since the revolution out of the ancient province of Nova Scotia,) and that the place where this violation of the laws of New-Brunswick took place, was one hundred miles North West of Mars hill, which, according to the argument, is the North West corner of that province. This arrest has attracted the particular attention of the community to this controversy, and having stated the grounds upon which the conflicting claims of the parties depend, we proceed to narrate the circumstances which led to this occur rence. For many years after the flight of the French settlers of Nova Scotia, into the wilderness, in order to avoid being transported to the West Indies, they remained unknown; and it was not till half a century after their flight that the authorities of N. Brunswick ever undertook to exercise any authority over them, viz. in 1790 and in 1794, after the treaty of peace, when Thomas Carleton, Lt. Governor of New-Brunswick, issued several grants to some of the settlers, of which fact it does not appear that the American Government was conusant. From the time of those grants they remained unnoticed until about 15 years since, when a contested election in York induced some of those interested to bring them to the polls, but their right has not been generally admitted, being refused or permitted as suited the views of those in power. Since the dispute concerning the boundary line commenced, a more direct course to acquire jurisdiction over them has been pursued by the British authorities. For five or six years past the French settlers have been enrolled in the militia, and have performed military duty, but have not been entrusted with arms; and they have occasionally been subjected to the civil process of the NewBrunswick courts. These circumstances having caused dissatisfaction among the settlers, (some of whom were emigrants from the Kennebec,) a portion of them began to question the right of the provincial authorities over them. Among other acts indicative of their sentiments, they celebrated the 4th of July, and John Baker, a citizen of Maine, who had resided there about seven years, undertook to prohibit the passage of the mail from Quebec to Halifax, through the Madawaska settlement. For this act he was arrested, and being arraigned before the courts of New-Brunswick, was convicted of a misdemeanor for seditiously obstructing his Majesty's mail and disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the province of New-Brunswick. This decisive and open exercise of exclusive jurisdiction on the part of the provincial authorities, over the territory in dispute between the two Governments, produced great irritation among the people of Maine, and the Governors of that State and NAVIGATION OF ST. LAWRENCE. of Massachusetts took immediate steps to inquire into the transaction, with the view of sustaining their territorial rights. The National Government also protested against the usurpation of the province of New-Brunswick, as a violation of the agreement between the govern ments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the disputed territory, and required the release of Baker and indemnity for his imprisonment; but the British minister defended his punishment on the ground that his act was an unauthorised irregularity, although he promised to lay the demand of the American Government before the king, and concluded with expressing a wish that the mode of arbitration, which was the result of this correspondence might put the question at rest for ever, by determining the boundary line. The assumption of authority on the part of Great Britain, over the disputed territory, was in the sequel earnestly protested against by Mr. Clay as inconsistent with the mode ration, which it was understood by both governments should be manifested in relation to it, and be incompatible with the rights of the United States. This correspondence resulted in a convention with Great Britain, by which it was agreed that definitive statements of all the facts connected with the boundary, and counter statements in reply, should be pre 11 pared within twenty-one months after the ratification of the convention, and that the whole should be submitted within two years to the arbitriment of some friendly power, whose decision should be obtained if practicable within two years thereafter. In this manner a mode was provided for the amicable adjustment of a controversy, which at one time endangered the friendly relations of the two Governments. The negociations concerning the right of the citizens of the United States to navigate the St. Lawrence, did not terminate in so satisfactory a manner. The British negocia tors at one time endeavoured to connect the two questions together, with the view of obtaining remuneration of our claim concerning the North Eastern boundary, as an equivalent for permission to navigate the St. Lawrence; but the federal gov ernment declined to accede to that proposition. Indeed it may well be doubted, whether the territorial rights of Maine and Massachusetts could be bartered away for the navigation of a river, in which neither of them have any concern. Such was the view of the National Government, and the negociations on these subjects were accordingly kept distinct. In the correspondence concerning the St. Lawrence, which will be found in the latter part of this volume among the public documents, the British Government steadily denied the naked right of American citizens to navigate this river beyond the place where it become a part of the boundary line, and contended that it was one of those qualified rights, the exercise of which depended upon the will of the government in whose territory the river emptied itself. The argument by which this position was sustained, was derived from the right which every nation possesses to prohibit either in whole or in part, the citizens of other countries from visiting its territories for commercial or other purposes. On the other hand, the American Government maintained, that that argument was inapplicable inasmuch as its citizens did not ask to visit the British territories, but merely demanded the innocent right of passage through them; and that as the St. Lawrence was not similar to a river, a great part of whose course was within the British territories, but was the only outlet of five great inland lakes, and was rather a strait connecting navigable seas, the convenience of the vast population, and the interests of the fertile country on their shores, created a right of access to the ocean, which ought not to be sacrificed to the jealousy of the smaller population of the limited territory on the banks of the St. Lawrence. The right of passage down that river