Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 19.djvu/322

304 LESTER BURRELL SHIPPER treaty . . . has come into operation new differences have arisen, and old ones have been revived. A fresh proof how true it is that undue concessions, instead of securing peace, only increase the appetite for aggres- sion." 32 Sir Robert Peel, replying to this charge by Palmerston, told the House that allowance must be made for the "position of a government so open to popular influence." He had received assurances that the executive government of the United States desired to come to an adjustment and he was convinced that, unless there was a revival of bitter feelings between the two countries, the attempt to settle the question by negotiation would be successful. Even if the bill should pass the other house, which he did not think possible, the president would not give his approval after expressing his desire to negotiate. Macaulay thought that the Senate was sufficiently removed from popular influences to make their action ominous; when such a body of men of greatest weight and distinguished for their ability could take such action it showed the state of public feeling in America resulting from the treaty. 33 There is absolutely no evidence to support the belief that the Senators responsible for the passage of the Oregon bill were, as the Times thought, doing it for effect and not in earnest. If they could have had their way all the terms of the measure would have been enforced at the earliest possible moment. On the other hand there is no support for the charge that those close to the Administration and those who were responsible in more than ordinary measure for the action of each house were deterred by fear of British displeasure. A variety of motives are to be found. Most of them believed that, when the moment for action had arrived, the proper step was to annul the treaties in accordance with their provisions, but they believed that the question could be settled by negotiation before that act should be necessary. Furthermore the whole matter was not an issue to be considered by itself alone ; it was bound 32 3 Hans. 67:1216-7. 33 Ibid., 1225, 6; 1264, 5. At a later date similar statements were made by Peel when Mr. Blewitt called attention to the insulting language of Mr. Linn in the Senate. Peel's jocose response seemed to meet with the approval of the House and showed no tension in Parliament.