214 



within a few years, our fishermen have had no cause to complam of 

 their colonial competitors. It is not so. Those who consult our state 

 papers will find, that, as early as 1806, the inhabitants of the counties 

 of Barnstable and Plymouth, Massachusetts, who stated that they pro- 

 cured their livelihood by fishing, memoriahsed Congress on the subject 

 of existing grievances, and desired redress. They represented that 

 they were much injured in the sale of their fish in consequence of the 

 American market bemg glutted with English fi&b; that they were fired 

 upon and brought to by English cruisers when falling in with them in 

 going to, and coming from, the fishing grounds; that they were im- 

 posed upon; that they were compelled to pay light-money if they 

 passed through the Strait of Canso; that their men were ira-prisoned ; 

 and that if they anchored in the colonial harbors, they were compelled 

 to pay anchorage money. Thus the complaints in 1806 were nearly 

 identical with those in 1852. 



In the year 1807 the colonists appealed to the British government 

 on the subject of the fisheries within colonial jurisdiction, and the "ag- 

 gressions" of their republican neighbors. Looking with jealous eyes 

 upon the extent of our adventures to their waters, they employed a 

 watchman to count the number of American vessels which passed 

 through the Strait of Canso in a season. This watchman reported 

 that he saw nine hundred and thirty-eight. As many passed in fogs, 

 and in the night-time, and were unseen by him, the whole number 

 was not less, probably, than thirteen hundred. Without enumerating 

 other acts of the colonists which show tlieir hostile feelings towards us, 

 I will barely add that many of them preferred that the difficulties then 

 pending between England*and the United States should terminate in a 

 war; for, as was believed and said, a war would put an end to our 

 rights of fishing in British America, inasmuch as it would annul the 

 stipulations of the treaty of 1783.* 



The event which so many of our banished countrymen anticipated 

 with complacency, occurred in 1812. In the year following, a deter- 

 mination was manifested to exclude us from the colonial fishing-grounds 

 on the return of peace. It was represented in memorials, that the Ameri- 

 can fishermen abused their privileges to the injury of his Majesty's sub- 

 jects; that the existence of Great Britain as a power of the first rank, 

 depended mainly upon her sovereignty of the seas; and that sound 

 policy required the exclusion of both France and the United States 

 States from any participation in the fisheries. It was, furthermore, insisted 



* A highly respectahle gentleman, of loyalist descent, related to me the following incident, 

 which will serve to illustrate the temper of the time : " I went," said he, " to see my uncle, 

 who, as I entered the house, accosted me thus, in great glee : ' Well, Willie, there'll be war, 

 and I shall die on the old farm after all.' 'How so?' rejoined my informant. 'How does it 

 follow that, if a war really occurs, you will die on the old farm?' ' How!' petulantly replied 

 the imcle ; "ichy, icon't England tchip the blasted rebels, and shan''t we all get our lands back 

 again?' " This loyal old gentleman is now dead. He was a native of New York, and lost 

 his property — the " old farm" — uuder the Confiscation act of that State. At the clo.se of the 

 Revolution he settled on the British side of the St. Croix, where many persons of his lineage 

 still live. This is by no means a solitary instance of the hopes entertained as to the result of 

 a conflict between the two nations. In 1807 many of our banished countrymen were not only 

 alive, but in full vigor ; and the expectation was common among them that, in the event of hos- 

 tilities, their interest would be promoted, either by stipulations in their favor in the treaty oS 

 peace, or by the abrogation of our fishing rights, as stated in the text. 



