Gallatin has thrown out a strong insinuation of censure against 'an American Secretary of State'

who, on this very question, did, subsequent to the award, propose to substitute, for the due north line, another which would have given to Great Britain the greater part, if not the whole of the disputed territory. Why the proposal was made, and why it was not at once accepted, cannot be otherwise accounted for, so far at least as regards the offer, than by a complete ignorance of the whole subject.'-p. ix.

We do not find in the Correspondence Lord Palmerston's reason for having thrown away this favourable opportunity of arrangement—and we fear that it was rejected, as Mr. Gallatin insinuates, by complete ignorance. From the result of the recent survey we may venture to concur with Mr. Gallatin in saying that this proposition, while it satisfied the American Government, would have given Great Britain as much as she can fairly claim; but even as matters stood in 1833, it could not, on the one hand, have possibly damaged the British position, while on the other it afforded (besides many local advantages) a better chance of finding earlier in time, nearer in distance, and more marked in character-the Highlands in question; and, at all events, a much better prospect of an arrangement in 1833, than, after eight years of protracted and exasperating discussion, we have in 1841. The naked facts are no doubt still the same; but the temper and other circumstances of the discussion are, we fear, widely and inauspiciously different.

We hope, however, that this, as it seems to us, unfortunate determination of our ministers may not be irretrievable, and that the American Government may be still disposed to adopt the principles of arrangement proffered by General Jackson and Mr. Livingston. This hope is, we confess, somewhat enfeebled by the tone of Mr. Gallatin's book, which not only censures Mr. Livingston's overture, but proceeds on the broad contrary assumption that there is no room for either doubt or difficulty, and that the American claim can be, and therefore must be, established by a strict interpretation of the treaty:-an assumption, in our opinion, utterly untenable, and of which we shall now proceed to show the absolute futility.

In addition to the King of Holland's difficulties in making sense of the boundary clause, we have, on a close examination of the subject, discovered one which has not been, that we are aware of, before distinctly noticed, but which, if we do not deceive ourselves, is of considerable weight. It is this:

The clause begins by establishing, as the first and main point of the boundary,

-the north-west angle of Nova Scotia:

and

and it proceeds to direct how that north-west angle of Nova Scotia is to be formed, namely:

'viz., by a line drawn due north from the source of the river St. Croix to certain Highlands, and along the said Highlands, &c., to the north-western head of the Connecticut river ;'

which head of the Connecticut is above three degrees westward of the said due-north line.

We here make no difficulty about Highlands-nor discuss on what point of the due north line the western line is to branch offnor at what angle, whether acute, right, or obtuse-all that would be superfluous; for we assert that NO line branching off from the due-north line, and tending in any way towards the head of the Connecticut, can, by any possibility, form the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, nor any angle of Nova Scotia at all. Observe this diagram:

It is clear that, whether the line be drawn at B, as the Americans, or at A, as the British contend-whether it goes over highlands or lowlands-the angle thereby made with the due-north line can be no angle of Nova SCOTIA. There are, it is said, mathematical limits even to Omnipotence-Omnipotence cannot, for instance, make a square circle, nor a round triangle: nor could Omnipotence cause the angle made by any line running from the due-north line to the head of the Connecticut to be an angle of NOVA SCOTIA. We may understand what the parties meant as we may also understand what they meant in those other parts of the clause where the words are ambiguous-but if, as the Americans contend, we are to stick by the words-the ipsissima verba-of the treaty, then we say that this clause, which rests on the definition of the north-west angle of NOVA SCOTIA, is an entire nullity, there being no angle of Nova Scotia-east,

VOL. LXVII. NO. CXXXIV.

2 L

west,

west, north, or south-to be either found or formed by the specified line.

We shall be told that this new discovery, made at the eleventh hour, has been left for our ultra-ingenuity, only because every body else saw clearly and indisputably what was meant-the negociators had eyes in their heads, and they must have therefore intended to say

which (western) line, if produced eastward across the due-north line, would form the north-west angle of Nova Scotia.

Our answer is, first, that though this may have been meant, there is no indication of it in the terms of the treaty, which does not even talk of two lines intersecting one another and so forming angles on both sides, but is really worded as if it meant to exclude that idea-by mentioning only one line, which is first to run due north, and then, at a certain (or rather uncertain) place, is to trend away to the westward, leaving not only no angle, but no possibility of an angle, on the other or Nova Scotian side of the said line.

But it may be asked, can we not supply a few words to restore the obvious sense of the passage?-or may we not begin the description of the western line at the other end, and say,

a line proceeding from the Head of the Connecticut along the Highlands, &c. would cross the north line, and of course run into the Nova Scotia branch of the Highlands, and so constitute a north-west angle for Nova Scotia?

