BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 453 



said the rights of the United States to fish on the Northern and 

 Western parts of the coast between Quirpon and Cape Ray were 

 the same as British subjects possessed. Later on, page 138, it was 

 asserted on behalf of Newfoundland that the American fishermen 

 had not the right to enter any of the bays of that island other than 

 those between Quirpon Island and Cape Ray arid thence to Ramea 

 Island. Now, sir, what was the right put forward by the American 

 people. The Premier had read that evening what was obviously a 

 most unfair authority to give here. He had read a dispatch from 

 a British Minister, written after the war of 1812. before the Treaty 

 of 1818, containing the extreme position taken by the British gov- 

 ernment in opposition to that taken by the Americans. 



Right Hon. the PREMIER. That despatch was an Instruction. 



Mr. MORINE. Yes, he knew it was an instruction. An instruction 

 addressed to an officer on the Newfoundland coast defining the rights 

 of the Americans from the British standpoint, which view was not 

 agreed in by the Americans, and in the Treaty of 1818 the British 

 agreed on a different interpretation. 



Whereas, the Americans claimed up to 1818 the right to take and 

 cure fish on all parts of the British possessions, the British denied the 

 right and before the difficulty was settled, the despatch referred to 

 was sent out. The treaty stated that the United States renounced 

 forever the right hitherto enjoyed by them to take, dry and cure fish, 

 within three miles of all bays, harbors and creeks, not included in 

 the treaty limits. Did not this renunciation show that both parties 

 recognized that up to the treaty of 1818, the Americans enjoyed the 

 right to catch, dry and cure cod, in these bays, harbors and creeks? 

 There was not a lawyer listening in that house, who would not agree 

 that the renunciation of certan rights, was not an admission of these 

 certain rights. The declaration that they renounced certain rights 

 save within specified limits, was a declaration that they retained 

 these rights within those limits. If he, Mr. M., were to state, that he 

 renounced all right to Bannerman Park, save to the lower corner 

 of it, would he not be retaining the lower corner? Then, if by the 

 treaty, the Americans gave up their rights in British North America, 

 save in Newfoundland, did it not mean that they retained them there? 

 The Premier had accused him, Mr. Morine, of lack of patriotism in op- 

 posing this measure, but the arguments adduced by the Premier showed 

 more want of patriotic spirit, inasmuch as they were used to delude 

 the people of this country and lure them on to their own misfortune 

 and destruction. On page 260 of the report, in the speech of Mr. 

 Dana, the leading American Counsel, it was argued that the Ameri- 

 cans were merely enjoying their ancient rights, and Lord Longh- 

 borough, a much more eminent man than Lord Bathurst, said in 

 the House of Lords that "the fisheries were not conceded, but recog- 

 nized as a right inherent in the Americans, which tho' they were no 

 longer British subjects, they continued to enjoy unmolested." Now, 

 that was the declaration of one of England's foremost statesmen. 

 Further on Mr. Dana referred to the reply of John Quincy Adams 

 in a discussion with Earl Bathurst. Mr. Adams had said in refer- 

 ence to the right of fish: our right does not rest upon the treaty. 

 The treaty of 1783 did not give us this right ; we always had it. Wo 

 continued to enjoy these rights without geographical limitation, and 

 it was conceded that we did so by the treaty of 1783, and we no more 



