that part of New Albion, from 39° 20' south, to the Straits of Juan de Fuca, as also of the coasts, islands, etc., within the said Straits and both its shores." *

Now, we would put it to any plain man, how does this comport with the profession, that "Great Britain claims no exclusive sovereignty over any portion of that territory ?”

But let us look more particularly into the terms and conditions of this famous convention. Spain had ever maintained an exclusive right to settle the North-West coasts of America. England pretended to have had a settlement there in 1790, formed by her subject Meares, on land bought from the Indian chief Maquinna, of which he was dispossessed by the Spaniards. Now, had Spain admitted any right to this settlement subsisting in Great Britain, it is clear the treaty would have resigned the post into her hands. This the treaty never did. Fox, the great statesman, observing on it, when under discussion in Parliament, that by its terms Spain might either make the surrender, or a compensation in lieu of it, and the ministers would not undertake to explain. Nor is there any reason to believe that the post was ever surrendered by the Spaniards. The Spanish commander, sent there for the purpose, could not determine what he had to do. His inquiries from the Indian chiefs and the American captains on the coast, satisfied his mind that the English establishment at Nootka Sound was all a fabrication, invented to serve a particular purpose, and without foundation in truth. The matter was then referred over to the two governments, who being soon after in alliance for a common war with France, it is not likely that the surrender was ever insisted on. Belsham, one of England's own historians, remarks: "it is nevertheless certain, from the most authentic subsequent information, that the Spanish flag flying at Nootka was never struck, and that the territory has been virtually relinquished by Great Britain."t

Thus, if England gained any thing by the terms of the Nootka convention, she did not gain it from the restoration of any settlement she had made in the territory, and not having gained such a settlement, then she does not pretend to have formed another until 1805, when she was actually anticipated a whole year by American citizens. In claiming

*The Oregon Question, p. 21.

+ Hist. of Great Britain, vol. 8., p. 337. Greenhow, Hist. Cal. and Or., p. 257.

under the convention, Great Britain must be understood as claiming under some other of its stipulations. What other stipulations were they, and what did they give? Art. 3d"It is agreed that their respective subjects shall not be disturbed or molested, either in navigating or carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, or in the South Seas, or in landing on the coasts of those seas, in places not already occupied, for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or of making settlements there." Art. 4-Excludes British subjects from within ten sea leagues "from any part of the coasts already occupied by Spain." Art. 5-All future settlements made by either na tion to be free of access to the other. Other articles not material to the present question.

Now it is plain that this was but a temporary settlement of a troublesome question, which had given uneasiness to both governments, as well as to Europe at large. It was simply an agreement to put off a present difficulty by an indefinite postponement. It reduced matters to system, but left their final adjustment to future negotiation. The "settlements" mentioned in the third article of the treaty, construing the different parts of the instrument together, can only be intended of such temporary ones as the "navigation," "fisheries," "commerce with the natives," etc., might require. For England, under this article, to claim the right, as she did by Vancouver and does now, notwithstanding a declaration to the contrary, to occupy and possess exclusively whole regions in that quarter, extending over them her laws, etc., is preposterous. No one can fail to see the glaring absurdity of the thing, when he observes, that under the terms of the treaty, Spain had an equal right in those very "settlements." But we have something still more conclusive, on referring to contemporaneous constructions of the document. Fox, Grey, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and others, eminent members of Parliament, attacked it as soon as introduced by the ministry, because of the many concessions made to Spain. Fox bitterly complained, that "the admission of part of these rights by Spain, (viz: of navigation and fishery,) is all we have obtained." "Our right before, was to settle in any part of South or North-West America, not fortified against us by previous occupancy, and we are now restricted to settle in certain places only, and under certain restrictions. Our

right of making settlements was not, as now, a right to build huts, but to plant colonies, if we thought proper."

Pitt, in defence of the treaty, observed: "We had before a right to the Southern whale fishery, and a right to navigate and carry on fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, and to trade on the coasts of any part of it North-West of America; but that right not only had not been acknowledged, but disputed and resisted." * Thus may we contrast Britain's construction of the compact in 1790, with her construction of it at the present day. Tempora mutantur, etc.

The Nootka convention is sealed up then against England, in every point of view. She has not the shadow of a right to look into it, and did her ministry rest themselves entirely upon its stipulations, we might close the question at once without further discussion. But she has not rested here. She raises other points, and challenges argument upon them. We accept the challenge, with the promise to delay the reader's attention but a little while.

3. The British position in relation to the discovery and exploration of the Columbia River, its tributary streams and settlements. On these grounds alone, and independent altogether of Drake or the Nootka convention, Britain maintains that her rights are as strong, if not stronger, than those of the United States. To understand how much of truth there is in this, we shall find it most advantageous to analyse the claims of our government, and present them seriatim : 1. The Spanish treaty of cession.

