Occasion was taken at the same time to explain to Mr. Fox, in answer to the suggestion in his note of the 10th of January last, that the parallel of latitude adopted as a conventional substitute for the line designated in the treaty for the boundary westward from the Lake of the Woods passed over territory within the exclusive jurisdiction of the General Government, without trenching upon the rights or claims of any member of the Union, and the legitimate power of the Government, therefore, to agree to such line was held to be perfect, but that in acceding to a conventional line for the boundary eastward from the river Connecticut it would transcend its constitutional powers, since such a measure could only be carried into effect by violating the jurisdiction of a sovereign State and assuming to alienate a portion of the territory claimed by such State. In reply to the observation of Mr. Fox that it was difficult to understand upon what ground an expectation could have been entertained that the proposition to make the St. John the boundary would be received by Her Majesty's Government, he was informed that the suggestion had been offered, as the proposition on the part of Great Britain that led to it was supposed to have been, with regard to the extent of territory lost or acquired by the respective parties, and in the hope that the great importance of terminating this controversy by establishing a definite and indisputable boundary would be seen and acknowledged by the British Government, and have a correspondent weight in influencing its decision; that the suggestion in Mr. Bankhead's note of 28th December, 1835, of a part of the river St. John as a portion of the general outline of a conventional boundary, apparently recognized the superior advantages of a river over a highland boundary, and that no difficulty was anticipated on the part of Her Majesty's Government in understanding the grounds upon which such a proposal was expected to be entertained by it, since the precedent proposition of Mr. Bankhead just alluded to, although based upon the principle of an equal division between the parties, could not be justified by it, as it would have given nearly two-thirds of the disputed territory to Great Britain; that it was therefore fair to presume that the river line, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, presented advantages sufficient to counterbalance any loss of territory by either party that might accrue from its adoption; and it was also supposed that another recommendation of this line would be seen by Great Britain in the fact that whilst by its adoption the right of jurisdiction alone would have been yielded to the United States over that portion of New Brunswick south of the St. John, Great Britain would have acquired the right of soil and jurisdiction of all the disputed territory north of that river.