Columbia, until the whole region drained by that stream should be peopled by citizens of the United States.

Thus the question stood in the early part of 1845, when Mr. Polk succeeded to the Presidency. The Americans based their right on specific treaties with France and Spain, and on alleged priority of discovery and colonisation. To these arguments, the reply of Great Britain was clear and effective. The right of France (if any existed) had been transferred to Spain, and that asserted right had been waived by her, together with what she possessed on her own account, in a convention with England antecedent to any arrangement on the part of the United States with either Spain or France. As regards priority of discovery, it was well urged by Mr. Pakenham that if the explorations of Captain Gray were to annul those of Heceta, because of their being further extended, they must themselves be superseded by the opera

tions of Vancouver (or rather of his lieutenant) in entering, and examining to a considerable distance inland, the river Columbia. As regards land explorations, the Americans contended that two citizens of the United States, Messrs. Lewis and Clarke, performed a journey across the territory in 1804-6, by which the country was first made accurately known to the world. On the part of England it was alleged that as far back as 1733 a British subject named Mackenzie had effected a passage across Oregon from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, in the course of which he explored the upper waters of Fraser's River, which in process of time was traced to its junction with the sea, near the 49th degree of latitude, which was now proposed by the British Government as a part of the line of demarcation between the possessions of the two Powers. We shall find that the dispute was ultimately settled by an amicable arrangement; but for a time it threatened war.

MR. POLK was elected to do the bidding of the Democratic party, and he determined to discharge his trust. The dearest objects of that party were the maintenance if not the extension of slavery, and territorial aggrandisement. Both designs had a faithful agent in Mr. Polk. His inaugural address, after the usual congratulations on the growing power and wealth of the United States, and the excellence of the political principles embodied in the Constitution, alluded, with but little ambiguity, to the movement for the abolition of negro bondage which was at that time acquiring immense force throughout the Northern States, and exciting a corresponding fear and anger in the Southern.

"It is a source of deep regret," said the President, "that in some sections of our country misguided persons have occasionally indulged in schemes and agitations whose object is the destruction of domestic institutions existing in other sections-institutions which existed at the adoption

of the Constitution, and were recognised and protected by it. All must see that, if it were possible for them to be successful in attaining their object, the dissolution of the Union, and the consequent destruction of our happy form of government, must speedily follow." This was the assumption of a pro-slavery position, to be maintained in the teeth of Northern opinion, and of all the best traditions of American history. The other desire of the South -that of territorial aggrandisement--led Mr. Polk into a very emphatic expression of opinion with respect both to Texas and to Oregon. He laid it down as an axiom that for the United States to enlarge their limits was to extend the dominion of peace over additional territories and increasing millions. The world, he said, had nothing to fear from military ambition in the American Government; and foreign Governments should therefore look on the annexation of Texas as the peaceful acquisition of a country which desired to be incor

1845.]

porated with the Union. As regarded Oregon, the President asserted that the title of the United States was "clear and unquestionable;" and he remarked that already were the American people preparing to perfect that title by occupying the land with their wives and children. But he gave no explanation as to what he believed to be the limits of that right, and contented himself with saying that the jurisdiction of American laws, and the benefit of Republican institutions, should be extended over those emigrants from the old States who had entered the territory in dispute, where the formation of a new State could not be long delayed. In the meanwhile, however, treaty obligations and conventional stipulations were to be sacredly respected.

The discussion of the Oregon question was resumed between the English and American representatives on the 16th of July, 1845. Mr. Buchanan had succeeded Mr. Calhoun as Secretary of State, but the claims of America lost nothing in his hands. He presented a paper, in which he repeated the assertion by his predecessor of the right of the United States to the entire region drained by the Columbia and its branches, and dwelt once more on the American priority of discovery and colonisation, as well as on the alleged treaty rights derived from Spain. All these facts, he maintained, established a complete title on the part of his Government to the whole region, as against Great Britain. But Mr. Calhoun, while asserting this title in its plenitude as a matter of right, had intimated a willingness on the part of Mr. Tyler's Government to proceed on the principle of compromise, and to treat the respective claims of the contending parties with a view to establishing some permanent boundary between the two countries westward of the Rocky Mountains. The proposed course did not at all harmonise with the ideas of the new President, and Mr. Buchanan assured Mr. Pakenham that Mr. Polk would not have consented to yield any portion of the Oregon territory, had he not found himself embarrassed by the acts of his predecessors. He hesitated for awhile whether he would not abruptly terminate the discussion, and demand the entire country; but he had ultimately resolved to pursue the existing negotiations to their conclusion, upon the same principle with which they had commenced. He therefore again proposed to the British Government that the Oregon territory should be. divided between the two countries by the 49th parallel of North latitude, from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean; at the same time offering to make free to Great Britain any port or ports on Vancouver's Island, south of that parallel, which might

57

be desired. The suggested line (Mr. Buchanan observed) would carry out the principle of continuity equally for both parties, by extending the limits of ancient Louisiana and of Canada to the Pacific, along the same parallel of latitude which divides them east of the Rocky Mountains. The British demand was that the dividing line should be the 49th parallel of latitude up to the river Columbia, and that it should then follow the course of that stream as it turned to the south; which would have given to England much larger possessions than if the line were carried on due west to the Pacific.

