DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 127 



mentioned articles in the treaty of Ghent, and the claim brought 

 forward by Great Britain, at the negotiation of it, for the free 

 navigation of the Mississippi, were alleged as proofs that Great 

 Britain herself so considered it, excepting with regard to a small 

 part of the single article relative to the fisheries; and the right of 

 Great Britain was denied thus to select one particular stipulation in 

 such a treaty, and declare it to have been abrogated by the war. The 

 answer of Lord Bathurst denies that Great Britain has made such 

 a selection, and affirms that the whole treaty of 1783 was annulled 

 by the late war. It admits, however, that the recognition of inde- 

 pendence and the boundaries was in the nature of perpetual obliga- 

 tion; and that, with the single exception of the liberties in and 

 connected with the fisheries within British jurisdiction on the coasts 

 of North America, the United States are entitled to all the benefits 

 of all the stipulations in their favour contained in the treaty of 1783, 

 although the stipulations themselves are supposed to be annulled. 

 The fishing liberties within British jurisdiction alone are considered 

 as a temporary grant, liable not only to abrogation by war, but, as 

 it would seem from the tenor of the argument, revocable at the 

 pleasure of Great Britain, whenever she might consider the revoca- 

 tion suitable to her interest. The note affirms that "the liberty to 

 fish within British limits, or to use British territory, is essentially 

 different from the right to independence in all that can reasonably 

 be supposed to regard its intended duration; that the grant of this 

 liberty has all the aspect of a policy, temporary and experimental, 

 depending on the use that might be made of it, on the condition of 

 the islands and places where it was to be exercised, and the more 

 general conveniences or inconveniences, in a military, naval, or com- 

 mercial point of view, resulting from the access of an independent 

 nation to such islands and places." 



The undersigned is induced, on this occasion, to repeat his Lord- 

 ship's own words, because, on a careful and deliberate review of the 

 article in question, he is unable to discover in it a single expression 

 indicating, even in the most distant manner, a policy, temporary or 

 experimental, or having the remotest connection with military, naval, 

 or commercial conveniences or inconveniences to Great Britain. He 

 has not been inattentive to the variation in the terms, by which the 

 enjoyment of the fisheries on the main ocean, the common possession 

 of both nations, and the same enjoyment within a small portion of 

 the special jurisdiction of Great Britain, are stipulated in the article, 

 and recognised as belonging to the people of the United States. He 

 considers the term right as importing an advantage to be enjoyed in 

 a place of common jurisdiction, and the term liberty as referring to 

 the same advantage, incidentally leading to the borders of a special 

 jurisdiction. But, evidently, neither of them imports any limitation 

 of time. Both were expressions no less familiar to the understandings 

 than dear to the hearts of both the nations parties to the treaty. The 

 undersigned is persuaded it will be readily admitted that, wherever 

 the English language is the mother tongue, the term liberty, far from 

 including in itself either limitation of time or precariousness of ten- 

 ure, is essentially as permanent as that of right, and can, with 

 justice, be understood only as a modification of the same thing; and as 

 no limitation of time is implied in the term itself, so there is none 

 expressed in any part of the article to which it belongs. The restric- 



