BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 493 



Majesty's Government, on behalf of this colony, which provided for 

 such relaxation and the ratification by the United States Senate of 

 the said convention. The United States Senate having failed to 

 ratify the convention, the obligation on the part of this government 

 ceased and the law alluded to became active. 



While it was and is quite competent for the government of this 

 colony to suspend or limit the operation of the Bait Act, or if suffi- 

 cient and extraordinary reasons could be adduced for the Imperial 

 Parliament to suspend the operation of the act in defiance of this 

 government, I humbly and respectfully hold that no power of sus- 

 pension, limitation, or abrogation of this law, or of any law of this 

 colony which has received the royal assent, is vested in His Majesty's 

 Ministers, or even in the Crown itself, and therefore if the modus 

 vivendi " pledges His Majesty's Government to the government of 

 a foreign power" in the matter of such suspension, limitation, or 

 abrogation, it is an illegality to which His Majesty's ministers in 

 this colony can not consent to become parties. 



The Bill of Rights "An act declaring the rights and liberties 

 of the subject " very clearly sets forth : 



" That the pretended power of suspension of laws, or the execu- 

 tion of laws, by royal authority without the consent of Parliament is 

 illegal." 



I can well believe that the proceedings upon which this government 

 have entered may prove very embarrassing to His Majesty's Govern- 

 ment, but while I sincerely regret that any action of ours should occa- 

 sion such embarrassment, or even contribute towards the same, I can 

 not conceive that it would have been consistent with our duty to 

 abstain from what we regard as a proper course on that account. 

 One fact is clear and indisputable. The embarrassment that is occa- 

 sioned, or that will be occasioned, is not by reason of the wrongdoing 

 of this government. On the contrary, thejr have endeavored to the 

 utmost of their ability, consistent with their sense of duty to those 

 they represent, to prevent it, by faithful representation, by humble 

 and respectful protest, but they have failed. If His Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment have acted justly towards this people within their powers, 

 then no embarrassment can possibly ensue from the action of this 

 government. If, on the other hand, they have acted unjustly, or if 

 there are reasonable grounds for concluding that they have so acted, 

 then I am confident that the House will agree that the course adopted 

 by this government was entirely proper. We entered upon this 

 policy with no desire to embarrass His Majesty's Government, but 

 with a firm resolve to assert the colony's rights. I feel certain that 

 it will be admitted as a general principle that treaties ought to be 

 strictly construed, and that the colony has a right to apply for redress 

 if it can be established that the Americans are exercising privileges 

 \vhich the Treaty of 1818 does not justify and that no mere diplo- 

 matic agreement can give them ; also, that when England has granted 

 a constitution her honour is as much concerned in the maintenance of 

 the constitution as in any other way. Both these questions are in- 

 volved in the issue before us. 



It will be noticed, on reference to the papers that have been tabled, 

 that in his despatch of the 6th of October the Secretary of State 

 expressed the desire that this government would issue instructions to 

 the fishermen on the treaty coast to observe the modus vivendi. This 



