PERIOD FROM 1836 TO 1854. 537 



which limits to the inner bays the renunciation contained in the first 

 article of the convention, I acknowledged the liberality of her 

 Majesty's government in making what they regarded a concession 

 in our favor ; and I am not aware that any misconception has existed 

 as to the opposite grounds taken, of late years, by the two govern- 

 ments on this subject. I say " of late years," for it was just a quarter 

 of a century after the date of the convention before the first Ameri- 

 can fisherman was captured for fishing at large in the Bay of Fundy. 



The other point in which Lord Malmesbury thinks my note was 

 calculated to cause an incorrect view of the subject to be taken by 

 the American public, is this: that it created an impression that Lord 

 Aberdeen had, at my request, referred to the Colonial Office the ques- 

 tion whether the relaxation, as to the Bay of Fundy, should be ex- 

 tended to the other outer bays; whereas, as Lord Malmesbury under- 

 stands it, Lord Aberdeen merely submitted to the Colonial Office the 

 question relating to the seizure of the particular vessels, the "Wash- 

 ington " and "Argus" 



Here I must admit myself at a loss to conceive what other question 

 could arise, or could be supposed to have arisen, under a reference to 

 the Colonial Office of the seizure of the "Washington" and "Argus" 

 than that of the right of American vessels to fish in the other large 

 outer bays. The Washington was captured in the Bay of Fundy; 

 and as far as that individual bay was concerned, the question was al- 

 ready settled. The Argus was seized in a large open bay, off the 

 coast of Cape Breton, while she was fifteen miles from the shore. It 

 was somewhat doubtful on what grounds the capture of this vessel 

 was made; but in my letter on this subject I mentioned the doctrine 

 relative to the line drawn from headland to headland, as one of the 

 grounds on which this vessel was supposed to have been seized. What 

 can be plainer under these circumstances, and considering the state 

 of controversy at the time, than that the chief if not the only question 

 which would arise before her Majesty's government, under my com- 

 plaint relative to the Argus, would be whether the relaxation just 

 made in reference to the Bay of Fundy should be extended to the 

 Other large outer bays? 



But I believe it is in my power to put this point entirely beyond 

 dispute. Nothing is more certain than that this precise question was 

 unaer the consideration of Her Majesty's government at this time, in 

 consequence of my complaints. This I shall prove by an authority 

 which Lord Malmesbury will admil to be decisive. 



On the I'mIi May, L845, just four weeks after Lord Aberdeen 

 informed me thai my letters of the 25th of March and 2d of April 

 hml been referred to the Colonial Office, Lord Stanley (now the Earl 

 of Derby, and ;it that time Secretary of State for the Colonies) wrote 

 a despatch to Vi count Falkland, governor of Nova Scotia, 01 which 

 the following i- an extract : 



"Her Majesty' government, having frequently had before them 

 the complaints of the mini ter of the United Stales in this country, 

 on account of the capture of ve el belonging to fishermen of the 

 United States by the provincial cruiser 01 Nova Scotia and New 

 Brunswick, for alleged Infractions of the convention of the 20th of 

 October, 1818, between Great Britain and the United States, I have 

 to acquaint your lordship that, after mature deliberation, her 

 Majesty's government deem it advisable, for the interests of both 



