The Americans, not aware, of course, of the expedition against New Orleans, accepted the viewpoint advanced as to the disputed words, but while rejecting the words, indicated that they would be “willing to admit such a modification as should secure the right of Great Britain from being affected or impaired by yielding possession of the Islands to the United States.” (Updyke, p. 343.) The British ministers replied, arguing England’s position. That position in effect was, that during the war she had taken these islands, the title to which was in dispute, and that to call upon her to restore them, because they were occupied by the United States at the beginning of the war, would be unjust; that having agreed to a commission to settle the ownership of the islands, she was willing, if need be, to accede to a clause which would especially guard the ultimate right against the prejudice which the American ministers feared might arise from the continued possession by Great Britain. The British ministers admitted the comparatively small value of the territory in question, but claimed that yielding possession of the Islands involved a point of honor on the part of Great Britain, and, if insisted upon, might make the conclusion of peace impossible. (See Updyke, pp. 343-344; report of conference of Dec. 12, 1814, given by British Commissioners to Lord Castlereagh.) The Americans yielded the point, and thus it appears that the British Government secured the accession of the principle of the great concealed objective on a matter of minor importance. Thus the word “possessions” was admitted into the mutual restoration clause of the peace treaty. That mutual restoration clause, as adopted, and incorporated in Article 1, of the Treaty of Ghent, reads as follows: