PERIOD FROM 1836 TO 1854. 539 



" Her Majesty's government have attentively considered the repre- 

 sentations contained in your despatches of 17th of June and 2d of 

 July, respecting the policy of granting permission to the fishermen 

 of the United States to fish in the Bay of Chaleurs, and other large 

 bays of a similar character on the coasts of New Brunswick and 

 Nova Scotia, and apprehending from your statements that any such 

 general concession would be injurious to the interests of the British 

 North American provinces, we have abandoned the intention we had 

 entertained on the subject, and shall adhere to' the strict letter of the 

 treaties which exist between Great Britain and the United States, 

 relative to the fisheries in North America, except in so far as they 

 may relate to the Bay of Fundy, which has been thrown open to the 

 Americans under certain restrictions." 



You will be able to judge from these authorities whether my letter 

 of the 26th of April, 1845, is justly chargeable with having misled 

 the American public as to the fact that the farther relaxation of the 

 exclusion of our fishermen from the great bays had been at my in- 

 stance referred to the Colonial Office, and to the consideration of her 

 Majesty's government. Should the entire despatch from Lord Stan- 

 ley to Lord Falkland, of the 19th May 1845, ever be published, I 

 apprehend that it will not only still more plainly show this, which 

 is apparent from the fragment of it that has appeared at Halifax, 

 but also the reasonableness of the American argument had been prac- 

 tically recognised by her Majesty's government. 



Lord Malmesbury alludes to two erroneous suppositions that pre- 

 vailed, as he believes, in the United States last summer: one, that 

 it was the intention of her Majesty's government to revoke the con- 

 cession of 1845, relative to the Bay of Fundy; and the other, that, 

 notwithstanding the express terms of the convention, American fish- 

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

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



I have already remarked on the Uncertainty which existed on the 

 first point, as to the real design of the British naval movement. As 

 f.n- as I am aware, the misapprehensions in this respect were as 

 extensive in England as in America. With regard to the second 

 supposed error, whatever suggestion to that effect may have been 

 thrown out in the heai of unpremeditated debate, I can only say 

 that it has never happened to me to fall in with any person who 

 entertained the opinion. Lord Malmesbury himself, on the next 

 page of his despatch, sayB: "Her Majesty's government are not 



aware that it has at, any time been maintained by the government 



of the United States that there can be, or that there lias ever been 

 supposed t<> 1>'\ the ilightesi doubl that her Majesty's government 



are not only entitled, bul hound, to maintain that distance free from 



encroachment." 



Lord Malmesbury remarks, thai the encroachments of the French 

 were included with those of the Americans, in the notice given by 

 Mr. Orampton f>> the lair Secretary of State, of the 5th of July Last. 

 This certainly showed that no exclusive action was contemplated 

 again-t American fishermen, and w:i accordingly calculated to miti- 

 gate the alarm which for a Short time prevailed. The importance 



which Lord Mai bury justly attaches i<> the joint mention of 



the supposed encroachments, both of France and the United States. 



