observed that he himself, and he presumed Mr. Pakenham, in negotiating and signing that convention, had always conceived "channel" to mean the main navigable channel wherever situated.'

"After some further remarks, Mr. Buchanan suggested that the point should be left for decision by the Commissioners.

"If Mr. Buchanan was of opinion that the channel spoken of in the treaty was the 'main navigable channel' wherever situated, and if that question was to be decided by Commissioners, how can it be contended that the United States Government understood the treaty as giving to Great Britain nothing beyond Vancouver's Island? But General Cass, in his anxiety to prove that the Rosario Strait is not the channel of the treaty, asserts that it cannot properly be said to flow into the Straits of Fuca at all.

"I must confess myself unable to comprehend what General Cass means by that assertion. Surely he cannot desire to confine the appellation of 'Straits of Fuca' to the mere point at which those straits communicate with the Pacific. I can hardly imagine that such a proposition can have been seriously entertained by General Cass, and the less so, because General Cass cannot be ignorant that the appellation of Strait of Fuca has, by one writer at least, and that one an American writer, namely, Greenhow, been applied to the whole of the water space separating Vancouver's Island from the continent, between the forty-eighth and fiftieth parallels of latitude.

"General Cass expresses surprise because I said in my former despatch that the British Government in 1846 believed the Haro Canal to be a dangerous passage, and he adds that that channel had been examined by Captain Wilkes while on his exploring expedition. Now Her Majesty's Government never intended to assert that the Haro Channel had on no occasion, before 1846, been visited by any mariner. What they meant to convey is, that before 1846 the Rosario Strait, and not the Canal de Haro, was the channel ordinarily used by shipping; and they continue to maintain that the channel now known as Rosario Strait had always been regarded as a

continuation of the broad space of water called at the present day the Gulf of Georgia, whereas the Canal de Haro was looked upon as an independent channel. The names 'Gulf of Georgia' and Canal de Rosario' are, indeed, regarded by some writers as synonymous terms. De Mofras, who has been quoted by General Cass as speaking of the Canal de Haro as 'le passage le plus facile,' adds later on, dans cette partie' (that is to say at the fiftieth parallel) 'le bras qui sépare le continent de l'île de Quadra et Vancouver acquiert une largeur de quatre à sept lieues. Les Espagnols l'appelèrent Canal del Rosario; mais Vancouver eut soin de changer ce nom en celui de Golfe de Georgie.'

'Again Greenhow, who cannot be suspected of any leaning towards the British claim, unconsciously gave strong testimony in favour of that claim. When speaking of the meeting of the British and Spanish exploring vessels in 1792, in the middle of the gulf, and of their having agreed to unite their labours, he says: During this time they surveyed the shores of the great gulf above mentioned, called by the Spanish " Canal del Rosario," and by the English the Gulf of Georgia, which extended north-westward as far as the fiftieth degree of latitude.'

6

"But General Cass observes that the Gulf of Georgia is not mentioned in the treaty. This is no doubt true; but Lord Aberdeen, in the despatch which accompanied the draught of treaty, instructed Mr. Pakenham to propose that the line should be run down the centre of the Gulf of Georgia, called by him 'King George's Sound;' and as I have already shown that the terms Gulf of Georgia,' and 'Canal de Rosario,' have been indifferently applied to one and the same channel, a clear indication is afforded by Lord Aberdeen's despatch of the direction which he intended that the boundary line should take.

"At all events we may appeal to Lord Aberdeen's despatch as giving a more satisfactory and complete key to the meaning of the term 'channel,' spoken of in the treaty, than the despatch of Mr. McLane, which refers to Birch's Bay,' and the Canal de Arro,' neither of which is mentioned in the treaty any more than the Gulf of Georgia.

"Mr. McLane's despatch shows what he thought Lord Aberdeen would probably instruct Mr. Pakenham to propose; Lord Aberdeen's despatch proves what he actually did instruct Mr. Pakenham to propose.

"General Cass refers, moreover, to Sir R. Pakenham's memorandum as evidence against the British claim; but your lordship will observe that Sir R. Pakenham's object in that paper was not so much to enter upon the question as to what were the intentions of the negotiators of the treaty, as to offer an opinion as to how far, with the information since acquired by the two Governments, the boundary line could, according to the literal words of the treaty, be carried down either the Canal de Haro, or the channel of Vancouver.

