went on to say, that whatever might be the occasional popular effervescence in that country, or the fervour of debates there, he trusted that it would be found that the Senate would come to a wise and temperate conclusion on this subject. There was a great desire that action should take place today, in order that the result might be transmitted by the steamer, but he did not see its importance.

Mr. Webster then said that he did not differ a hair's breadth in opinion from the honourable senator from Kentucky as to the propriety of the course that he proposed. He went on to say that the exercise of the treaty right to give the notice was .no just cause of offence, but the circumstances attending it were to be considered. The House accompanied the naked notice with a proposition qualifying it. Some such proposition had been offered

here.

It seemed to be the sense of the Senate that some qualification ought to be adopted. It was now desirable that we should know the opinion of the Executive Government as to the effect and use of this notice. The President did not expect war; but how did he propose to escape it? The question must be settled, and, if so, by negotiation. But what was to be the basis of the negotiation? What were to be the terms? All that we heard from the Government was, that they claimed the whole of Oregon or none. He could not understand the position of the Government. It would not treat for any thing less than the 'whole of Oregon, but propose negotiation. Did they expect by negotiation to persuade Great Britain to give us the whole of Oregon ? He wished success to

the project. There seemed to be a gross inconsistency in the positions of the Government. If they did not intend to compromise, the result often predicted by the senator from Michigan must happen. Mr. Webster, in the course of his remarks, said that a majority of the Senate would vote for the two propositions of Mr. Colquitt.

The result of the long protracted debates in the House of Representatives was, that it passed in February, by a majority of 163 to 54, the following resolutions for putting an end to the joint occupation of Oregon.

"1. Resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the President of the United States cause notice to be given to the Government of Great Britain, that the convention between the United States of America

and Great Britain, concerning the territory of the north-west coast of America west of the Stony Mountains, of the 6th of August, 1827, signed at London, shall be annulled and abrogated in twelve months after giving said notice.

"2. And be it further resolved, that nothing herein contained is intended to interfere with the right and discretion of the proper authorities of the two contracting parties to renew or pursue negotiations for an amicable settlement of the controversy respecting the Oregon territory."

This resolution was sent up to the Senate, where it gave rise to another long discussion, which lasted until the 13th of April. In the course of it, Mr. Revendy Johnson moved the following resolution as a modification of that transmitted from the House of Representatives :

"Whereas, by the convention concluded the 20th day of October, 1818, between the United States of America, and the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for the period of ten years, and afterwards indefinitely extended and continued in force by another convention of the same parties concluded the 6th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1827, it was agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the north-west

coast of America westward of the Stony or Rocky Mountains, now commonly called the Oregon territory, should, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open' to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two Powers, but without prejudice to any claim which either of the parties might have to any part of the said country; and with this further provision, in the second article of the said convention of the 6th of August, 1827, that either party might abrogate and annul said convention, on giving due notice of twelve months to the other contracting party :

"And whereas it has now become desirable that the respective claims of the United States and Great Britain should be definitely settled, and that said territory may no longer than need be remain subject to the evil consequences of the divided allegiance of its American and British population, and of the confusion and conflict of national jurisdictions, dangerous to the cherished peace and good understanding of the two countries:

With a view, therefore, that the steps be taken for the abrogation of the said convention of the 6th of August, 1827, in the mode

prescribed in its second article, and that the attention of the Governments of both countries may be the more earnestly and immediately directed to renewed efforts for the amicable settlement of their differences and disputes in respect to the said territory:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized, at his discretion, to give to the British Government the notice required by its said second article for the abrogation of the said convention of the 6th of August, 1827."

This resolution was, after a sharp debate, adopted by the Senate; the votes being: Yeas, 40; Noes, 14; and it was then sent back to the House of Representatives for its concurrence.

