ABGTJMENT OF JOHN S. EWART. 1289 



tended for in the ' case ' submitted to the crown lawyers by Lord 

 Falkland, in 1841 ; the annunciation that our vessels were no longer 

 to fish ' within three miles of the ENTRANCE of any bay on the coast 

 of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick,' the Bay of Fundy alone ex- 

 cepted ; the further declaration that the fishing grounds of that bay 

 ' enjoyed before the war of 1812.' and lost to us by that event, were 

 now ' reopened ' to us by ' an important concession ' excited the live- 

 liest sensibility and were regarded in the fishing towns of Maine and 

 Massachusetts with dismay. The colonists had pushed their claims 

 so secretly and so adroitly, that the crowning acts of their policy were 

 hardly known to our countrymen who resorted to their seas ; and the 

 fact that the Bay of Fundy was in dispute, was first ascertained by 

 many of them on the seizure of the ' Washington ' for fishing there. 

 It was expected that some more definite annunciation would be made, 

 or that the correspondence between Mr. Everett and the British Gov- 

 ernment, which preceded and led to the ' concession,' would follow 

 the article just quoted from the 'Union; ' but the precise terms of 

 the arrangement of 1845 were never stated, either in that paper or 

 elsewhere, and the citizens whose property was exposed to capture by 

 British cruisers and colonial cutters were left to pursue their business 

 in apprehension and doubt. Under these circumstances, the writer of 

 .this report assumed the task of attempting to impress the public 

 mind with the probable state of affairs. He wrote for the periodical 

 and for the newspaper press; he addressed letters to persons inter- 

 ested in enterprises to the British colonial seas, and to persons in 

 official employments; he continued his labors in various other ways 

 for quite a year: he was unsupported, and abandoned the design 

 finally in despair." 



An arrangement, therefore, seems to have been arrived at, or at 

 least an understanding. Then turning to p. 1243, at the top of the 

 page : 



" It is possible that, had our government seconded the efforts of 

 our Minister at the Court of St. James, and had instructed him, in 

 positive and earnest terms; that the pretentions and claims of the 

 colonists, which were at last adopted by the British Government, 

 had not been, and never would be, admitted as a just and proper 

 commentary on the convention of 1818, the despatch from which the 

 preceding extract is made would never have been written; and that 

 of consequence the excitement and difficulties of 1852 would never 

 have occurred. As it was, the children of the ' tories ' triumphed 

 over the children of the ' whigs ' of the Revolution." 

 references that the members of the Tribunal will probably be per- 

 fectly familiar with; if not, I would say that the Tories were the 

 Royalists, in the time of the Revolution, or inclined to be so; the 

 Whigs were those who took a stronger view of the rights of the 

 colonies. 



Turning to p. 1285, at the top of the page, I will quote further. 

 I need not read what precedes it. Mr. Sabine has been dealing with 

 the letter from Lord Stanley to Governor Falkland, in which Lord 

 Stanley said that the British position had been practically acqui 



