The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 413
This book is part of the collection entitled: Congressional Globe and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
413
the senator from Virginia [Mr. Rives] probably
knew. That senator acting on his own high sense
of honor, had declared that no . epithet of lan-
guage would' be strong enough to express the infa-
my which must attach itself to a government which
could conduct its high diplomatic intercourse in such
a manner.
Lord Aberdeen was sitting by Lord Brougham,
when he (Lord B.) made his speech, and was ap-
pealed to more than once by Lord Brougham. He
(Mr. Bbchanan) agreed with the semator from
Virginia as to the immorality of such a transaction;
but he did not think that it deserved such severe
censure; and therefore he had stated the simple fact
as he understood it; and made use of no epithet
whatever to characterize it. He left it to the Senate
to draw their own conclusions; but did not the sen-
ator [Mr. Rives] perceive, that this severe term—
if it were true that Great Britain was in possession
of this map—applied now to that government'—
that he had been casting the strongest censure upon
them? He agreed with the senator from Virginia,
that diplomacy in modern times was much fairer
than it was in ancient times. He did not agree with
Lord Brougham in the opinion advanced by that
statesman-—that it was not immoral in any govern-
ment having conclusivc evidence in their posses-
sion that their claim was unjust, to prosecute
that claim to the very point of applying the match
to the cannon. According to this system of diplo-
macy, the negotiator stood precisely in the condition
of a lawyer towards his client. The negotiator is
bound in no case to show his hand. He expressly
stated—and a most eccentric gentleman Lord Brough-
am was—that he denied that the negotiator, m car-
rying on a correspondence with a foreign country,
was more bound to disclose to the other party what-
ever he might know against the claim of his own
government, than an advocate at the bar was to dis-
close anything that would make his case appear in
a bad light. Now, in the opinion of Lord Brougham,
if Lord Ashburton had had this map in his pocket,
he would have been obliged to conceal it, as a law-
yer would be obliged to conceal unfavorable testi-
mony; and while he (Mr. Buchanan) agreed
with the senator from Virginia [Mr. Rives] 111
condemning the concealment of such evidence, yet,
according to Lord Brougham, it was perfectly justi-
fiable, and it would be absurd to make the fact
known. He should not repeat what that statesman
had said upon the subject, because it had already
been read. Lord Brougham enme out as strong as
Sir Robert Peel, and admits that a production of
this map woulij have ended all controversy in future,
on the subject of this claim. "Was Lord Ashburton
acquainted with the existence of this map? That
he was not the "noble lord" referred to by Sir
Robert Peel, he (Mr. B.) freely and frankly admitted;
but would it not require a mantel of chanty broader
than ever was bestowed upon any man, to believe
that the British government, being in possession of
this map—the map itself being in the foreign office—
would (contrary to the opinions of Sir Robert Peel
and Lord Brougham) send Lord Ashburton here,
entirely ignorant of its existence' that they
would have sent him here without a copy of the
map? The original, he supposed, was so precious
that it would not have been permitted to be taken from
the Foreign Office. The thing was possible. Loid
Ashburton's character might have been so high that
they were afraid to trust a man of his honor with
a knowledge of the fact. He (Mr. B.) believed, from
what he knew of Lord Ashburton, that he was a man
of the highest character, and might have acted ac-
cording to the mode indicated by the senator from
Virginia—that was, exhibited his testimony. It
would have satisfied his own conscience that the
British had no title to the territory in dispute. It
was possible Lord Ashburton was ignorant of the
fact. He hoped it was so; and if ever it should ap-
pear to be so, nay, if Lord Ashburton himself
should ever declare it to be so, he (Mr. B.) would
rise instantly in his place in this Senate, take his
own word for it, and do him most ample justice. In
the mean time, he (Mr. B.) declared most solemnly
that he hoped it was so. There was a sentence,
however, in Sir Robert Peel's speech which says
that Lord Ashburton "had a right to presume that
he was sent abroad in possession of all the elements
of information on which a satisfactory conclusion
could be come to, and therefore the subsequent dis-
covery of the map in Paris, even if it could be posi-
tively connected with Dr. Franklin's despatch,
would be no ground for the impeachment of the
treaty of Lord Ashburton, or for proving that he
had not ably and honorably discharged .his duties."
