520 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



Now, if Lord Aberdeen's notes, to which Mr. Everett alluded, had 

 been carefully examined by Mr. Webster, and had also been pub- 

 lished, Mr. Webster, and the public of two countries, would have seen 

 that, instead of conceding a right, Lord Aberdeen expressly reserved 

 it ; but that in order to prove the friendly feeling of Great Britain 

 towards the United States, her Majesty's government, by Lord Aber- 

 deen's note, "relaxed" as regarded the Bay of Fundy, and the right 

 which her Majesty's government felt bound to maintain, of exclud- 

 ing American fishermen from that bay; and, moreover, it would have 

 appeared that Lord Aberdeen, in the letter referred to, merely stated 

 that he would submit to the Colonial Office the question relating to 

 the seizure of two particular vessels, the "Washington" and "Argus" 

 and that, as regarded the bays, his words were to be taken as applying 

 to the Bay of Fundy alone. It appears, however, partly by Mr. 

 Webster's communications with you and by terms or his official pub- 

 lications, and partly by the proceedings in the Senate of the United 

 States, that it is supposed in the United States, first, that her Maj- 

 esty's present government have resolved to overrule the decision of 

 the government of 1845, and to withdraw the privilege then granted 

 to American fishermen to fish in the Bay of Fundy; and, secondly, 

 that, notwithstanding the express terms of the treaty, American fish- 

 ermen are privileged, either by usage or right, to fish upon any part 

 of the British coast within three marine miles of the shore. 



Both suppositions are entirely founded in error. Her Majesty's 

 government, so far from having any intention of now excluding 

 American fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, are prepared to main- 

 tain that the relaxation granted in 1845 was reasonable and just, and 

 should be adhered to; and, in giving orders to strengthen the naval 

 force employed to maintain the exercise of our rights under the 

 treaty of 1818, they could not contemplate that the government of 

 the United States would assume that a relaxation formally granted, 

 as regards the Bay of Fundy, was thereby cancelled, without the 

 equally formal notice which her Majesty's government would un- 

 doubtedly feel themselves bound to have given to an ally of the 

 British Crown, had such an act been intended. 



But, in regard to the three-mile distance, her Majesty's government 

 are not aware that it has at any time been maintained by the govern- 

 ment of the United States that there can be, or that there has ever 

 been supposed to be, the slightest doubt that her Majesty's govern- 

 ment are not only entitled, but bound, to maintain that distance free 

 from encroachment. 



Whatever construction either government may put upon the term 

 " bay," as used in the treaty, there can be no possible question as to 

 the three-mile limit from any British shore; and when, therefore, 

 Mr. Webster alluded, in his official publication, to the seizure of the 

 American fishing vessel " Coral" in the Bay of Fundy, near Grand 

 Manan, he must have overlooked the fact that Grand Manan was 

 British territory, and that the "Coral" was taken almost within 

 musket-shot of the shore. 



It is for the prevention of such infractions of treaty, and not with 

 any view to disturb arrangements made in good faith with the United 

 States government, that her Majesty's government issued orders to 

 their officers to put a stop to illicit proceedings — proceedings which 