"Sir R. Pakenham seems to think that the conditions of the treaty wouldobtain their most exact fulfilment if the line were carried through the Douglas Channel. According to General Cass, Sir R. Pakenham adds that he has no recollec-. tion whatever that any other channel was designated in the discussion than that described in the language of the treaty.

"I must beg leave, however, to correct General Cass upon this point. What Sir R. Pakenham adds is, that the treaty was signed and ratified without any intimation to us whatever, on the part of the United States Government, as to the particular direction to be given to the line of boundary contemplated by article first of the treaty.'

"These observations suffice to show that the arguments which General Cass has drawn from the supposed intentions of the negotiators of the treaty, can be met by arguments of at least equal weight on our side; but, however we may be disposed to rely on the instructions of Lord Aberdeen and the letter of Sir John Pelly, and the United States on the statements of Mr. McLane and Mr. Benton, it must be confessed on both sides that the interpretation of one party, without the expressed assent of the other, goes but very little way to remove the difficulty.

"Had Lord Aberdeen and Sir John Pelly obtained the consent of the United States Government to their views in

favour of the channel marked as navigable by Vancouver, or had Mr. McLane and Mr. Senator Benton obtained the assent of Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Pakenham to their opinion that Haro's Strait was the channel intended by the treaty, such agreement would have been conclusive. But separate interpretations, not communicated to the other party to a treaty, cannot be taken as decisive in a disputed question.

"We are forced, therefore, to recur to the words of the treaty, and Her Majesty's Government are ready to disavow any intention of 'abandoning the treaty line for a line purely arbitrary.'

"The treaty provides,' General Cass truly says, “ that the boundary line shall be continued along the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island.' Let us stop here; we have here something fixed, namely, a point on the forty-ninth parallel of latitude, and half way between the continent and Vancouver's Island. The article proceeds, ' and thence southerly through the middle of said channel.' Here the meaning of the negotiators appears clear; the boundary line is to go through the middle of the said channel.'

6

"If the whole space between the continent and Vancouver's Island had been occupied by water, there can be no doubt that the words 'middle of the said channel' would have been interpreted to mean drawing the line along the middle of the channel. When you say along the middle of the road,

you do not mean one side of the road. When you say along the middle of the street, you do not mean one side of the

street.

"But it happens that the channel is not an uninterrupted space of water, but is intersected by various islands; hence the contested interpretation-one side contending for Haro's Channel, and the other for Vancouver's or the Rosario Channel.

"I need not refer further to nation has supported its views.

the argument by which each But shall we not approach

nearer to the spirit of the treaty, if, as Sir R. Pakenham

6

suggests, we draw a line equidistant from the continent and Vancouver's Island, and prolong it till we reach Fuca's Straits and the Pacific Ocean,' words which complete the description of the boundary?

Or, again, if it would be inconvenient to both nations to have five or six islands partially divided between them, would it not be fair and expedient to look for a channel which shall be the nearest approximation to that line, midway between the continent and the island of Vancouver, which is designated by the treaty? And if Douglas's Channel fulfils this condition, is it not the line most in accordance with the treaty, as well as with general policy and convenience?

"In treaties by which a water or river boundary is established between two states-as, for instance, in the treaty between Great Britain and the United States of 1783-the dividing line is usually run along the mid-channel or 'Thalweg,' leaving to one state or the other any island which may be in the channel, according as these islands lie on the one side or on the other of the dividing boundary, but seldom if ever mentioning such islands. The same principle may be applied to the treaty of 1846. The treaty continues the dividing line of the forty-ninth parallel to a point in the water half way between the mainland and Vancouver's Island, and it says, in effect, that the boundary line shall be continued southward, along the middle of that channel-that is to say, along the middle of the space which lies between the continent and Vancouver's Island-till it reaches the Straits of Fuca.

"General Cass indeed observes, that the way selected should be the shortest and the best way;' that the Canal de Haro is the broadest, the deepest, and the shortest route' by which the Straits of Fuca can be reached from the point of deflection. But the treaty says nothing of the 'best' way, nor of the 'broadest,' nor of the 'deepest,' nor of the 'shortest' route. The reason is obvious. The object was not to enable vessels to reach the Pacific Ocean by the shortest route-that object is provided for by the other part of the article, which provides that the navigation of the whole of the