Now, Lord Ashburton was present—he pre-
sumed he was—in the House
[Here Mr. Rives and other senators said the sen-
ator from Pennsylvania was mistaken. Lord Ash-
burton was not present at the debate.]
It made no difference. He undoubtedly saw the
debate in the papers next morning; if he were not
present on the evening of the debate, perhaps he was
the first man who examined it. If the British gov-
ernment had sent him abroad, ignorant of the ex-
istence of this most important document, and im-
posed upon him the difficulty of making this treaty,
would he not have declared at once his ignorance of
its existence? would it not have concerned his honor,
to make this declaration to the whole world' He
(Mr. B.) was afraid, however, that his lordship en-
tertained the same views with regard to the duty of
a negotiator as were entertained by Sir Robert Peel
in the House of Commons, and Lord Brougham in
the House of Lords—that it was not the duty of a
minister to produce any evidence weighing against
the title of liis government, however unfounded that
title might be; and it was for this reason that he had
studiously avoided applying any epithets. He had
presented nothing more than facts to the Senate. It
appeared to liim a very strange discussion in the
Senate of the United States, and he was very sorry
for it; but it appeared indispensable to him to mukc
this explanation. If the senator from Virginia [Mr.
Rives] could convince the Senate that Lord Ash--
burton was ignorant of the existence of this map, lie
(Mr. B.) was not aware that it would afford any
man more pleasure than himself to acknowledge it.
Mr. RIVE.S understood the senator to say the
other day, that, having made a charge implicating
the character of Lord Ashburton, he would exam-
ine the authenticated report of the debates in Parlia-
ment, and if he found the charge unfounded, he
would mukc the necessary correction. But what
was now the fact? After examining and producing
to the Senate the authentic report of the debates,
and having failed to establish the charge; having, in
fact, shown that there was not the slightest proof
that Lord Ashburton had any knowledge, much less
possession of the map,—instead of making the cor-
rection promised, the senator tried to sustain the
charge by throwing the negative proof on Lord Ash-
burton himself. The senatoi merely argued that
this map being ni possession of the British govern-
ment, it was almost impossible that it would not be
communicated to Lord Ashburton—coming here to
settle the matter by treaty. He assumes a posSt-
bihty, or probability, and throws the proof negative-
ly on the person so charged.
Mr R. referred to the report of the senator's
speech in the Intelligencer, and quoted passages
from it, alleging: that Lord Ashburton had in his
pocket a copy of the map, found in the library of
George III, at the very time he was negotiating
for a territory he must nave known he was not en-
titled to claim. Mr. R. also dwelt on the Senator's
reliance upon statements made by Lord Brougham,
without considering the spirit and intention with
which they were made, or the circumstances that
gave rise to them. The spirit of the whole debate
m both the House of Commons and House of Lords,
showed that it was to counteract Lord Pahnerston's
arraignment of Sir Robert Peel for letting himself
be overreached by Mr. Webster, that the retort was
thrown back upon Lord Palmerston, that he him-
self had, when in otiice, acted as Mr. Webster was
alleged to have acted in reference to the map, found
by Mr. Sparks in Paris. The conduct of Mr. Web-
ster had been held up as an evidence of bad faith,
before the House of Commons and the world, in
not having produced the map found in Paris by
Mr. Sparks; and the object of Sir Robert Peel in the
House of Commons, and of Lord Brougham in the
House of Lords, was to show that the charge of
bad faith ! if there was any m matters of such di
plomacy) was as applicable to one side as to the
other.
Mr. R. then proceeded lo show that the whole
tenor of Lord Brougham's remarks was ironical;
his design being to bring home to the door of Lord
Palmerston, the accuser of Mr. Webster, the fact
that he had been guilty of the very same thing that
he charged upon Mr. Webster. The drift and
spirit of Lord Brougham's argument went to show
that the removal of the map to the foreign office was
not in*thc time of Lord Aberdeen's being in office,
but during the time Lord Palmerston himself was in
office.
