ve a prompt reply, showing the clearness of judgment
by which every argument had been maintained. In order to explain why
such a question should be brought up forty-seven years after the treaty
had been signed, he showed that it was founded on some indefinite or
ambiguous clauses of the treaty of 1783, but not proposed until 1820.
Here was a delicate point for His Majesty to settle without giving
offence to either English or Americans. But Sir Howard was resolved to
support the claim which contended for the rights of his nation--for
justice and for truth. He was not desiring territory, but protection and
security to the interests of his people, _security_ to prevent the
Americans from claiming the privileges of the St. John river or
classifying the Bay of Fundy rivers with those emptying into the
Atlantic. However, a decision at length was given which did not meet the
wishes of either party, but the matter was set partially at rest.

Soon afterwards Sir Howard was engaged in discussing the cause and
events of the Belgian insurrection. He showed to the British Government
the design which France had contrived to her aggrandizement by the
dissolution of the Netherlands, and urged intervention on the part of
the British Government. The measures taken in determining the strength
of the Dutch territory and the trouble thus averted which must have
involved war and bloodshed, secured the hearty thanks of the English
monarch who acknowledged the debt of gratitude in terms of deep
sincerity.

The colonists were now awaiting Sir Howard's return with great anxiety,
watching his movements with deep concern. Hope once more filled their
hearts as news spread abroad that their ruler was making preparations to
return to New Brunswick. But a new source of uneasiness arose. The Home
Government raised a question abolishing the protection on colonial
timber. Sir Howard was aroused to a sense of the situation. By the
abolition of such protection the trade of New Brunswick and the other
colonies would be ruined, while the Baltic trade would reap the benefit.
Was he to tamely submit to measures injuring the resources of the people
whom he represented? No, he would appeal in a manner that would have
public sympathy. Hence was produced the well written pamphlet bearing
his name, setting forth the grievance in a way that could not fail to
prove the justice of the cause. Every point was discussed with clearness
and based upon the most reliable fa