189 



That this was the understanding of the article, by the British go- 

 vernmont as well as by the American negotiators, is apparent to 

 demonstration, by the debates in Parliament upon the preliminary 

 article?. It was made in both Houses one of the great objections 

 to the treaty. In the House of Commons, lord North, the man who 

 as minister in 1775, had brought in and carried through the act for 

 depriving us of the fishery, but who had now become a leader of the 

 opposition, said : &quot; By the third article, we have, in our spirit of 

 &quot; reciprocity, given the Americans an unlimited right to take fish 

 t of every kind on the Great Bank, and on all the other Banks of 

 14 Newfoundland. But this was not sufficient We have also given 

 44 them the right of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all 

 44 other places in the sea where they have heretofone enjoyed, 

 44 through us, the privilege of fishing, They have likewise the 

 44 power of even partaking of the fishery which we still retain. 

 44 We have not been content with resigning what we possessed, but 

 &quot; even share what we have left. The United States have liberty 

 l to fish on that part of the coast of Newfoundland which British 

 &quot; fishermen shall use. All the reserve is, that they are not to dry 

 - or cure the same on the island, By this grant they are at liberty 

 4i to take our property, for which we have so long kept possession 

 44 of the island. This is certainly a striking instance of that liberal 

 41 equity which we find is the basis of the provisional treaty ! But 

 44 where shall I find an instance of that reciprocity which is also set 

 &quot; forth in the preamble ? We have given the Americans the unli- 

 &quot; mited privilege of fishing on all the coasts, bays, and creeks, of 

 4 our American dominions. But where have they, under this 

 44 principle of reciprocity, given us the privilege of fishing on any 

 * of their coasts, bays, or creeks 1 I could wish such an article 

 &quot; could be found, were it only to give a colour to this boasted reci- 

 &quot; procity. The advantage we should derive from such an article, 

 44 cannot be a consideration ; for every real and positive advantage 

 &quot; to Great Britain seems to have been entirely foreign to the intent 

 44 and meaning of this peace, in every particular; otherwise I 

 &quot; should have thought it would have been the care of administra- 

 &quot; tion not to have given without the least equivalent, that permis- 

 ci sion which they could never demand as British subjects. I am 

 (i at a loss to consider how we could grant, or they could claim it, 

 * ; as -i right, when they assumed an independency which has sepa- 

 44 rated them from our sovereignty.&quot; 



In this speech, the whole article is considered as an improvident 

 concession of British property ; nor is there suggested the slight 

 est distinction in the nature of the grant between the right of fishing 

 n the banks, and the liberty of the fishery on the coasts. 



Still more explicit are the words of lord Loughborough, in the 

 House of Peers : &quot; The fishery,&quot; says he, 44 on the shores retained 

 ** by Britain, is in the next article, not ceded, but recognised as a 

 il right inherent in the Americans, which though no longer British 

 * subjects, they are to continue, to enjoy unmolesttd t no right on the 



