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 rendered 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-Bruns. wick have, with the approbation of the British government, discontinu. ed 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 acknow. ledging 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 jurisdic. tion 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 inha. bitants, who have long lived hap. pily 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 man. ner, 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 advantage 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'af. fairs 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 subsequently to the date of the instructions 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 Aberdeen, 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 NewBrunswick should cease from the exercise of all and every act of exclusive jurisdiction within the disputed 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 conceives, 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

time, from the circumstance, that as they embrace the substance of observations which he had the honour to make to Lord Aberdeen in conference, they will come with more propriety from him than from the distinguished citizen to whom the interests of the United States at this important court are about to be confided, who, however superior his advantages in other respects, must necessarily be unacquainted with what may have passed in personal interviews between his predecessors in office and his majesty's ministers.

The second demand of the United States is considered in connexion with the remark incidentally introduced in the former note of the undersigned, "that New-Brunswick can adduce no claims by which the jurisdiction derived from prescription or first occupancy of the country can be sustained."

Without repeating here what has been said on a former occasion, respecting the inapplicability of a title founded on possession, even could such a one be established, to the question in controversy, the undersigned will proceed briefly to examine the grounds on which the allegation taken from his note is attempted to be controverted. The three reasons on which the dissent of his majesty's Secretary of State is founded, will be examined in the order in which they are presented.

The first of them is, "that, before the independence of the United States, not only the territory in dis. pute, but the whole of the adjoining province and state, was the property of a common sovereign.' To the truth of the statement, which is indeed expressed in the words of the undersigned, no exception is taken; but as the inference which

Lord Aberdeen would draw from it is not explained, he may be permit. ted to remark, that it is not perceived how this historical fact contri. butes more towards establishing a title in New-Brunswick than in the state of Maine.

To use the words of a celebrated authority, "when a nation takes possession of a distant country, and settles a colony there, that country, though separated from the principal establishment or mother country, naturally becomes a part of the state, equally with its ancient possessions."

From the principle here established, that the political condition of the people or the mother country, and of the colonies, during their union, is the same, the inference is unavoidable, that, when a division of the empire takes place, the previous rights of the common sovereign, on matters equally af fecting both of the states, accrue as well to the one as to the other of them.

From the possession of the disputed territory by his Britannic majesty anterior to 1776, a title by prescription or first occupancy might, therefore, with the same propriety, be asserted for Massachusetts, of which the present state of Maine was then a component part, as for Nova Scotia, through which latter province the pretensions of New-Brunswick are deduced.

On the second point, the undersigned conceives it proper to state, that he cannot admit "that the United States rest their claim to the possession of the territory upon the treaty of 1783," in any other sense than that in which his Britannic majesty founds, on the same treaty, his claims to New-Brunswick. By

the instrument, in question, which, besides being a treaty of peace, was one of partition and boundaries, the title of the United States was strengthened and confirmed, but it was not created. It had existed from the settlement of the country. Where this treaty is applicable, it, equally with all other conventional agreements between nations, is of paramount authority, and many of its provisions are, from their nature, of a permanent character; but its conclusion, though it created new claims to territory, did not destroy any prior right of the people of the United States that was not expressly renounced by it. The title to the district in controversy, as well as to all the territory embraced in the original states, is founded, independently of treaty, on the rights which belonged to that portion of his Britannic ma. jesty's subjects who settled in his ancient colony, now embraced in the American union, and upon the sovereignty maintained by the United States in their national character, since the 4th July, 1776.

To the general rights of colonists under the law of nations, allusion has already been made. To the particular situation of the inhabitants of the country, now comprised in the United States, it is therefore not necessary further to refer, than merely to recall to the recollection of Lord Aberdeen, that they were not a conquered people, but subjects of the king of Great Britain, enjoying the same rights with Englishmen; and, although they acknowledged the authority of a com. mon sovereign, the right of the parliament of the mother country, in which they were unrepresented, to interfere in their internal concerns, was never acquiesced in.

From the Declaration of Inde. pendence in 1776, the claims of the United States, in their national character, to all the territory within the limits of the former thirteen colonies, are dated. Of the fact

of their being in possession of sovereignty, comprising, of course, the rights of territorial jurisdiction, no further proof can be required, than that they exercised all its highest prerogatives. Nor were these confined to the limits of their own country. Treaties of amity and commerce, and of alliance, were made with France as early as 1778, and similar arrangements were entered into by the United States with other foreign powers, before any settlement of boundary was attempted to be defined by convention between the American states and the adjacent provinces.

The terms, as well of the provisional article of 1782, as of the definitive treaty of the succeeding year, may be cited in confirmation of the view here taken. By the first article of both these instru. ments, "his Britannic majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz.: New-Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, &c. &c. &c. to be free, sovereign, and independent states: that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and suc. cessors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof."

This language is sufficiently dif ferent from that employed where it is intended to convey territory by a grant in a treaty, to forbid the application of the rules in the cases of cession to the renunciation of his claims made by his Britannic majesty.

If, by tracing the limits in the

treaty by which the boundaries of the United States were attempted to be defined, England ceded to them the territory on the one side of the line, the possessions of Great Britain on the other side must be considered as held under a cession from the United States. On these provinces, indeed, the independent states of America had more or less pretensions at different times during the war; and they were also entitled to prefer claims to a portion of them, founded on their being an acquisition from France at the time they formed an integral part of the empire.

There is, however, nothing in a treaty of partition or boundaries that conflicts with the idea of a perfect equality between the contracting parties. For the purpose of preventing all future disputes, the avowed object of the 2d article of the treaty of 1783, such conventions are frequently entered into between two nations of the same antiquity.

As it is believed that the exposition which has been given is sufficient to show that the character of the right which the United States are entitled to advance under the treaty of 1783, does not imply any "admission of the previous title of Great Britain to the territory in question," considered distinct from that of Massachusetts, the undersigned may now proceed to exa. mine the allegation made in the third place by Lord Aberdeen, "that no actual delivery of the territory into the possession of the United States has hitherto taken place," and the further assertion, that, since the treaty of 1783, until the recent attempts of the state of Maine, the rights of sovereignty

have been exclusively exercised by Great Britain.

It may be here proper to remark, that the delivery necessary to effect a transfer of possession is necessarily dependent, as well upon the circumstances under which property is held, as upon the nature of that property itself.

With respect to a town or fortress, the delivery is made by cer. tain distinct sensible acts. This is important in an established community, in order to prevent the inconvenience which would result from doubts arising as to the period when the transfer of authority took place, and a new set of duties and obligations commenced. The same motives do not, however, exist with regard to an uncultivated wilderness, and with no propriety can the rules which govern in the one case be applied to the other.

Without insisting in this part of the argument that, from the possession of the "common sovereign," independent of that of the provincial authorities, anterior to the revolution, no title in favor of NewBrunswick could be derived, which would not equally accrue to Maine, it is sufficient to observe, that it is admitted on all sides, that the first settlements were formed within the last forty years, and that consequently, by the possession, at the conclusion of the treaty of 1783, to whichever party it legally belonged, was only a constructive one. the preceding views are correct, the constructive possession in question was in the United States long before the date of the treaty, and no further acts were or could have been required to complete any title that might then have been confirmed to the American union. But had any

If