On the 24th of March, a special message was sent by the President to the Senate, in answer to a resolution of that body addressed to him, and inquiring whether the foreign relations of the United States required at that time an increase of naval or military force. The President stated in his message, that in his opinion a wise precaution demanded such increase, and he thus expressed himself on the Oregon question:

"A controversy respecting the Oregon territory now exists between the United States and Great Britain; and while, as far as we know, the relations of the latter with all European nations are of the most pacific character, she is making unusual and extraordinary armaments and warlike preparations, naval and military, both at home and in her North American possessions.

"It cannot be disguised that, however sincere may be the desire of peace, in the event of a rupture, these armaments and preparations would be used against our country. Whatever may have been the original purpose of these preparations, the fact is undoubted that they are now proceeding, in part at least, with the view to the contingent possibility of a war with the United States. The general policy of making additional warlike preparations was distinctly announced in the Speech from the Throne, as late as January last, and has since been reiterated by the Ministers of the Crown in both Houses of Parliament. Under this aspect of our relations with Great Britain, I cannot doubt the propriety of increasing our means of defence both by land and sca. This can give Great Britain no cause of offence, nor increase the danger of a rupture. If, on the contrary, we should fold our arms in security, and at last be suddenly involved in hostilities for the maintenance of our just rights, without any adequate preparation, our responsibility to the country would be of the gravest character. Should collision between the two countries be avoided, as I sincerely trust it may be, the additional charge upon the Treasury in making the necessary preparations will not be lost, while, in the event of such a collision, they would be indispensable for the maintenance of our national rights and national honour.

"I have seen no reason to change or modify the recommendations of my annual Message in regard to the Oregon question. The notice to abrogate the treaty of the 6th of August, 1827, is authorized by the treaty itself, and cannot be re

garded as a warlike measure; and I cannot withhold my strong conviction that it should be promptly given. The other recommendations are in conformity with the existing treaty, and would afford to American citizens in Oregon no more than the same measure of protection which has long since been extended to British subjects in that territory."

The Message then adverted to the unsettled state of the relations with Mexico as follows:

"Since the meeting of Congress another revolution has taken place in that country, by which the Government has passed into the hands of new rulers. This event has procrastinated, and may possibly defeat, the settlement of the differences between the United States and that country. The Minister of the United States to Mexico, at the date of the last advices, had not been received by the existing authorities. Demonstrations of a character hostile to the United States continue to be made in Mexico, which has rendered it proper, in my judgment, to keep nearly two-thirds of our army on our south-western frontier.

On the 4th of March, the order of the day in the Senate being the consideration of the various amendments proposed in reference to the abrogation of the convention with Great Britain, establishing the joint occupation of the Oregon territory,

Mr. Heywood made a long and vigorous speech, which excited much attention at the time, and of which we give an outline as a specimen of the peculiar nature of transatlantic oratory-he said he should discuss the subject in the love of man and in the fear of God. He denounced that spirit which had sought to take the sub

ject of our foreign relations from the authority of the Executive department that spirit of faction I which would break down great men and great measures for the elevation of very little men into great offices. He justified the patriotic motives of the President in the policy he had pursued. He disapproved of the reproduction in this debate of a certain old speech of Colonel Benton, which had been abridged, but not improved. He strongly denounced the practice, which had become so notorious, of decrying and carping against the treaty of Washington, for the settlement of the north-east boundary, and wondered why some one of the thirty-nine senators voting for that treaty had not refuted the factious clamours by which they had been assailed. He did not (to use a familiar term) like this singing of old psalms over dead horses; that in this treaty we had been overreached, and cheated, and the country dishonoured. No, the President, in adopting that treaty resolved all hazards of this sort into the sense of moderation, and prudence, and national justice, that forms the higher character of this Senate. Mr. Heywood denounced the clamorous spirit of discord which had characterized the discussions in Congress upon this subject-which would urge the President to issue his mandate of defiance against all the nations of the earth. The great and patriotic question which now presented itself was, what shall we do for the country, and what is our position? On the 12th of August, 1845, the President stood on the line of 49°; he offered it; it was refused. The British Government had offered arbitration, and that had been refused by the Executive; and if this were