was entirely refused by the British Government; but an expectation prevailed, that rather than provoke the United States to retaliatory measures in that part of the river exclusively within their jurisdiction, the benefits of the navigation would be extended to the citizens of the United States by act of Parliament, although from an absurd and lingering attachment to her antiquated system of colonial monopoly, that government declined to admit the unqualified right of passage. While these discussions concerning boundaries and the use of boundary rivers were progressing, other questions relating to our neutral and maritime rights, arose with one of the new American powers, which by an unadvised step on the part of the American minister at that court, seriously embarrassed the Government of the United States. In prosecuting the war with Buenos Ayres, the Emperor of Brazil determined to avail himself of his naval superiority by blockading the Rio de La Plata. This blockade of necessity circumscribed the commercial advantages which the citizens of the United States, as neutrals, would otherwise have derived from carrying supplies to the ports of Buenos Ayres; but to such inconveniences they were obliged to submit, provided the blockade was closely and effectually maintained. In that case the rights of the neutral The Brazilian fleet was sufficiently numerous to maintain a rigorous blockade, but in point of fact the blockading squadron was so often eluded, owing to a want of skill or energy on the part of its commanders, that it might be fairly regarded as inadequate to its duties. This སྙ must give place to those of the bel- of Great Britain. It was unavoidaligerent. ble, in this state of things, that in the prosecution of the war, many violations of our neutral rights should not occur; and when the character of the Brazilian Navy and of its Government is taken into consideration, it is easy to believe that the exercise of their belligerent rights was not always tempered with discretion, or a spirit of forbearance and humanity. Against these invasions of neutral rights, both in principle and practice, the Government of the United States strongly protested, and the energetic remonstrances of Mr. Condy Raguet, the American Minister at the Court of Brazil, supported as they were by the presence of a naval force, under Capts. Biddle, Elliott and Hoffman, induced Don Pedro to relinquish the attempt to enforce a paper blockade, and to acquiesce in the principle contended for by the American Government, viz: that no vessel is liable to detention, unless manifestly evincing an intention to violate the blockade, after having been warned off, and that no vessels on the high seas should be detained, although destined to blockaded ports. state of affairs gave rise to a perplexing question: for while the Americans had a right to infer from the looseness with which the blockade was kept up, that it was not an effectual blockade, and of course not entitled to respect; the Brazilian Government maintained that these violations were owing to the lenity of its officers, and to the manner in which neutrals abused the permission granted to them to visit Monte Video, from which place they often cleared out for ports in the Pacific, and taking advantage of a fair wind, run by the Brazilian fleet into Buenos Ayres. The difficulties caused by these circumstances, were also increased by the attempts which Brazil made to supply the inefficiency of her naval officers, by setting up the pretension of enforcing what is commonly called a paper blockade. This pretension, which on the part of Brazil might justly be considered as absurd, the Government of the United States, - faithful to its principles, resisted, as it had formerly done when advanced by the more powerful Government The Brazilian cruizers, however, continued to capture American vessels for alleged violations of the actual blockade, and a warm and unpleasant discussion commenced between the Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mr. Raguet, in relation to these captures, which terminated in the abrupt departure of the latter from the Court of Brazil. The immediate cause of this decisive step, was the seizure of the brig Spark, formerly a public armed vessel in the American service, but at that time belonging to citizens of the United States. This vessel was first offered for sale at Rio Janeiro to the Brazilian Government, which refused to purchase her: The captain then cleared out for Monte Video, and the day of her departure she was captured off the port of Rio Janeiro, and carried back, on the ground that she had augmented her armament and crew while in Rio Janeiro, and that these circumstances raised strong suspicions that she was intended to be sold to the government of Buenos Ayres. Mr. Raguet immediately inquired into the motive to this seizure, which was given by the Brazilian Minister, who invited him to cause these suspicious circumstances to be explained, so that the vessel might be released. This invitation was at once declined by Mr. Raguet, on account of the uncourteous conduct of the Brazilian Government,and because the seizure had been made before his interference was requested, and the next day, March 8th, 1927, he demanded his passports, which being granted, he sailed for the United States. Although this seizure of the Spark was the alleged cause of this step on the part of Mr. Raguet, it is obvious that other circumstances operated upon his mind, and had produced an irritated state of feeling very unfavourable to the temperate discussion of those questions, which grow out of the col. lisions between neutral and bellige tent rights; and in one remarkable instance, he had compromitted the character of a Minister by language which did more honour to his feelings as a man, than to his discretion as the representative of a foreign power. We allude to his No strong and severe denunciation of the Brazilian nation to the under Secretary of Foreign Affairs, on account of an outrage committed by one of its naval officers, upon a Spanish subject on board of a Spanish ship on the high seas. doubt can exist as to the nature of that transaction, and no expression of individual opinion could stigmatize it too strongly; but it did not fall within the sphere of the legitimate duties of a Minister of a third party, to notice it in his official capacity; and it was compromising his character to introduce it in his discussions with the Brazilian Government. Under such circumstances, the unauthorized departure of Mr. Raguet from his station, placed his Government in a most embarrassing situation. Many illegal captures had been made, and unwarrantable measures |