boundary; then also north' would mean not due-north, but in a northern direction; and under this interpretation, Mr. Livingston's proposition would be in exact accordance with the strict words of the treaty. We know not whether this observation be of any value; but we have thought it worth while to make it for greater accuracy, as the case has been hitherto generally argued on the wrong clause the first instead of the last-of the boundary article.

Having noticed this distinction, we shall proceed to a detailed examination of the words prescribing the northern boundary, and incidentally anticipating, as we have just said, the eastern one.

1.- that ANGLE which is formed by a line drawn due north 2.- from the source of the RIVER ST. CROIX

3.- to the HIGHLANDS

4.- ALONG the said HIGHLANDS,

5.-' which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. LAWRENCE from those which fall into the ATLANTIC OCEAN, to the north-westernmost head of the Connecticut river.'

We have divided this enunciation into paragraphs-each of which has been the subject of difference-and we shall proceed to consider them in their order-always requesting our readers to recur frequently to our sketch, which, slight as it is, will enable them, we hope, to distinguish the main points of the discussion.

1. That angle-which is formed by a line drawn due northWe have just shown that such an angle must be-not any angle of Nova Scotia, but the north-eastern angle of Massachusetts or Maine to be found as follows:

2. by a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix.' The French, who first explored this part of the coast and named the rivers, were in the habit of erecting crosses at the prominent points-such as the mouths of rivers; and it was long doubted which was the inlet especially designated as the St. Croix-though all parties were agreed that the St. Croix must be the boundary. And why? Because in the first grant of Nova Scotia by James I. to Sir W. Alexander, in 1623, it was stated that the boundary of that province should be a line drawn from Cape Sable across the Bay of Fundy to the river St. Croix, and up the said river to its most western source, and from that source towards the north (versus septentrionem), to the nearest shipstation [probably Quebec roads], river, or source [scaturigo] falling into the great river of Canada [the St. Lawrence].' This grant was a nullity as to its northern regions; for they had been many years previously in possession of the French, and

the

the charter had an express exception of any land previously occupied—si vel ipsa regna cultoribus prius vacua; but it served to acertain, at least, the original boundaries of Nova Scotia to the southward. The convention of 1798, therefore, very naturally and properly decided that the real St. Croix was the river since always called by that name, and so marked in our sketch; and that is a fact which may be now taken as conceded, though it extends, by implication, the limits of Massachusetts beyond the Penobscot, which had theretofore been the extreme limit of that province. For this we have the distinct and conclusive evidence of Mr. Gallatin himself, while commissioner of the United States employed in negotiating the treaty of Ghentwho in a letter to his own Secretary of State, 25th Dec. 1814,

states:

'Massachusetts has not the shadow of a claim to any land North of latitude 45°, to the eastward of the Penobscot, as you may easily convince yourself by recurring to her charters.'-Report 17.

We entreat our readers to look again to the little map-to trace the latitude 45°-the only one with which we have thought it necessary to mark our sketch-to the line of the Penobscot-and then to conjecture how the statesman, who wrote officially the foregoing emphatic opinion, can advocate a claim, which the people of Maine now so strenuously rest on the original and indefeasible right of Massachusetts over the disputed territory-all of which lies north of latitude 45°, and north-eastward of the Penobscot !

The St. Croix then is the adopted boundary:-but the St. Croix has two branches-a western and a northern; which was meant?-King James's grant of Nova Scotia, which first established the St. Croix as a boundary, says distinctly-along its * most western waters'—but the British Commissioner of 1798 having unhappily concurred with the American Commissioner in naming an American gentleman for umpire-the American umpire decided—that, after adopting King James's river St. Croix, they should reject his express stipulation of its most western source! The northern branch was therefore determined to be the true St. Croix ; and accordingly at the northern source of the St. Croix-(about 40 miles to the north-east of King James's boundary-the western source)—a kind of Monument was erected, from which the due north line was to proceed. This rash decision had, besides the loss of so much territory, still more serious consequences.

In the first place, the western branch of the St. Croix approaches within 15 miles of the Penobscot, and within 2 miles of one of its tributaries, and is only 13 miles north of the 45th degree of

latitude

latitude (Official Map); so that it would have afforded a boundary nearly in accordance with Mr. Gallatin's own admission, that 'Massachusetts had not a shadow of a claim to the eastward of the Penobscot and the northward of 45°;' and in the second place, the due north line from the western source would have fallen in with Highlands of so decided a character that no controversy could have arisen about them, while the due north line from the northern source fell in with the Highlands at a point where their character was long thought to be disputable, and where even the recent survey has not, it seems, quite satisfied Mr. Gallatin that they exist.

The British Commissioners of Survey, Mr. Featherstonehaugh and Colonel Mudge, observing these serious incongruities and errors flowing from the decision of 1798, seem to recommend that it should be absolutely rescinded; and we are not sure that they may not be justified in doing so ; not because there is manifest error-for nations must be bound even by the blunders of their ministers but because the treaty of 1794, to which the convention of 1798 was added as a component part, was annulled by the hostilities in 1812; and as its provisions were not renewed by the treaty of Ghent, it is at least a question whether they have not become entirely abrogated.