In replying to Mr. Buchanan's communication, Mr. Pakenham said he did not feel at liberty to accept the terms submitted by the American plenipotentiary for the settlement of the question. The proposal, he remarked, offered less than that tendered by the United States in the negotiation of 1826, and then declined by the British Government. Mr. Buchanan responded with another elaborate statement of the grounds on which his Government asserted a right to the whole territory. After dilating on the desire which the President had felt to compromise matters for the sake of peace and harmony between the two nations, he added that he was instructed by the Head of the State to say that he owed it to his country, and to a just appreciation of her title to Oregon, to withdraw the proposition which had been made. Nevertheless, Mr. Buchanan still cherished the hope that the controversy might yet be adjusted in such a manner as not to disturb the peace subsisting between the two Powers. This very hope implied a corresponding fear; and as it was obvious that Mr. Polk had now fallen back on his original intention of claiming the entire region, the prospects of peace looked sufficiently disheartening. On both sides of the Atlantic the feeling was equally resolute and unflinching. War was openly talked of; a good deal of inconsiderate declamation was uttered by irresponsible speakers and writers; and if the conduct of affairs had not been under the direction of cooler heads, a war like that of 1812-15 would have dipped both countries deep in blood.

A sensible and well-felt speech by Mr. Webster, delivered in the early part of November at a public meeting in Boston, put the matter at issue in a new light. "Where is Oregon?" he asked. "On the shores of the Pacific, 3,000 miles from us, and twice as far from England. Who is to settle it? cans mainly; some settlers, undoubtedly, from England; but all Anglo-Saxons—all men educated in notions of independent government, and all selfdependent. And now let me ask if there be any

Ameri

sensible man in the whole United States who will say for a moment that when 50,000 or 100,000 persons of this description shall find themselves on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, they will long consent to be under the rule either of the American Congress or of the British Parliament? They will raise a standard for themselves; and they ought to do it. I look forward to the period when they will do this as not so far distant but that many now present, and those not among the youngest of us, will see a great Pacific Republican nation. I believe that it is in the course of Providence, and of human destiny, that a great State is to arise, of English and American descent, whose power will be established over the country on the shores of the Pacific; and that all those rights of natural and political liberty, all those great principles that both nations have inherited from their fathers, will be transmitted through us to them, so that there will exist at the mouth of the Columbia, or more probably farther south, a great Pacific Republic, a nation where our children may go for a residence, separating themselves from this Government, and forming an integral part of a new Government, half way between England and China, in the most healthful, fertile, and desirable portion of the globe, and quite too far remote from Europe and from this side of the American continent to be under the governmental influence of either country." Mr. Webster, it will be seen, contemplated the formation of a new Republic on the Pacific Ocean, which would be entirely distinct from that which had its Federal seat at Washington. There can be no doubt that he foreshadowed this Republic as a community of freemen without any contradiction of slavery, and looked forward to it as a counterpoise to the growing influence of the South.

The rather arrogant and unguarded language of President Polk in his inaugural address elicited a counter-statement from Sir Robert Peel in the British House of Commons on the 4th of April. Lord John Russell having called attention to the subject, the Premier expressed his regret, not only at the allusion made by Mr. Polk, but also at the tone and temper by which it was characterised. He said he felt it to be his duty, on the part of the Government, to state, in language the most temperate, but at the same time the most decisive, that England had a right to the territory of Oregon—a right which was clear and unquestionable; that Ministers desired an amicable adjustment of the differences between Great Britain and the United States; but that, having exhausted every effort to obtain it, they were resolved and prepared, if their rights were invaded, to maintain them. This

announcement was received with tremendous cheering from every part of the House. The strength of the popular feeling in England was immense, and would have fully supported any Government in prosecuting a war, rather than give up the national claims. But happily that dread issue was avoided. Congress assembled, for its twenty-ninth session since the Declaration of Independence, on the 1st of December. The Presidential Message was delivered next day, and, amongst other subjects, the Oregon dispute was referred to at great length. Having recapitulated the various attempts at compromise which had been made for some years, Mr. Polk said that, as a consequence of the British refusal of what had recently been proposed by his Government, it had been determined to assert the right of the United States to the entire territory. The Legislature would now have to consider what measures it would be proper to adopt for the security and protection of American citizens then inhabiting, or who might subsequently inhabit, the country in question, and for the maintenance of the American claim. By the convention of 1827 it was obligatory on each party to give the other a year's notice of the termination of the joint occupancy. This notice, in the opinion of President Polk, it would be proper now to give, so that the United States might be in a position to assert and exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The Americans settled in Oregon had established a provisional government for themselves; but they desired the protection of the Federal arm, and the President recommended that this should be rendered by Congress with as little delay as possible. He also suggested the erection of stockades and blockhouses along the route taken by the emigrants, and the raising of an adequate force of mounted riflemen, to protect them from the attacks of Indian tribes occupying the intervening desert.

