Condition of Spanish South America.

of the Cortes on the affairs of Spanish America, and the determinations made by that body.

Dictamen of the commission to whom it was referred to report on the state of the provinces of Ultramar, presented February 12, 1822.

The commission has meditated maturely and circumspectly on the proposition of the Minister of Ultramar, and, after having heard him, has considered the diverse circumstances in which the provinces of both Americas are at present, and may be found hereafter; the fruitlessness and inefficacy of the commissions that have been directed to the Government established in them; and, possessed with the noble desire that the same may not again, with the waste of public treasure, and the sacrifice of humanity, occur, is of opinion that the Cortes ought not to lose time in considering the proposition of the Ministry, since it will be a consequence of the results; and, in order to obtain them, the Government, and the commissioners it elects, ought to be authorized to hear and to transmit to the legislative power every class of propositions, be they what they may; at the same time it judges that the national decorum, and the protection which in justice is due to the European and American Spaniards, call for the establishment of a basis useful and conducive to the welfare of the Spains.

"1. That the Cortes declare that the treaty called that of Cordova, celebrated between General O'Donoju and the chief of the dissidents in New Spain, Don Augustin Iturbide, as well as any other act or stipulation relative to the recognition of Mexican independence by that General, are illegitimate, and null in their effects as to the Spanish Government and its subjects.”

2. That the Spanish Government, by a declaration to all others with which it has friendly relations, make known to them that the Spanish nation will regard, at any epoch, as a violation of the treaties, the recognition, either partial or absolute, of the independence of the Spanish provinces of Ultramar, so long as the dissensions which exist between some of them and the metropolis are not terminated, with whatever else may serve to convince foreign Governments that Spain has not yet renounced any of the rights belonging to it in those countries.""

"3. That the Government be recommended to take all possible measures, without any delay, to preserve and reinforce those points of the provinces of Ultramar that remain united to the metropolis, obedient to its authority, or that resist the separation from it by the dissidents; proposing to the Cortes the resources it requires, and are not at its disposal."

4. That the Cortes declare that the provinces of Ultramar that have declared their independence of the metropolis, or do not acknowledge de facto the supremacy of the Government of it, ought not to have deputies in the Cortes during their continuance in this state."

Before fixing this basis, and that it may be as productive to the common felicity as policy and the national honor require, the commission lays down the fixed principle that this new, grand, and legitimate path for the pacific communications being opened, all treaties be esteemed of no value or efficacy that have been formed between Spanish chiefs and American Governments, which ought to be understood as null, as they have been from their origin, as respects the acknowledgment of independence, inasmuch as they were not authorized, nor could such authority be given them, unless by previous declaration of the Cortes. The commissioners may hear all the propositions that may be made to them in order to transmit them to the metropolis, excepting such as take away or limit in any manner the absolute right of the European and American Spaniards, residing in whatever part of the ultramarine provinces, to remove and dispose of their persons, families, and property, as they may think proper, without being After a short discussion, whether the dictamen opposed by any obstacle or measure that might should be discussed by itself, or with the additional prove injurious to their fortunes. With this ex-votes, it was determined that the dictamen of the planation, the commission reproduces its anterior dictamen; the Cortes will resolve what may be most proper.

Espiga,
Cuesta,

Oliver,
Murphy,

Alvares Escuden, Navarette,
Toreno,
Paul.
Moscoso,

The particular vote of the Senor Oliver proposes to add the following clause to the dictamen : "That it ought to be understood as not affecting the responsibility which persons, whoever they may be, may have incurred in this affair, nor the

The additional vote of Senors Murphy, Navarette, and Paul, to the anterior dictamen, states that it is their opinion that, in case of the approbation by the Cortes of the dictamen of the commission, they should not approve the additional votes presented by some individuals of it, as being contrary to the ends proposed by the same commission, bu: should put in execution the measures included in the dictamen without delay, without prejudice to what the ordinary Cortes may opportunely resolve upon, whatever else they may esteem convenient.

commission should be first discussed. During the discussion, propositions to the following effect were presented by the Senor Solanot, viz:

"That the Cortes, with a generosity peculiar to the constitutional system by which we are gov erned, and for the general interest of the Span iards of both worlds, declare the independence of all those provinces of both Americas that actually are so at this day, on condition that each one of those Governments pay an annual subsidy in recompense of the rights which are renounced; that a treaty of commerce be formed on the basis most convenient to the reciprocal interests of the Amer

Great Britain and Russia-Northwest Coast.