But under the present circumstances, we think-speaking our own private opinion-that our government may not unwisely show its desire of arriving at an amicable adjustment, by waiving this question, and consenting, as a pledge of its conciliatory disposition, to abide by the expired convention of 1798, and to acknowledge the erroneous Monument as the practical point of departure;-a concession, we admit; but one which, rather than raise new questions in a matter already so intricate, we think it would be prudent as well as honourable to make. This erroneous or eastern line has also an advantage which we have not yet seen noticed it leaves to the Americans some important tributary waters of the Penobscot, which the true or western line would cut off; and though it does on the other side intercept some of the smaller tributaries of the St. John's, it is on the whole a better approach than the western line would make, to the principle of leaving each party the uninterrupted course of its own waters. Mr. Livingstone's proposition of a north-westward line would in this point fully satisfy that principle, as it would completely divide the British and American waters.

This leads us to remark that the original boundary in this direction was a north-west line; and that the admitting that the line should be carried due north from the St. Croix, was another extraordinary blunder made by the British negotiator of the

treaty

treaty of 1783. King James's boundary, which had up to that point been followed, says versus septentrionem ad proximam navium stationem, fluvium, vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem'-that is-TOWARDS the north to the nearest naval station, river, or source, discharging itself into the great river of Canada. Now the nearest naval station or ship-road to either, but particularly to the western source of the St. Croix, is Quebec-and the nearest river, or head of river, discharging itself into the St. Lawrence, lies about north-west of the St. Croix-that is, versus septentrionem, towards the north ;— but instead of saying towards the north, the treaty of 1783 says due north-a deviation from the original line which obviously gave up an additional portion of territory that could not have been disputed, and incidentally increased the difficulty of completing the rest of the boundary. This is an additional reason for regretting the rejection of Mr. Livingstone's overture of 1833, which was not only fair in itself, but would, it now appears, have followed the direction of the original boundary, would have satisfied the principle of dividing the waters, and would have nearly met the views of the last British commissioners.

But all these are become, we fear, extraneous considerations; and we now must approach the actual difficulties-those on which the affair has latterly turned.

'3.-to the Highlands.'

Every one of these three words is ambiguous. Does 'to' mean to the edge or to the ridge of the mountains?—'the' seems to designate Highlands-specific and well known-though it now seems, that no one knew anything about the real face of the country; but the grand difficulty is on the word Highlands.' The first and, till the recent survey, general opinion was, that there was nothing like Highlands' to be found in the specified direction of due north-(and thence Mr. Livingston's equitable, or at least plausible proposition to look for them to the north-westwards). The diplomatists on both sides, instead of looking out for the Highlands, took for granted that there were none, in the ordinary and plain sense of the term, and set about finding a meaning for the word that should suit the supposed nature of the country. We have not the statements of the two parties, laid before the King of the Netherlands; they have never, we believe, been published: they are known, indeed, to Mr. Gallatin, but the discretion of Downing Street conceals them from us :-we therefore cannot imagine by what arguments two nations, to whom the English tongue is native, persuaded a Dutch umpire to decide

'that according to the instances which are adduced, the term Highlands

lands is applied not only to a hilly or elevated country, but likewise to a tract of land, which, without being elevated, divides waters flowing in different directions.'-Award, p. 12.

That is in three words—that Highlands mean Lowlands—if only they divide waters flowing different ways. Thus, then, the bog of Allen, the flattest tract in Ireland, is Highlands because it divides the Shannon and the Liffey. Salisbury Plain is Highlands, because it divides the river that flows towards Bristol from that flowing to Christchurch. The plateau of the department of Eure et Loir, in France, is Highlands, because it supplies the Eure which runs north, and the Loir which runs south.

But though we are not permitted to see the respective statements, we are glad to learn from Mr. Gallatin (p. 30) that the British government did not adopt this new system of philology, and that the Americans did; and have even gone so far as to state that the word "Highlands" was judiciously (euge !) selected, as applicable to any ground, whatever might be its nature or elevation, along which a line dividing rivers should be found to pass.'-Gallatin, ib. And this Mr. Gallatin defends and supports by asserting that 'highlands (sic) which divide rivers, and height of land, are synony mous.'-ib.

Mr. Gallatin endeavours to prove his philological position by showing, what is quite true, that a portion of the country admitted on both sides to be part of the Highlands had been called, in various maps and topographical writings, height of land,' 'height of the land, land's height;' and gives two instances of other lands in North America, whence rivers flow opposite ways, being by travellers called high lands.' We admit all this; but what does it prove?-only this, that one may reasonably apply the term height of land' to Highlands; but by no means that you may apply the generic description of Highlands' to a height of land? a mountainous region involves the idea of a height of land, but a height of land does not involve the necessity of a mountainous region.

Trifling as the observation may at first appear, we cannot pass unnoticed a little typographical artifice on the part of Mr. Gallatin-in quoting the several works which use the terms high land' and height of land,' he carefully marks two passages (out of some twenty-five or thirty) as thus printed, High land, and Height of the land;' but our readers will have observed in a foregoing extract that Mr. Gallatin is not quite so precise in his own use of capital letters, for when he wanted to show that the word Highlands,' as used in the treaty, was synonymous with height of land, he exhibits the word 'highlands.'

Nor is this little trick without a certain importance, for if the

words