DESPATCHES, EEPOETS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 119 



of an independent State to occupy and use at its discretion any por- 

 tion of the territory of another, without compensation or correspond- 

 ing indulgence, cannot rest on any other foundation than conven- 

 tional stipulation. It is unnecessary to enquire into the motives 

 which might have originally influenced Great Britain in conceding 

 such liberties to the United States, or whether other articles of the 

 treaty wherein these liberties are specified did, or did not, in fact, 

 afford an equivalent for them, because all the stipulations profess to 

 be founded on reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience. If 

 the United States derived from that treaty privileges from which 

 other independent nations not admitted by treaty were excluded, the 

 duration of the privileges must depend on the duration of the instru- 

 ment by which they were granted; and if the war abrogated the 

 treaty, it determined the privileges. It has been urged, indeed, on 

 the part of the United States, that the treaty of 1783 was of a pecu- 

 liar character, and that, because it contained a recognition of Ameri- 

 can independence, it could not be abrogated by a subsequent war be- 

 tween the parties. To a position of this novel nature Great Britain 

 cannot accede. She knows of no exception to the rule, that all treaties 

 are put an end to by a subsequent war between the same parties: 

 she cannot, therefore, consent to give to her diplomatic rela- 

 70 tions with one State a different degree of permanency from 

 that on which her connection with all other States depends. 

 Nor can she consider any one State at liberty to assign to a treaty 

 made with her such a peculiarity of character as shall make it, as to 

 duration, an exception to all other treaties, in order to found, on a 

 peculiarity thus assumed, an irrevocable title to all indulgences, 

 which have all the features of temporary concessions. 



The treaty of Ghent has been brought forward by the American 

 Minister as supporting, by its reference to the boundary line of the 

 United States, as fixed by the treaty of 1783, the opinion that the 

 treaty of 1783 was not abrogated by the war. The undersigned, 

 however, cannot observe in any one of its articles any express or im- 

 plied reference to the treaty of 1783 as still in force. It will not be 

 denied that the main object of the treaty of Ghent was the mutual 

 restoration of all territory taken by either party from the other dur- 

 ing the war. As a necessary consequence of such a stipulation, each 

 party reverted to their boundaries as before the war, without refer- 

 ence to the title by which these possessions were acquired, or to the 

 mode in which their boundaries had been previously fixed. In point 

 of fact, the United States had before acquired possession of terri- 

 tories asserted to depend on other titles than those which Great 

 Britain could confer. The treaty of Ghent, indeed, adverted, as a 

 fact of possession, to certain boundaries of the United States which 

 were specified in the treaty of 1783; but surely it will not be con- 

 tended that therefore the treaty of 1783 was not considered at an end. 



It is justly stated by the American Minister that the United States 

 did not need a new grant of the boundary line. The war did not arise 

 out of a contested boundary; and Great Britain, therefore, by the 

 act of treating with the United States, recognised that nation in its 

 former dimensions, excepting so far as the jus belli had interfered 

 with them; and it was the object of the treaty of Ghent to cede such 

 rights to territory as the jus belli had conferred. 