with a view of shutting off all compromise, the Executive had, indeed, incurred a fearful responsibility. But the line of 49° was not now inadmissible. Mr. Heywood challenged any senator to show that 54° 40′ was mentioned in the President's Message. No, Sir, if the line of 49° is proposed to him, he is bound to accept it; a different policy would provoke certain differences, a national dishonour and irremediable war. The door of negotiations was still open. Mr. Heywood had said so at the opening of the Session; he said so now. He was prepared for a compromise at 49° without disputing about inches. He was prepared, then, to go for the notice with a view to the facilitating a pacific adjustment. He wanted no finesse in this matter; he believed there would be none; that there was none on the part of the Administration. Our title, however "clear and unquestionable,' questioned. It had been in dispute for forty years. Forty years ago, we had offered that line as the boundary westward, as it was eastward to the Rocky Mountain. The convention of 1818 had been approved by a vote of 38 to 1, and yet in the opinion of gentlemen all but the one man were traitors to their country. This was the necessary conclusion from their opinions of the treaty. The convention with Russia was held with an especial design to negotiate Great Britain to the concession of the 49th degree; and in the very treaty with Russia, setting the northern boundary of the territory at 54° 40', which under the Spanish claims should have been at the 61st degree, our ancesters had sanctioned a dismemberment of the union; we had been

was not un

bullied, so to speak, by Russia, out of our national rights. And yet that treaty passed by a vote of 41 to 1. (Voices :-" Who was he? Who was that one, pray?") Mr. De Wolf. He was from Rhode Island, and was therefore, perhaps, in favour of large states. In 1826 our Minister at London renewed the efforts of our Government for a settlement upon the line of 49— he almost implored that settlement. Had he threatened, he might, for all we know, have had better success. The treaty of 1818 was adopted by the Senate by a full, a very full two-thirds, notwithstanding the opposition and the prophecies of the senator from Missouri (Colonel Benton), and under that convention we have been living ever since. When was the discovery made that all these proceedings, so often renewed by our predecessors, involved a surrender of the national soil, of the national honour, and the rights of the people? Where was the warning voice against Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Adams? Are all these lofty precedents to be overruled by the dictation of the Baltimore Convention? and are we to assume that the Government is now released from its policy and concessions of forty years? The President was right in his offer of 49°. He felt that his official character was of greater moment than the declarations of James K. Polk. The President and James K. Polk were

two different personages. And if the President was right in offering the line 49°, he was right in holding himself in readiness to meet that offer. The President was not released by the pitiful appeal to the Baltimore Convention. He took occasion to say, that "if the Administration, as assumed, after

all that has transpired to a contrary conclusion, be inexorably fixed at 54° 40′, then, God knows, I'll turn away from it.' Mr. Heywood then said, in opposition to the Radicals, that if truth was logic-if there was faith in public servants, and meaning in the English language, he should demonstrate that the Administration was open to all compromise on the Oregon question. If there was an Englishman there, if you were an Englishman (looking to a senator), and it was proposed to kick you out of a territory (north of 49°), which you had occupied exclusively for forty years-would you not fight, Sir? It was useless to talk about it. President Tyler had negotiated for the line of 49°; and there had been no complaint. Mr. Heywood afterwards adverted to the Baltimore Convention, where, in fact, two conventions were held.

Mr. Johnson.-Three, if you please.

Mr. Heywood.-Yes, the "Tyler Convention" was the third. As to the charge of "Punic faith" against the south, which it was stated had been bound by the Baltimore Convention, he repudiated that charge. He should be glad to know if the President himself knew the terms of the Baltimore Convention when he accepted the nomination? Ile had not known the terms, for he had only time to respond to the nomination. He was merely asked, "Will you accept the nomination?" and he answered as quick as the magnetic telegraph, "I will, to be sure; and I wish you may elect me. Much declamation had been used, much discussion in distrusting political opponents-some saying it was a western question-others damning