He (Mr. R.) was surprised that the senator from
Pennsylvania, finding the debates did not sustain his
charge, had not frankly avowed his mistake; and Be
was stili more surprised to find'that, after the sen-
ator had himself produced evidence that his charge
could not be maintained by the source he made ' it
from, he should throw the negative proof on Lord
Ashburton, of denying that he had any knowledge
or possession of such a map. - -
He (Mr. R.) was not the sponsor of Lord Ash-
burton. He stood up as the vindicator of the dig-
nity and generosity of the Senate in relation to what
emanated from it, touching a distinguished func-
tionary of another government, who had, during
the term of his diplomacy here, as well as upon all
suitable occasions elsewhere, shown hirtiself to be
entitled to the utmost courtesy and respect.
The senator from Pennsylvania, however, seemed
to consider the conclusion inevitable, that the British
government being in possession of the map found in
the library of George III, it was impossible Lord
Ashburton could have been sent here to negotiate a
treaty, in relation to which that map would be con-
clusive, without being made acquainted with the
fact, and being furnished with the map itself, or, at
least, a copy of it. Now it was plain to every one,
that important documents might be m the archives
of our departments here, without the fact of their ex-
istence being known to persons coming into office, or
being con sidered neccssary towards effecting an object
which was to be attained on other grounds than doc-
umentary evidence. The negotiation for the treaty of
Washington did not turn upon a strict adhorence to
the long-disputed positions taken by the two govern-
ments as to the line intended by the treaty of 1783.
It was understood to be a matter of compromise,
and that experience had shown it could be settled in
no other way.
Mr. R. here entered into some minute details,
showing the particular points which the negotiators
considered most important to settle. From all he had
read and heard of the map found in the library of
George III, he felt convinced it was similar to Mr.
Jay's map; and he proceeded to show that the only
point it proved for the claim of the United States,
was that of the highlands. And with regard to
other points of the boundary line, it told as much
/oras agamst Great Britain. It would give more
territory east (south and north of the St. Johns) to
Great Britain than the whole of the territory surren-
dered to her by the treaty of Washington. But, in
reference to the map so much talked of, did not Sir
Robert Peel, in the very speech quoted by the sena-
tor, say that no reliance was to be placed on any
map as evidence of the boundary line, unless it could
be proved that it was the identical map made use of
by the negotiators who agreed upon the boundary
line?
He (Mr. R.) denied that there was the slightest
proof that the map found in the library of George
ill was the map which had been used by the nego-
tiators who had fixed upon the boundary line of
1783. He also denied that there had been adduced
the slightest proof that the map was known to or in
possession of Lord Ashburton at the time he was
carrying on the negotiation for the treaty of Wash-
ington. Gentlemen on the other side had contended
that there was; but they had utterly tailed m the
evidence they relied upon; for when that evidence
came up and was candidly examined, it was found
to bear no such inference as they had supposed.
Mr. BUCHANAN was really desirous ofbeing
done with this business, and he should say but very
few words about the Ashburton or Washington
treaty. As to its merits or demerits, he had already
said all he ever intended to say. His vote against
it, and his speech on the occasion, were before the
world, and he was willing to stand the test before
that tribunal.
Whether this map, found in the library of George
III, was identical with the map of Mr. Jay, it was
impossible for him to say. The senator from Vir-
ginia [Mr. Rives] was, he believed, as ignorant as
himself as to what that map really was. He dis-
cussed it on the supposed knowledge of an identity
between these maps, of which there was no proof.
Now, what he (Mr. B.) had set out with, he had
conclusively established; and that was, that the Brit-
ish government were m possession of a map which,
according to the acknowledgment of Sir Robert
Peel, gave the United States all they claimed, and he
(Mr. B ) presumed he knew what the United States
did claim. There was also the declaration of Lord
Brougham, that this map did not leave the British
government a leg to stand upon; and that it could
have completely settled all questions in dispute in
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/437/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.