AKGL'MENT OF EL1HU ROOT. 2065 



the whole has heretofore been held. Their instructions did not an- 

 ticipate that any new terms or restrictions would be annexed, an none 

 were suggested in the proposals made by Mr. Bagot to the American 

 Government. The clauses forbidding the spreading of nets, and 

 making vessels liable to confiscation in case any articles not wanted 

 for carrying on the fishery should be found on board, are of that 

 description, and would expose the fishermen to endless vexations." 



And that was assented to by the British Commissioners upon the 

 ground not that there was a right of legislation to cover these points, 

 but upon the ground that it was not important. The letter from the 

 British negotiators, or from Mr. Robinson for the British negotiators, 

 of the 10th October, 1818, appears in the British Case Appendix at 

 p. 92. Mr. Robinson writes Viscount Castlereagh, and says : 



" I then proceeded to state to them that upon the fishery article, 

 we were not disposed to insist upon the exclusion of those points, the 

 introduction of which they had at our last conference represented 

 to be a sine qua non; and after some discussion it was also agreed 

 on our part not to insist upon the two provisions contained in our 

 proposed article respecting the fishing in rivers and smuggling, to 

 which they felt very considerable objections, and which did not ap- 

 pear to me to be of such importance as to require to be urged in a 

 way that might prevent an arrangement upon the fisheries taking 

 place." 



Now, the reason why these provisions were unimportant, the reason 

 why, instead of going to work to redraft them, and put them in such 

 shape that they would be unobjectionable as joint regulations, appears 

 in the correspondence which had taken place during this period of 

 bargaining as to the extent of the new grant. Remember that Lord 

 Bathurst's language, in his letter which I first quoted upon this 

 subject, appeared to contemplate a renewal of the entire liberty of 

 1783. It appeared to, although not binding him specifically, and it 

 was evidently so understood by Mr. Adams and by Mr. Monroe. 

 But when they came to get down to details, the British negotiators 

 cut down the grant, and if they ever did have such generous inten- 

 tion, as would appear to have been contemplated by Lord Bathurst, 

 they abandoned it; for the first step in that process of bargaining 

 that I have referred to, intermediate the arrangement for joint regu- 

 lation and the actual making of the treaty, was by Mr. Bagot, in 

 Washington, to Mr. Monroe, on the 27th November, 1816 (in the 

 United States Case Appendix, p. 289). 



He begins the bartering by an offer of the coast of Labrador alone, 

 and he begins by saying to Mr. Monroe : 



1250 " In the conversation which I had with you a few days ago, 

 upon the subject of the negotiation into which the British Gov- 

 ernment is willing to enter, for the purpose of affording to the citi- 

 zens of the United States such accommodation for their fishery, 

 within the British jurisdiction, as may be consistent with the p?'oper 



