BAIT-FISH EXPANSION AND CONFLICT 231 



fide, and the same admissions were made with regard to the 

 Treaty of 1 8 1 8. 1 Neither Lord Salisbury nor Lord Granville 

 defended vindictive laws, which were meant to nullify the con- 

 cessions of 1818. On ascertaining that this was the official 

 British view the Americans 2 offered to consult with the British 

 legislature in order to devise what was reasonable for the pro- 

 tection of the fisheries. But dual control is the antithesis of 

 sovereignty, and the opposition was none the less serious be- 

 cause its practical scope was small. British sovereignty was 

 uncompromisingly challenged by the United States, and un- 

 compromisingly upheld by British statesmen, as in the case of 

 France; and the only reason why the American fishermen were 

 not attended by a war-ship was that the United States did not 

 wish to dispute British sovereignty in a vexatious way/ 5 As 

 a first step the United States sent an unarmed Government 

 steam-ship to the critical spot in 1906 and subsequent years. 

 Ever since 1886, American fishermen, who fished for bait, 

 had from time to time defied local regulations as to seines, 

 Sunday fishing, port dues, and the like ; although until 1905 

 their defiance was usually followed by submission under 

 protest. Now that their Government was represented at the 

 scene of disturbance these protests were sure to lead to 

 political results. 



Statesmen would not be statesmen unless they recognized There zvas 

 the serious nature of the outlook ; but, as Lord Rosebery ^"^ t at 

 said 4 : If the provisions of the Convention of 1 8 1 8 had become a 7reaty, 

 inconvenient, the utmost that goodwill and fair dealing could 

 suggest was that the terms should be reconsidered. New 

 treaties had been made on two occasions, and on each 

 occasion had been terminated by the United States. Eng- 

 land had done her duty and was willing to do it again, but 



1 Dispatches, Nov. 7, 1878 ; Oct. 27, 1880. 



2 See e. g. Accounts and Papers, 1906, vol. cxxxvii v Cd. 3262), p. 14. 



3 Dispatch, July 20, 1906. 



4 Dispatches, c., Dec. 26, 1884; May 29. 1886; June 2, 1886; 

 July 23, 1886. 



