names provided for these territories by the British proclamation of 1763; for in the maps of D'Anville and many others we find mention made of Floride or Florida in the singular number, and where this happened Louisiana at the same time was commonly made to cover a large space of country to the east of the Mississippi. This remark is of some moment in the present controversy, as a total change has taken place on this subject when the Floridas have become spoken of in the plural number, and Louisiana stands limited to the east by the Mississippi. But to return to the treaty of 1795.

This treaty of 1795 was not content with merely "designating" the course of the boundary between the United States and the Floridas; for it directed the appointment of a commissioner and a surveyor by each government, in order "to run and mark this boundary." It added; they shall make plats [or maps] and keep journals of their proceedings, which shall be considered as part of this convention [or treaty] and shall have the same force as if the same were inserted therein.'

A private journal by Mr. Andrew Ellicott (the American commissioner, who was employed between 1796 and 1800 in the prosecution of this concern) has long been before the publick, accompanied with maps and an Appendix. From this work (printed at Philadelphia in 1803 and containing 450 quarto pages) the following particulars are selected, which doubtless found a place in his official report. 1. A post or pillar was erected eighty-eight French feet from the MARGIN of the Mississippi in N. lat. 31°, with Spanish memorials on its southern face and American memorials on its northern face. At the same time, marks, mounds, stones or posts were suitably placed in the course of the survey along the rest of the boundary, and particularly in cases where astronomical facts were to be recorded (on which the survey was chiefly founded.) 2. Though the series of the miles measured was numbered in an easterly course, from the utmost bounds to which the annual inundation of the Mississippi extended on the eastern side in 31o N. lat. yet an opportunity was taken to carry back this line to the very margin of the river; and this margin was found to be two miles and one hundred and eighty rods distant to the west from the above "high-water mark." 3. Plats and journals duly authenticated appear to have been furnished pursuant to the treaty. 4. After the report of the work performed was agreed to, posses

sion of the territory was either held, or after a certain time assum. ed, by the respective parties in conformity to the line thus run.*

Three other circumstances resting on the evidence of Mr. Ellicott may now be noticed to advantage; and they will be given according to the order of time, in which they occurred.

1. This gentleman, who collected on the spot, during his official operations, the history of what he relates, informs us, "that the country on the EAST of the Mississippi and NORTH of the island of Orleans was PEACEABLY possessed from the peace of 1763, till after the commencement of our revolutionary war in the year 1775, by GREAT BRITAIN." This POSSESSION by the British of the western parts of West Florida, during this period, shows the efficacy of the treaty of 1762-3, which gave the two Floridas to the British.t

2. At the commencement of our revolutionary war Great Britain still held the south-west part of the present territory of the U. States, and she continued to hold it until 1779, when it was surrendered, not to us, but to a military force of the Spaniards, who had then become our allies. Though the claim of Great Britain to these districts was finally abandoned to us by the provisional articles of our peace of November 30, 1782, yet Spain remained in possession till the lines between the United States and the Floridas were on the point of being run, pursuant to the treaty of 1795; a part of the inhabitants being in favour of her government ‡

3. The treaty, by which we afterwards purchased the title of Bonaparte to Louisiana, was dated April 30, 1803, and Mr. Ellicott thus interprets its principal article, within three months after its date at Paris. "It does not appear (he says) by the cession of Louisiana to the United States, that we obtain the whole of both sides of the Mississippi, for by consulting No. 5 of the maps, it

* The authority for the four assertions in this paragraph will be found in Mr. Ellicott's work as follows: Consult, for Article 1, his Appendix, p. 49-57, and particularly the report by William Dunbar, esq. who acted for the king of Spain. For Art. 2, consult the Appendix, p. 55, 56 and map No. 2. For Art. 3, consult the Journal, p. [193, 194,] [278, 279,] and [296.] For Art. 4, consult the Journal, p. [129-133] and many other passages.

See the Journal, p. [129-133] and many other passages.

See many parts of the Journal. Indeed Mr. Ellicott seems to have been a principal agent in procuring the evacuation of the country by the Spaniards, while on his way to run the boundary.

will be seen, that the island of New Orleans `(which lies on the east side of the Mississippi) only extends north to Manshack.* From thence, northerly (along the east side of the river) to the northern boundary of the United States, is STILL HELD by his Catholick Majesty as a part of WEST FLORIDA." This opinion, it is to be observed, is given in a preface to the above work, bearing date July 23, 1803; and as it proceeds from the commissioner appointed by our administration for settling this very boundary, it is invaluable, since he was fully informed of facts from history, from treaties, from local information, and from communications received from his own government. It is, in short, the testimony of an official and intelligent man given impartially. It is also not pronounced once only, but he several times repeats it in different shapes.

What has disturbed this respect and deference on our side once paid to the Spanish rights in this quarter, will be inquired into under our next head.