Great Britain and Russia-Northwest Coast.

ever, any difficulty on the subject, I have to request that you will have the goodness to furnish me with a letter to the British commander there to that effect.

I have the honor to be, &c.

JAMES MONROE.

A. ST. JOHN BAKER, Esq.

Mr. Bagot, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from Great Britain, to Mr. Adams, Secretary of State.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 26, 1817. SIR: From the conversation which you did me the honor to hold with me two days ago, upon the occasion of the inquiry which I thought it my duty to make relative to the reported destination of the United States sloop-of-war Ontario, I am,

Mr. Baker, Chargé d'Affaires from Great Britain, to I presume, warranted in inferring that the infor Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State.

WASHINGTON, July 23, 1815.

mation which I had previously received upon that subject is essentially correct, and that one of the objects of the voyage of the Ontario is to establish a settlement in the neighborhood of the Columbia river, on the Northwest coast of America.

It will be remembered that, some months after the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty of peace, an application was made to Mr. Baker, then His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in this country, claiming the restitution of a post which had been held by the United States upon the Columbia river, and which was alleged to have been captured during the war; and Mr. Baker was requested to take steps for the purpose of facilitating

SIR: I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 18th instant, acquainting me that it had been represented to the American Government that a British force, sent for that purpose, had succeeded in taking possession of the United States establishment on Columbia river, and claiming its restoration under the words of the first article of the treaty, upon the ground of its having been captured during the war; stating, likewise, that His Majesty's Government may have given order for its restitution, but requesting, with a view to prevent any difficulty on the sub-its restoration. ject, that I would furnish a letter to that effect to the British commander there.

As I have received no communication from His Majesty's Government on the subject of these orders, you will readily, I am convinced, perceive the impracticability of my furnishing a letter of this nature; and although it is believed that the post in question has been captured, of which, however, the American Government does not appear to have any certain information on which to ground the claim of restitution, yet another point, equally essential, remains in great uncertainty, viz: whether any persons whatsoever were left to retain possession of it. My impression is, that the establishment was broken up, and the persons found there brought away. Vice Admiral Dixon, however, the commander-in-chief of His Majesty's naval forces on the Brazil station, in whose command the Pacific ocean is included, is no doubt in possession of every necessary information in relation to this post, and will be able to communicate on the subject with any authorized agent on the part of the United States.

Having observed that you have stated, in two letters which I have lately had the honor of receiving from you, that I had been particularly charged with the execution of the Treaty of Peace, I avail myself of this opportunity of noticing the circumstance, simply with a view of preventing any possible misapprehension which might be produced by it. You will perceive, on a reference to the two credentials empowering me to exchange the ratifications, and to act as His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, that no such particular authority was vested in me, although the general powers of the above character would undoubtedly enable me to promote, and in some respects accomplish, this object.

I have the honor to be, &c.

A. ST. JOHN BAKER.

Mr. Baker having, in his reply, pointed out the insufficiency of the evidence on which the claim of restitution appeared to be founded, and having represented his want of authentic information and instructions upon the subject, referred the Secretary of State to the British Admiral, within whose command he conceived the Pacific ocean to be included.

In consequence of this correspondence, an application was soon afterwards made by Mr. Baker to the Governor General of Canada, in the expectation that he, perhaps, might be enabled to furnish some information upon the subject, in the event of the question being again brought into discussion.

From the reports then made by him, it appeared that the post in question had not been captured during the late war, but that the Americans had retired from it, under an agreement made with the Northwest Company, who had purchased their effects, and who had ever since retained peaceable possession of the coast.

As it thus appears that no claim for the restitution of this post can be grounded upon the first article of the Treaty of Ghent, and as the territory itself was early taken possession of in His Majesty's name, and has been since considered as forming a part of His Majesty's dominions, I have to request that you will do me the honor to furnish me with such explanation as you may judge proper of the object of the voyage of the Ontario, so far as it may relate to establishments upon the territory to which I refer, in order that I may represent to His Majesty's Government, in its just point of view, a measure in which His Majesty's rights and interests appear to be so materially involved.

I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant,

CHARLES BAGOT.

Great Britain and Russia-Northwest Coast.

