QUESTION FIVE. 45 



now asked by the Americans may be granted, without evil conse- 

 quences, if due care be taken that no further pretentions can here- 

 after be founded on the concession." 



Lord Aberdeen, in his letter of the 10th March, 1845, (British Case, 

 App., p. 141) announced the relaxation which Great Britain was 

 willing to make in regard to the Bay of Fundy; at the same time, 

 however, re-asserting the view that the bay was " a bay within the 

 meaning of the treaty of 1818." Mr. Everett, in reply (25th March) 

 (British Case, App., p. 143), confined himself to asking that it should 

 be made plain that waters such as those where the "Argus " was 

 captured were not to be considered as " bays," a contention which 

 His Majesty's Government did not maintain, since, in fact, the vessel 

 was not seized within a bay or in unlawful propinquity to any bay. 

 In his final letter of the 21st April, 1845 (British Case, App., pp. 

 145, 151), Lord Aberdeen expressly stated that other bays on the 

 coast were not included in the concession made in respect of the Bay 

 of Fundy. 



ALLEGATION OF GREAT BRITAIN'S AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES. 



The United States Case suggests that the opinion of the British 

 Government could not have been materially different from that of 

 the United States, because after the Law Officers had given their 

 opinion (United States Case, p. 103) 



" Great Britain showed a decided inclination to avoid the effect of 

 such opinion by proposing a relaxation of the narrow construction 

 recommended by it, and was only prevented from so doing by vigor- 

 ous protests from Nova Scotia." 



It is submitted that this suggestion has no foundation whatever. 



Not only was a relaxation proposed, but it was actually made 



53 by Lord Aberdeen in his letter to Mr. Everett of the 10th 



March, 1845, care, however, being taken to accompany it with 



a renewal of an assertion of right. The material portions of his 



despatch are set out in the British Case at p. 93, and the despatch is 



printed in full in the appendix to the British Case at p. 141. 



There were no " vigorous protests from Nova Scotia " against this 

 concession. On the contrary the Nova Scotia Governor concurred in 

 it, as has been already pointed out, upon the ground that the United 

 States had, on their part, conceded the correctness of the British 

 view of the headland question (by Mr. Everett's letter, above quoted) ; 

 and it was no doubt because of the Governor's letter of the 17th 

 September, 1844, that the concession was made. 



Afterwards (19th May, 1845) the new Colonial Secretary (Lord 

 Stanley), not apparently appreciating the value of the bays as fish- 