These measures looked like a determination to make the Oregon question a cause of war, unless England should give way on all points. But, as if this element of disturbance were not sufficient, the President assumed a position towards European Powers generally, which, being characterised by a spirit of considerable arrogance, had the appearance of a species of haughty challenge thrown out to the Old World. Mr. Polk remarked that the rapid extension of their settlements, and the addition of new States to the Federation, had attracted the notice of Europe, and had in some quarters induced politicians to talk of a balance of power on the American continent, to check the advance of the United States. Supposing any such design to have been seriously entertained, it would undoubtedly

have been the duty of any American President to declare in emphatic terms his resolution to oppose it. But Mr. Polk did not content himself with simply indicating that the doctrine of the balance of power had no application to the New World, and would not be tolerated there. He went on to reaffirm the well-known principle which, in the year 1823, President Monroe promulgated in a special Message to Congress, and which he formulated in the celebrated words, that "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonisation by any European Power." In reiterating this political dogma, Mr. Polk observed: "Existing rights of every European nation should be respected; but it is due alike to our safety and our interests that the efficient protection of our laws should be extended over our whole territorial limits, and that it should be distinctly announced to the world as our settled policy that no future European colony or dominion shall, with our consent, be planted or established on any part of the North American continent." That the protection of the laws of the United States should be extended over the whole territorial limits of the Federation, was so obviously just and reasonable that it seems unnecessary to have made any such declaration. Mr. Polk, however, asserted a right of interference in lands beyond the jurisdiction of the Washington Government. According to this doctrine, if England or Mexico chose to cede any part of her possessions in North America to some European Power, in order that the subjects of that Power might establish a colony there, the United States would forbid it. This was, in truth, introducing into the western world that very doctrine of the balance of power which Mr. Polk had just repudiated, and doing so in a manner the most openly defiant of all principles of fairness, reason, and equity. Mr. Polk made himself many enemies in Europe by this imprudent manifesto, which, moreover, threw a sinister light on the policy of the United States with reference to Oregon.

The Oregon question was made the subject of a debate in the Senate on the 15th of December, when General Cass, of Michigan (a great supporter of slavery), spoke in terms of the utmost violence with reference to the conduct of Great Britain. Having moved certain resolutions, the object of which was to issue instructions to the committee on naval affairs to inquire into the condition of the navy, to the military committee to institute a similar inquiry into the condition of the land defences, and to the militia committee respecting

59

the re-organisation of the irregular forces, he observed that it was impossible to read the President's Message, and the commentaries of the press, without apprehending that a crisis was at hand, which would demand the cordial co-operation of the whole country. It was better, in the opinion of General Cass, to fight for the first inch of Oregon than the last; better to meet the enemy at the threshold than await his approach to the hearthstone. "We must give the twelve months' notice," he continued. "If England then persists in her claims, war must inevitably follow, and it will be a war in which all the strength and all the prejudices of both nations will be brought into force. Let us, then, make adequate preparation; let us show to the world that we are a united people, anxious for peace, yet prepared for war. The President has discharged his duty ably and fearlessly. Let us co-operate with him, and sustain him, not by words, but by deeds." There were some members of the Senate who deprecated this tone of hostility; but the weight of opinion was in favour of General Cass. On the following day, Mr. Allen, chairman on foreign relations in the Senate, gave notice of a joint resolution (that is to say, a resolution to be adopted by both Houses), giving the twelve months' notice to Great Britain for dissolving the joint occupancy of Oregon. The discussion upon the resolutions moved by General Cass was then resumed. More violent language against England was indulged in by various senators, and it required all the authority of Mr. Webster. to make a stand against the prevalent mood. This eminent man endeavoured to disabuse the Senate of the idea that war was inevitable. He did not believe that the President anticipated hostilities, and a collision between the two countries would be deplorable. He painted, in vivid terms, the losses which would affect the commerce and the sea-board of America in the event of a war with England, and he denied that any such dreadful exigency was to be seriously apprehended. The result of the discussion, however, was that the resolutions of General Cass were carried without a dissentient voice. The joint resolution of Mr. Allen was afterwards brought forward, and read a first time.

In the House of Representatives, on the 16th of December, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, introduced a Bill for the extension of the United States Government over Oregon until the joint occupancy should be terminated. It provided that Oregon be considered a part of Wisconsin Territory up to 54° 40' of North latitude, established military posts, mail-routes, &c., and appropriated 200,000 dollars for these objects. Mr. Winthrop, of Massachusetts,