2. The Louisiana purchase.†

3. Discovery of the Columbia, 1790.

4. Exploration and settlement of the country, 1805, etc. 5. Contiguity of Oregon to American Republic.

With reference to the three first claims, whatever they may be worth in themselves, it is pretended that they are inconsistent with each other and suicidal. The Spanish treaty of cession was dated in 1819, and if the United States attempted anything in Oregon in 1790 or 1805, it was so far an en

Farnham's Hist. of Oregon Territory, etc., p. 51. Mr. Farnham has made out the American title very clearly. The argument is well managed, and is noticed by the Englishman Falconer, in his discussion of the question. Mr. Farnam is the author of many works in relation to our Western country. We may mention 'Travels in the great Western Prairies,' 'The Anahuac and the Rocky Mountains, and the Oregon Territory,' 'Travels in the Californias,' 'Scenes in the Pacific,' etc.

+ We adduce this, because of the doubt whether Louisiana was in reality restricted to the East of the Rocky mountains.

croachment upon Spanish rights, and so of Louisiana, which was not purchased till 1803. Is it a fact then that these claims are inconsistent one with the other? We reply that the British argument is specious but not satisfactory. In a contest between the United States and Spain or France, we grant that it could not easily be got over, but these nations being now out of the question, and their claims in our hands, whatever of completeness was wanted to our discoveries of the Columbia, &c, has been of course amply sup plied. The Spanish claim, though not absolutely complete and perfect, was altogether and without question superior to that of England or of any other nation, as we have conclu sively shown. United with each other, the claims of Spain and the United States must be considered irresistible.

But we have not been allowed to carry off any laurels from the Columbia river, either for prior acts of discovering or exploring it. These have been called into question. We shall see with what disingenuousness. Capt. Gray of the American ship Columbia, sailed from Boston in 1789. His ship, by resolution of Congress, was furnished with sea letters. From Massachusetts she obtained her passports, coins and medals, on the authority of the state, for distribution, and letters from the Spanish minister then in the United States. In August of that year, the ship was nearly foundered in attempting to enter an opening near the latitude 469, probably the mouth of a large river, "where the outset or reflux was so strong as to prevent an entrance for nine days." Two months before this, an English captain, Meares, examining the coasts for a river laid down on Spanish charts as the Rio de San Rocque, in about the paralel 46°, and first perceived by the Spanish navigator Heceta in 1775, after the most unremitting examination, made this entry in his journal, "we can now with safety assert that no such river as that of St. Roc exists, as laid down in the Spanish charts." In token of his disgust at the little reward with which the arduous undertaking was crowned, he named two points in the vicinity, Deception Bay and Cape Disappointment. Another English captain, Vancouver, in 1792, writes in his journal of 28th April:

"The several large rivers and capacious inlets that have been described as discharging their contents into the Pacific, between the 40th and 48th degrees of latitude, were reduced to brooks insufficient for our vessels to navigate or to bays inaccessible as harbors for reVOL. VIII.—No. 15.

20

fitting"...."So minutely has this extensive coast been inspected" etc... "the whole coast forming one compact and nearly straight barrier against the sea."

Two days after this, having seen Capt. Gray and heard from him of the supposed river, Vancouver writes again:

I was thoroughly convinced, as were also most persons of observation on board, that we could not possibly have passed any safe navigable opening, harbor or place of security for shipping on this coast, from cape Mendocino (lat. 40) to the promontory of Classet" (49°.)

On the 11th May, 1792, Gray fully assured of the exist ence of some large stream in that vicinity, put his vessel in towards the shore, and anchored without difficulty in a "large river of fresh water," ten miles above its mouth. Having proceeded some twenty or thirty miles farther up, trading with the Indians, etc., he returned to the ocean, having christened the new waters with the name of his good ship, the Columbia.

Under all these circumstances what must be thought of the declaration of England in 1826, that the merits of this discovery belonged to Meares (who by the way was under Portuguese colors too) "he having actually entered the bay of the Columbia four years before." Mr. Gray only having the credit of noticing "that which had escaped Lieut. Meares, viz that this bay formed the outlet of a great river!" Falconer does not go quite so far.* He is willing to give to Gray the discovery of a certain bay on which he bestows his name, but the river, the merit of that belongs to Broughton, an Englishman, who went a hundred miles up the stream three months after Gray had left it. This pretension of a bay at the mouth of the Columbia, we have already discovered to be a gross fiction. It was invented to exclude Gray's claims. "Mr. Gray having not been within five leagues of the entrance of the river" says Falconer. According to none of the rules of geography can a bay be considered to exist. The river widens and continues its freshness till it empties into the ocean.

But this is not all. There are other matters in relation to the Columbia, in which Great Britain is prepared to meet the United States. One of her own subjects, she as

*Falconer's "Statement of the British Claims to the Oregon Terri tory," p. 22.