27 
INTOLERABLE METHODS EMPLOYED, 
But the methods or machinery employed for the enforcement 
of the observance of these treaties and the “protection” of 
_ British subjects, and the practical working of that machinery, 
_ are, and must in the very nature of things be, intolerable to 
the colonists. The duty of “ protecting” British subjects in the 
exercise of their rights against unlawful acts on the part of the 
ench is entrusted to British officers in command of war-ships, 
_ usually three, which are annually sent to Newfoundland for that 
ify e. One of these ships is usually a frigate, the other two 
' of a smaller class, and the officers in command of the latter 
_ (usually holding the rank of lieutenant) act under the direction 
of the eeptain of the frigate, who annually receives his “ instruc- 
_ “tions” for himself and his subordinate commanders from the 
_ Admiralty Department in England. Who prepare these instruc- 
. _ tions, by what authority, under whose advice, or under what 
_ daw, or by what canon of construction of the treaties that law 
is laid down, is one of those official mysteries which it has never 
_ yet been vouchsafed to the colonist, no matter how important, 
how responsible, or how confidential his position in the admini- 
stration of public affairs in the colony may be, to penetrate, 
_ Of these “instructions,” final, conclusive, and absolute as they 
are, the colonists can only judge, as they do of other things, 
by their “fruits.” From these fruits—from the acts which are 
ie done and permitted by the British officers, sustained as they 
i. invariably are by the “departments ” of State—we can only con- 
clude that as an exposition or statement of the rights, privileges, 
_ and duties of British subjects the “instructions” are in plain, 
simple, direct, and unqualified antagonism to the positive and 
_ oft-repeated declarations of British law officers, statesmen, 
_ diplomatists, politicians, and other authorities to whom we 
have already referred as sustaining our contentions against 
the unwarranted pretensions of the French. 
Whether we regard this so-called “law” by which we are 
governed, or the methods by which it is administered, they are, 
_ either separately or together, in such direct and flagrant violation 
of every principle of British right and British justice, that their 
continuance in full force in the present age can only be accounted 
_ for by recourse to the simple explanation that “might is right,” 
ee 
- 
eh PRE em ae peers 
—— ee 