Extracts of a letter from Mr. Rush to the Secretary of and to be the party in possession while treating of

State, dated

LONDON, February 14, 1818.

the title. The manner of obtaining it he said was alone to be lamented, declaring that it arose from the possible tendency which it might have to give I am now to have the honor of stating all that some momentary disturbance in that region to the passed in the conversation with Lord Castlereagh general harmony subsisting between the countries. on the 1st of this month. He hoped sincerely this would not be the case, and His lordship introduced in the last place (as-added that, with a view to forestall, by the most suaging as much as possible, by his manner, the prompt and practicable means, such a result, he essential character of his remarks) the affair of the had addressed a note to the Lords of the Admiestablishment at the mouth of the river Columbia. ralty, and another to Lord Bathurst, Secretary of A despatch from Mr. Bagot, he observed, had ac- State for the Colonial Department, on the 26th quainted the Government here with the steps lately of last month, desiring that the proper orders taken by the Government of the United States to might be expedited to prevent, under whatever repossess itself of that post; and he had to ex- form, all hostile collision. A copy of these notes press to me the regret which had been felt at the he took down and read to me, measure. It was to have been wished, he intimated, that, before the Ontario sailed, notice had been given to the British Minister at Washington of the intention to despatch her, with a communication of the objects of her destination; Great Britain having a claim of dominion over the territory in question. He went on to inform me that Mr. Bagot had sent in a remonstrance upon the occasion, to which, at the last dates, an answer had not been returned. His lordship closed by saying that it was the desire of this Govern ment to submit to the Government of the United States a proposal that the claim of title to this post should, as in the former instances, go before commissioners, and be governed, in other respects, by the precedent of the treaty, annexing to it a third supplemental article as the groundwork of an eventual arbitration.

To his propositions and remarks I made such replies as the nature of all, and the novelty of some of them, appeared to demand. First, as to the settlement at Columbia river: Having heard nothing from the Department upon the subject, I was necessarily uninformed of what passed at Washington. I could only treat it as my first impressions dictated. I expressed the surprise which I felt at its assuming an aspect of complaint. The just grounds upon which England claimed dominion were, I said, unknown to me. Granting that there did exist in her favor any claim or pretence of right, was it possible that the lawfulness of the step taken could be drawn into question? That the spot was in our possession before the war, was a fact known to the world; that it fell, by belligerent capture, into the hands of Britain, whilst it raged, was alike notorious. How, then, under a treaty which stipulated the mutual restitution of all places reduced by the arms of either party, was our right to immediate and full repossession to be, for an instant, impugned? I advert to the familiar case of Nootka Sound and the Falkland Islands. Here Great Britain, under circumstances far less strong, had asserted the undeniable principle of which we had claimed the benefit. In fine, I know not how to illustrate or justify, by argument, a measure which seemed to rest upon so broad and indisputable a foundation of national right. It is proper, at this stage, to say that Lord Castlereagh admitted, in the most ample extent, our right to be reinstated,

I proceeded with further remarks. Though it was scarcely to be expected, I said, that I could yet have received information from my Government relative to the measure, and although, in fact, nothing had reached me, I was nevertheless most abundantly confident that it had originated in no unfriendly motive or feeling. It had so happened, I continued, that I had been honored with some knowledge of the Executive delibera│tions at about the time the Ontario sailed, which left me the less scruple in making this assertion. It was true I had come away before her final departure; but sure I felt that there could have been no alteration in the unexceptionable views that had suggested the voyage; and, above all, I subjoined, that the use of force, as a means of re-establishing our previous dominion, had in nowise coupled itself with the intentions that were formed. These assurances, I thought, appeared to go some lengths towards placing the transaction in its innocent and justifiable lights. Given, as they were, frankly, I hope that what I said may be found to meet the President's approbation. I felt all the extravagance of the supposition that there had been any deviation, on the part of the Government, in this instance, from its wonted respect to the rights of other nations. Lord Castlereagh did not, in any way, unfold the nature of the British claim.

Extract of a letter from Mr. Adams, Secretary of State, to Mr. Rush, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in London, dated

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, May 20, 1818. From the tenor of your correspondence with Lord Castlereagh, reported in your despatch No. 7, as well as from the communications made here on the same subject by Mr. Bagot, it appears that the British Government have acceded to the proposals heretofore made on our part, to refer the question which has arisen upon the construction of the first article of the Treaty of Ghent, in relation to the restitution of slaves carried away from the United States after the ratification of the treaty of peace, to the arbitration of a friendly sovereign. This accession is understood to be absolute and unconditional, but accompanied with the suggestion of a wish on the part of the British

Great Britain and Russia-Northwest Coast.