'2 72 GOBBESPONDENCE, ETC., PRIOR TO TREATY OF 1818 



their independence, nor any new grant of a boundary lino? — that, if 

 their independence was to be forfeited, or their boundary line cur- 

 tailed, it could only be by their own acts of renunciation, or of 

 cession, and not by the declaration of the intentions of another Gov- 

 ernment i And. if this reasoning be just, with regard to the other 

 articles of the treaty of 1783, upon what principle can Great Britain 

 select one article, or a part of one article, and say, this particular 

 stipulation is liable to forfeiture by war, or by the declaration of her 

 will, while she admits the rest of the treaty to be permanent and 

 irrevocable? In the negotiations of Ghent, Great Britain did pro- 

 pose several variations of the boundary line, but she never intimated 

 that she considered the line of the treaty of 1783 as forfeited by the 

 war, or that its variation could be effected by the mere declaration 

 of her intentions. She perfectly understood that no alteration of 

 that line could be effected but by the express assent of the United 

 States: and. when she finally determined to abide by the same line, 

 neither the British nor the American plenipotentiaries conceived that 

 any new confirmation of it was necessary. The treaty of Ghent, in 

 every one of its essential articles refers to that of 1783 as being still 

 in full force. The object of all its articles, relative to the boundary, 

 is to ascertain with more precision, and to carry into effect, the pro- 

 visions of that prior compact. The treaty of 1783 is, by a tacit 

 understanding between the parties, and without any positive stipu- 

 lation, constantly referred to as the fundamental law of the relations 

 between the two nations. Upon what ground, then, can Great Brit- 

 ain assume that one particular stipulation in that treaty is no longer 

 binding upon her? 



Upon this foundation, my lord, the Government of the United 

 States consider the people thereof as fully entitled, of right to all the 

 liberties in the North American fisheries which have always belonged 

 to them; which, in the treaty of 1783, w T ere, by Great Britain, recog- 

 nised as belonging to them ; and wdiich they never have, by any act of 

 theirs, consented to renounce. With these views, should Great Britain 

 ultimately determine to deprive them of the enjoyment of these liber- 

 ties by force, it is not for me to say whether, or for what length of 

 time, they would submit to the bereavement of that which they would 

 still hold to be their unquestionable right. It is my duty to hope 

 that such measures will not be deemed necessary to be resorted to on 

 the part of Great Britain; and to state that, if they should, they can- 

 not impair the right of the people of the United States to the liberties 

 in question, so long as no formal and express assent of theirs shall 

 manifest their acquiescence in the privation. 



In the interview with which your lordship recently favored me, I 

 suggested several other considerations, with the hope of convincing 

 your lordship that, independent of the question of rigorous right, it 

 would conduce to the substantial interests of Great Britain herself, 

 as well as to the observance of those principles of benevolence and 

 humanity which it is the highest glory of a great and powerful nation 

 to respect, to leave to the American fishermen the participation of 

 those benefits which the bounty of nature has thus spread before them ; 

 which are so necessary to their comfort and subsistence; which they 

 have constantly enjoyed hitherto: and which, far from operating as 

 an injury to Great Britain, had the ultimate result of pouring into 