VI. An account of the proceedings of the United States after their acquisition of Louisiana in 1803.

As soon as the United States had acquired Louisiana, the boundaries of the Floridas were contemplated under a new aspect by our administration. It was no longer upon the bounds to Louisiana derived from republican France that they chose to rest, but on the bounds once set up by France under its monarchy, for these latter bounds (as they thought) would secure to them the western parts of West Florida.

Under colour of this claim, our administration is understood to have made official demands on Spain for a part of West Florida, as if it belonged to Louisiana. They are also said to have made an official appeal for support in this claim to Bonaparte's ministry. From neither quarter did they obtain the satisfaction desired, owing to considerations to be mentioned under the next head. Thus disappointed in its negociations, our administration next resorted to arms, and took military possession of the parts of West Florida in question, intimating, however, that it might quit them again, if Spain should show a better title.

In this position, the affair, at this moment, rests: that is, we have made an unfounded demand, and we have seized and still hold the object of it, in spite of remonstrance.

* See note B. at the end.

VII. An account of the motive for CEDING LOUISIANA TO SPAIN in 1762, with the details and consequences of that cession.

As it may have seemed extraordinary, that France should havemade a present of Louisiana to Spain, and the transaction is important to the present dispute, we shall give the necessary statement of it in this place.

Louis XIV. of France, the third sovereign of the Bourbon family, succeeded in placing his grandson Philip (duke of Anjou) on the throne of Spain; and this Spanish branch of the Bourbons succeeded also in giving sovereigns to Naples and to Parma. Hence Louis XV. of France took occasion to conclude a treaty with Spain, with a view to unite all the Bourbon sovereigns, which treaty was dated Aug. 15, 1761, and was called “ The family compact of the Bourbons," an opening being left in it for the accession of Naplest and Parma.

By this treaty it was agreed "whoever attacked one crown attacked the other.” On this ground, Spain soon joined France in the war she was then maintaining against Great Britain. But Spain quickly losing the Havanna and Cuba to Great Britain, France became convinced by this and other circumstances, that it was for the interest of both to bring the war to an immediate termination.—But now another principle came into play, for it had been agreed in the above family compact, that when France and Spain should terminate by peace the war they should have suffered in common, they would balance the advantages which one of the two powers might have received against the losses of the other; so that (in the conditions of peace, as in the operations of war) the two monarchs of France and Spain throughout the extent of

France reckons three great races of kings; namely, the Merovingian, beginning, as some say, with Clovis in 481; the Carlovingian, beginning with Pepin in 751; and the Capetian, beginning with Hugh Capet in 987. Henry III. ended the line of Valois under the Capetian race and was succeeded in 1589 by the famous Henry IV. who was also of the Capetian race but of the Bourbon family. He began the Bourbon dynasty, and, adding the kingdom of Navarre to that of France, he was called king of France and Navarre, which title was borne by his descendants Louis XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. (who died a child and prisoner to his subjects) and XVIII. (who is just placed on his throne.)

In this treaty the king of Naples is called king of the Two Sicilies, a title repeatedly given to the king of Naples, while possessed of the two

Sicilies.

1

their empire, should be considered and would act, as if they formed but one and the same power.* But, notwithstanding this condition, it so happened, when the peace of 1762-3 was negociated, that France possessed no balance of advantages to sacrifice to England, in order to procure for Spain the restoration of the Havan-. na and Cuba. France, therefore, determined to give up one of her own unconquered territories in order to buy such a peace for Spain, and this territory was Louisiana, which then crossed the Mississippi to the east. This was to be made over to Spain on condition of her joining with France in a transfer to England of every thing lying to the east of the Mississippi, England having consented to receive the territory thus bounded, as the equivalent for her Spanish conquests. France having no other motive whatever for this great sacrifice, it appears to have been agreed with the Spanish negociator at Paris, that the formal offer of Louisiana to his own court should take place through himself on the very day (November 3, 1762) when this tract of country was offered to England. Two circumstances rendered this a secure proceeding; for, first, France merely offered (but did not at that time cede) Louisiana to Spain; and, next, even the cession of Florida to England was open to recall (the preliminaries of the peace being made subject to ratification.) In the event, however, the whole transaction became established, by the acceptance of Louisiana, under its new limits, on the part of Spain, on the 13th November, 1763, and also by a ratification of the preliminaries with England, on the 22d of the same month.†

Hence it appears that these were not merely contemporary but connected transactions; all being to be established together or all to be rejected together. All, however, being established together, the acceptance of Louisiana is to be considered as operating back to the date of the offer of it; while the ratification of the pre

* For a copy of the Treaty or Family Compact of the House of Bourbon (Pacte de Famille de la Maison de Bourbon) see Chalmer's Collection of Treaties, I. 552, Debrett's Collection, III. 70, or Almon's Remembrancer for 1778, the original, in the last case, accompanying the translation.

For the date of the acceptance of the offer of Louisiana, see Louis XV's letter to Mons. D' Abbadie in Mr. Ellicotts Journal, p. [128] or in the Annual Register for 1765, p. [271.]-For the date of the ratification of the preliminaries of 1762, see the Annual Register for 1762, p. [108.]