This, to be sure, would answer the purpose, and make sense not only of the passage in question, but of the whole clause: and the British commissioner under the treaty of Ghent proposed to relieve the British claim from all objections by just a similar process-by merely inverting, without altering a single word, the course of the description-beginning with the head of the Connecticut and proceeding along the Highlands towards Nova Scotia ; which, as we shall see (when we come to those details), would have reconciled the British claim with the exact words of the treaty. But this expedient the Americans utterly rejected; and that rejection Mr. Gallatin confirms (p. 24), not without some expression of contempt at such a futile attempt at evading the text of the treaty. If, then, we are to abide by that text, we are bound to say that all that therein relates to the north-west angle of Nora Scotia-the key-stone of the whole system-is mere nonsense; that nothing hanging on that definition of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia can be valid; and, as everything does confessedly hang on that definition, the whole is morally and physically null and void; and the parties must look out for some new basis of agreement,

agreement, or, if they are so bent, of disagreement-for the words of the present treaty, being, on this point, sheer nonsense, will serve for neither.

One further and important observation we must add, that, though both the parties affect to consider this north-west angle of Nova Scotia as an indispensable termination of their respective western lines, our readers, by looking at the sketch, will see that neither of those lines do in fact reach, nor even pretend to reach, any ANGLE whatsoever of NoVA SCOTIA. The American line (B) ends in the province of Quebec, or Lower Canada; and the English line (A) ends about the middle of the right line which forms the western boundary of Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, where there is no angle at all.

What effect this failure in the very first condition of the boundary clause may have on the rest of its provisions-it is not for us to decide;—the basis is assuredly gone-and whatever may be supposed to have been founded upon it is, strictly speaking, null and void: but, if we are allowed to depart from the strict letter, and to consider the meaning and intent of the parties, we will then admit that this failure (although in a point that professed to be essential) seems to us of no great importance; for we cannot (nor could the King of the Netherlands) understand why such prominent mention, or indeed any mention at all, should have been made of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, which never had been ascertained, and which, even if ascertained, could by no possibility answer the description given in the treaty. But if we cannot discover why the north-west angle of Nova Scotia was so superfluously and absurdly introduced, still more extraordinary does it, at first sight, seem why the angle really required, viz.the north-east angle of Massachusetts-was not taken as the point of departure. That angle, we admit, had not been much (though it was a little) better defined than the other; but to attempt to find it by means of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia,' was as gross a case of seeking to discover ignotum per ignotius, as we have ever seen. We shall find in the sequel that at one time American authorities placed the north-west angle of Nova Scotia as far westward as the head of the river St. John, and at another, admitted that the north-east angle of Massachusetts must be within the line of the river Penobscot; it is therefore possible that the American negociators foresaw something like the difficulty which has arisen; and after a direct attempt-which was as directly rejected-to fix a boundary considerably in advance of anything like the then understood boundary of Massachusetts-namely, along the river St. John-they preferred a vague and undefined line, which, though it could not reach the St. John-(all pretence to

2 L 2

which

which they had distinctly abandoned)-was yet certain to carry them a good deal beyond any boundary that Massachusetts could then allege.

But, whatever the motives may have been, assuredly a more clumsy mode of obviating future disputes,' or a more astute device for creating them, never before disgraced the annals of diplomacy.

If, therefore, we are to adhere to the basis designated by the strict words of the treaty, we may as well abandon the discussion at once-for they are nonsense: but if we are to follow the meaning of the parties, we must wholly reject the words 'north-west angle of Nova Scotia,' and only consider the subsequent words, which, though professing to be explanatory, are in reality the substance of the matter.

We must begin by noticing a slight inaccuracy which has hitherto pervaded all the discussions on the subject-even the late report of our commissioners (p. 26 et passim). Everybody has argued as if the words

' line drawn DUE NORTH from the source of the St. Croix,' used in the beginning of the article, were the definition of the eastern boundary of the United States: this is not so-those words are not, in that place, used to define the eastern, or indeed any boundary, but only to guide to a point through which the western line, constituting the northern boundary, is to pass; but the proper definition of the eastern boundary is given at the end of the article where the words are repeated with, however, a noticeable variation.

'East; by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth in the bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid Highlands, &c.'

Now, a line to be drawn due north,' and a line to be drawn 'directly north,' may mean the same thing; but it is curious, if so meant, that the negociators should have, within so short a space, varied their terms; that in other parts of the article they should have said due north, due east, due west; but that in defining this boundary they should have substituted directly north' for their former expression 'due north.' If the variation has no meaning, it is an additional blunder, and must throw additional suspicion on the adequacy of the negociators to convey their own meaning. But if the variation had a meaning, it could only be this: the boundary described consisting of three parts—a tortuous or waving line along the centre of the St. Croix-a direct line north to the Highlands-and another waving or tortuous line along the Highlands- direct-might mean the straight line, in contradistinction to the other irregular lines which complete the

boundary;