299 



dieted in consequence of colonial importunities and representations, by 

 the present prime minister of England, while holding the office of Sec- 

 retary for the Colonies? 



In the course of frequent researches among state papers, I do not 

 remember to have seen a pubhc document of such a singular character 

 as his lordship's despatch to Lord Falkland. The American people 

 are distinctly told in il that colonial interference has alone prevented 

 the home government from executing a determination already formed, 

 to put an end to all difficulties on tiie fishing grounds within Biitish 

 jurisdiction. How often has it happened that an Enghsh statesman, 

 while assuming the political responsibility of an act, has cast the moral 

 responsibility of it upon the subjects under his spe^-ial care? When 

 has a secretary for the colonies made known to the world that the 

 representations of colonists have set aside the "intentions" of the cabi- 

 net ministers of the crown ? I do not ask how often colonial remon- 

 strances have actually prevailed with the ministry; but how frequently 

 has colonial opposition to a course of policy been avowed by ministers 

 as their reason for a change of pui'pose ? The common tijrm of an- 

 nouncing a cabinet decision is not that employed by Lord Stanley, in 

 his despatch of March 30th to Sir Wilham Colebrooke;* still that de- 

 cision was deemed honorable and liberal. The motive there stated for 

 opening the Bay of Fundy is, "/Ae removal of a fertile source of disiigree- 

 tnenV between the United States and Great Britain. But in the des- 

 patch to Lord Falkland, of September 17th, though the same induce- 

 ments existed m full force for her Majesty's government to execute the 

 "intention" of opening the other "bays" to our fishermen in order to 

 perfect and perpetuate harmonious feeling, yet that "intention was 

 abandoned" on account of Lord Falkland's "statements." 



This despatch has been once quoted; but since it should be con- 

 tinually kept in view, it may be cited again: 



"Downing Street, Scpemher 17, 1845. 



" My Lord ;***** Her Majesty's government have at- 

 tentively considered the representations contained in your despatches, 

 Nos. 324 and 331, of the 17th June and the 2d July, respecting the 



* This document has not been previously inserted. It bears date Marcli 30, 1845, and is 

 addressed to Sir William Colebrooke, lieutenant governor of New Brunswick. It was the 

 first official annunciation to the people of that colony of the arrangement with Mr. Everett. 

 The colonial newspapers commented upon the course of the ministry in terms of great se- 

 verity, dii'ectly, and for some time after its publication. 



"Sir: I have the honor to acquaint you, for your infonnation and guidance, that her Ma- 

 jesty's goverumeut have had under their consideration the claim of citizens of the United 

 States to fish in the Bay of Fundy— a claim which has hitherto been resisted on the ground that 

 that bay is included within the British possessions. 



" Her Majesty's government feel satisfied that the Bay of Fundy has been rightly claimed by 

 Great Britain as a bay within the treaty of 1818; but they conceive that the rela.xation of the 

 exercise of that right would be attended with mutual advantage to both countries: to the 

 United States as conferring a material benefit on their fishing trade, and to Great Britain and 

 the United States conjointly and equally by the removal of a fertile source of disagreement 

 between them. It has accordingly been announced to the United States government that 

 American citizens would henceforward be allowed to fish in any part of the Bay of Fundy, pro- 

 vided they do not approach, except in the cases specified in the treaty of 1818, within three 

 miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. 



have, «&c., 



"STANLEY." 



