825, (which con. tained the first objection of any kind advanced by the government of the United States to the proceedings of the British in the district jointly claimed by the two govern. inents,) that objection was not directed against the exercise of jurisdiction on the part of Great Britain, (which was then, and had long been notorious,) but against the depredations of individuals, such as the cutting of wood, and other acts tending to render the district of less value to the party to whom it should finally be assigned.

In the face of this accumulated evidence, that Great Britain has never yet been practically divested of her ancient right of jurisdiction, it cannot reasonably be contended that the national character of the territory has undergone any change since the period antecedent to the treaty of 1783. It has, indeed, been formally admitted both by Great Britain and the United States, that the right of eventual sove. reignty over that district is a ques. tion remaining in doubt; but it is consistent with an acknowledged rule of law, that where such a doubt exists, the party who has once clearly had a right, and who has retained actual possession, shall continue to hold it until the question at issue may be decided. This territory, therefore, ought, upon every principle, to be con

sidered, for the present at least, as subject to the authority and jurisdiction of Great Britain; unless treaties subsequent to that of 1783, shall have imposed an obligation on her to pursue a different line of conduct with respect to it.

None of the treaties, however, posterior to that of 1783, allude to the question of jurisdiction; and from their silence on this point, it may fairly be inferred, that the United States, who cannot be supposed to have been ignorant of the acts of British authority which had been exercised throughout the territory in question, for so many years, did not entertain any doubt of the right of Great Britain in that respect. For, if such had been the case, they would surely have stipulated for the introduction into the latter treaties, especially into that of Ghent, of some provision respecting the exercise of that authority against which Mr. Law. rence is now instructed to protest.

The undersigned cannot acqui. esce in Mr. Lawrence's extension to this question of jurisdiction of that rule of forbearance which has been inculcated on both sides, with regard to the exercise of other acts of sovereignty not necessary for the due administration of the territory now under consideration. With respect to such jurisdiction, the undersigned must be permitted to observe, that the circumstances of the two countries are extremely different. The United States have never been in possession of the territory; their title to it, under the treaty of 1783, is not admitted by Great Britain; and every act of jurisdiction done by the United States is an assumption of an authority which they did not previously possess. On the other

hand, Great Britain has never parted with possession; the jurisdiction which she now exercises is the same which belonged to her before the treaty of 1788, and which she has, ever since that pe riod, continued to exercise within the limits of the territory in ques tion. The undersigned need hardly point out to Mr. Lawrence, that there is a very material difference between suspending a jurisdiction hitherto exercised, and forbearing to introduce a jurisdiction hitherto unknown; and that while the United States offer to forbear from assuming a jurisdiction which they have never exercised, they are demanding that Great Britain should lay down a jurisdiction which she has ever maintained; and it may be proper here to notice the erroneous opinion to which his majes. ty's government, in common with the government of the United States, are disposed to ascribe the recent attempts of the state of Maine to introduce its authority along the frontier in question, viz. that forbearance on the side of the United States might be construed into an admission of the right of Great Britain to the possession of the frontier which she claims. Such apprehensions are without foundation. No such inference could fairly be drawn from such forbearance. But were it otherwise, how much more would the position of Great Britain be preju. diced by her relinquishment of a jurisdiction hitherto invariably maintained?

The extent of obligation which, in the opinion of his majesty's government, is imposed upon both parties by the treaty of Ghent, with regard to this territory, is, that the question of title shall

remain precisely in the same state in which it stood at the date of that treaty; and that neither party shall do any act within its limits, by which the claim of the other, as it then stood, may be prejudiced, or by which the country may be ren. dered less valuable to that state to which the possession of it may be ultimately awarded.

It is with this view that the provincial government of New-Brunswick have, with the approbation of the British government, discontinued from issuing licenses for cutting wood within the district, and have abstained from all other acts not absolutely necessary for the peaceable government of the country; and the undersigned is happy to have this opportunity of acknowledging the existence of a corresponding disposition on the part of the general government of the United States.

The United States further propose, that, until the arbitrator shall have given his decision, neither power shall exercise any jurisdiction in the territory. His majesty's government are persuaded that the government of the United States will, on further consideration, see the manifold and serious injuries which would result to both powers from the proposed arrangement. It would make the districts along the frontier a common refuge for the outcasts of both nations, and introduce among the present inhabitants, who have long lived happily under the jurisdiction of Great Britain, lawless habits, from which it would hereafter be extremely difficult to reclaim them. It would thus render those districts of less value to the state to which they may be ultimately assigned; while, by the pernicious contact and ex.

ample of a vitiated population, it would materially endanger the tranquillity and good government of the adjoining dominions of his majesty, and of the United States. In declining, however, to accede to this proposition of the United States, the undersigned fulfils, with pleasure, the commands of his sovereign, in disclaiming, at the same time, in the most unequivocal manner, all intention of influencing the decision of the arbiter by any argument founded upon the continued exercise of this jurisdiction, since the period at which the right was first questioned by the United States.

The undersigned will conclude by observing, that, as no practical inconvenience has been alleged by Mr. Lawrence to exist, and as his majesty has renounced any ad. vantage which might be derived in the discussion from the continued exercise of jurisdiction during the period of arbitration, the British government conceive that, under all the circumstances, it would clearly be more just, as well as more to the advantage of both countries, to allow the whole question to remain upon the footing on which it has hitherto stood, until its final settlement by the award of the arbitrator.

The undersigned requests Mr. Lawrence to accept the assurances of his high consideration.

ABERDEEN. WILLIAM B. LAWRENCE, Esq. &c. &c. &c.

MR. LAWRENCE TO LORD ABERDEEN. The right hon. the Earl of Aber

deen, &c. &c. &c.

The undersigned, chargé d'affairs of the United States of Ame. rica, had the honour to receive, on

the 14th inst. the note which the Earl of Aberdeen, his majesty's principal Secretary of State for foreign affairs, addressed to him in reply to an official communication made by the undersigned, on the 5th of May, to the then principal Secretary of State for foreign af. fairs, respecting certain acts of the authorities of New-Brunswick, deemed by the government of the United States infractions on their rights of territorial sovereignty.

The two specific demands, which, in consequence of the occurrences in question, the undersigned, by the President's orders, presented to the consideration of his majesty's government, are severally discussed by Lord Aberdeen.

On the subject of the first of them, viz. : "the liberation of Mr. Baker, and the granting to him of a full indemnity for the wrongs which he has suffered," the undersigned does not deem it expedient, under existing circumstances, to add any thing to the representations heretofore urged. The grounds on which this demand was made, are believed to have been sufficiently set forth in his former note; and it would not be proper for him to comment on the British counter-statement without being acquainted with the President's views respecting certain proceedings in New-Brunswick, officially communicated by Lord Aberdeen, and which have occurred subse. quently to the date of the instruc. tions under which he is acting.

Having thus assigned the reason for his silence, which is applicable as well to the inferences which have been deduced from "the trial of John Baker," as to the transaction itself, it can hardly be necessary to remind Lord Aberdeen that, if the

views which the United States take of their rights of territorial sovereignty be correct, all the proceedings referred to must be admitted to have been before a tribunal wholly without jurisdiction. This topic will not, however, be further enlarged on, as it is presumed that it is not proposed to conclude, by the sentence of a municipal court, the rights of a foreign power; and that no greater force is attached to the statements alluded to by Lord Aber. deen, as having been given in the course of the trial, than would be attributed to any other declarations made under the solemnity of an oath.

How far the United States may regard it as an aggravation of their original complaint, that the prosecution in New-Brunswick was proceeded with during the pendency of a diplomatic discussion on the right to arrest Mr. Baker, and that he was brought to trial more than two months after a formal demand for his release had been made by the American government to the British minister residing at Washington, must rest with the President to decide.

On the reply of the Earl of Aberdeen to the second demand of the United States, viz.: "that New. Brunswick should cease from the exercise of all and every act of exclusive jurisdiction within the dis. puted territory, until the question of right is settled between the two governments of the United States and Great Britain," it is the duty of the undersigned to offer a few considerations, which, he ceives, are calculated materially to affect the grounds on which the application of his government has been resisted. He is particularly induced to submit these remarks at this