SINCE the article in our June number on the Oregon question, two of the British Quarterly Reviews have contained articles on the same subject, which may be regarded as expressions of the views of the two parties into which the people of Great Britain are divided. The Edinburgh reasons in a liberal spirit; and though it leans to the British side, thinks, nevertheless, that there may be some justice on ours, and counsels moderation. The Foreign Quarterly is insane in its hatred of America and everything American, sees nothing in our claims but unfounded pretensions, and appears to think that nothing more is needed than British threats to frighten us into an abandonment of them. Neither of these articles in itself would be entitled to much consideration; but they are to be treated differently. The Edinburgh is moderate, and should be answered with reasons; the Foreign Quarterly is too furious to be reasoned with, if its braggart tone did not place it beyond the pale of argument. Perhaps our readers would like to see the latest arguments of the English in a condensed form. We will give them, therefore, a summary of the argument of the Edinburgh, passing over all that part of the article which does not relate strictly to the disputed question. It begins with assuming that sovereignty over an unoccupied country may be acquired by five different means; discovery, settlement, contiguity, treaty, and prescription; and it VOL. XVII.-NO. LXXXIX. lays down the preliminary proposition, that the acts by which the sovereignty is acquired must be the acts of a government, not of unauthorized individuals. As to discovery: it admits that the title of Spain, so far as that could give it, was complete, and it rejects the claims arising from discovery of both the English and Americans. As to our claim to the country of the Columbia, founded upon the discovery of the river, it gives three reasons for rejecting it: first, that Gray was not actually the first discoverer; second, that if he were, he was but a private individual; and third, that the discovery of a river gives no title to the country drained by it; three reasons any one of which would be sufficient, if it were well founded. As to settlement: it rejects equally the claims of America, of England, and of Spain, on the ground that all the settlements, small and partial at best, were the unauthorized acts of private individuals, up to the time of the Convention of 1818, since which no act of either America or England can have affected the title. As to treaty: it admits that the Convention of the Escurial ought to be deemed a temporary arrangement, and that either nation has the right to terminate it, as it has the right to terminate the Convention of 1818. Then it insists that our claim, founded on purchase from Spain, is sophistical, for the reason, as we understand it, that we ceded to Spain the territory below 42, to which we had no title, and, 21 therefore, could, under the same treaty, take no title from Spain to the territory north of that parallel; a reason the force of which we acknowledge ourselves unable to perceive. Prescription it considers inapplicable to a case so recent; and as to contiguity, while it insists that neither America nor England can claim a perfect title by contiguity, it nevertheless admits that each has an imperfect title from that source to the portion of Oregon which adjoins its own frontier; America to that south of the 49th parallel, and England to the rest. Upon the whole, it maintains that the dispute is one eminently proper to be adjusted by arbitration, and thinks that an honest arbitrator would divide the territory by the 49th parallel, giving, however, the whole of Vancouver's Island to England. Such is a very brief summary of the argument of the Edinburgh. Our readers will perceive that it makes no claim upon the pretended discoveries of Drake, and that it abandons what we considered the strongest ground of the English claim, the Convention of the Escurial. Its other positions, viz., the denial of the priority of Gray's discovery, the denial of right acquired from discovery or settlement by private persons, and the denial that the discovery of a river gives a claim to the territory which it waters, demand some notice from us. First, as to the priority of Gray's discovery. His only competitor is Heceta. The existence of the great river of the west was matter of tradition and of general belief long before his time. Who first actually discovered it is the question. To have seen the coast where the river empties itself was not enough; that must have been done by all who coasted along the shore. To constitute a discovery of the river, it was necessary either to enter it or to see it, knowing it to be a river. Heceta's account of what he saw is as follows: "In the evening of this day, I discovered a large bay, to which I gave the name of Assumption Bay, and of which a plan will be found in this journal. Its fatitude and longitude are determined according to the most exact means afforded by theory and practice. "The latitudes of the two most prominent capes of this bay, especially of the Having arrived opposite this bay at six in the evening, and placed the ship nearly midway between the two capes, sounded, and found bottom in twentyfour brazas; the currents and eddies were so strong that, notwithstanding a press of sail, it was difficult to get out clear of the northern cape, towards which the current ran, though its direction was eastward, in consequence of the tide being at flood. 66 These currents and eddies of the is the mouth of some great river, or of water caused me to believe that the place some passage to another sea. "Had I been certain of the latitude of this bay, from my observations of the same day, I might easily have believed it to be the passage discovered by Juan de Fuca, in 1592, which is placed on the charts between the 47th and the 48th degrees, where I am certain that no such strait exists; because I anchored on the 14th of July, midway between these two latitudes, and carefully examined everything around. "Notwithstanding the great difference between the position of this bay and the passage mentioned by De Fuca, I have little difficulty in conceiving that they may be the same, having observed equal other capes and ports on this coast, as I or greater differences in the latitudes of shall show at its proper time; and in all cases the latitudes thus assigned are higher than the real ones. "I did not enter and anchor in this port, which in my plan I suppose to be formed by an island, notwithstanding my strong desire to do so; because, having consulted the second captain, Don Juan Perez, and the pilot, Don Christoval Revilla, they insisted that I ought not to attempt it, as, if we let go the anchor, we should not have men enough to get it up, and to attend to the other operations which would be thereby rendered necessary. Considering this, and also that, in order to reach the anchorage, I should be obliged to lower my long boat (the only boat I had), and to man it with at least fourteen of the crew, as I could not manage with fewer, and also that it was then late in the day, I resolved to put out; and at the distance of three or four leagues I lay to. In the course of that night I experienced heavy currents to the south-east, which made it impossible for me to enter the bay on the following morning, as I was far to leeward. "These currents, however, convinced me that a great quantity of water rushed from this bay on the ebb of the tide. "The two capes which I name in my plan Cape San Roque and Cape Frondosa, lie in the angle of ten degrees of the |