219 



that fiftocn linndrcd American vessels had been engagecl in the Labra- 

 dor fishery aloiu;, in a single season ; that these vessels earried and dealt 

 out teas, coffee, spirits, and other artieles, on whieh no duty was paid; 

 that these smugglers and interlopers exercised a ruinous influence upon 

 the British fishery and the morals of British fishermen; that men, provis- 

 ions, and outfits were cheaper in the United States than elsewhere, and 

 that of consecjuencc British fishermen on the coast could buy what they 

 needed on better terms of the American vessels than of the colonial mer- 

 cliants; and hence the memorialists expressed the hope that f(:)n'igners 

 would no longer be permitted to visit the colonial waters for the pur- 

 pose of fishing. These representations created a sensation in Massa- . 

 cliusctts, and were the topic of comment there and in other parts of the 

 countiy- The Boston Centinel pithily said, that they were ^^ alarmingly 

 interesting;'''' and as far south as Baltimore the New England senti- 

 ment of '■'■no peace without the fisheries,'''' was echoed and approved. 



In 1814, Mr. Canning, in the British Parliament, urged upon tlie 

 government the necessity of giving due consideration to the question of 

 the fisheries, in the adjustment of terms of peace. In our treaty of 

 17S3, said he, "we gave away more than we ought; and we never 

 now hear of that treaty but as a troj)hy of victory on the one hand, or 

 the monument of degradation and shame on the other. We ought to 

 refer, in questions w ith America, to the state in which we now stand, 

 rather than that in which we once stood." 



The principle asserted by the American commissioners at Ghent, 

 Mr. Russell alone excepted, has been stated and need not be repeated 

 here. It was assumed in England, and in the colonies, that that prin- 

 ciple was in contravention of public law,* and British statesmen and 

 British colonists claimed to exclude our vessels from the fishing- 

 grounds, and even to seize them when found there. The government 

 of Nova Scotia was especially zealous and prompt in protecting her 

 supposed interests, and in proclaiming the penalty of confiscation to 

 American intmders upon her coasts. In 1815 the commander of his 

 Majesty's ship-of-war the Jasscur, heeding the clamors of the colonists 

 more than the qualified instructions of the admiralty, commenced the 

 seizure of our fishing vessels; and in one day in June of that year, 

 sent no less than eight into the port of Halifax as lawful prizes. This 

 outrage, and tlie right assumed by the commander of this ship to warn 

 our fishermen not to come within sixty miles of the coast, (as else- 

 where remarked,) led to negotiations and to the convention of 1818. 

 Mr. Baker, the British charge d'affiiires, in reply to Mr. Monroe's 

 note of July 18, 1815, declared that the commander ofthe Jasseur had 

 transcended his authority, and gave the assurance that orders had been 

 transmitted to the naval olficers on the Halifax and Newfoundland 

 stations, which would "prevent the recurrence of any similar interrup 

 tion;" but the schooner Nabby was seized by his Majesty's ship Sara- 

 cen, Captain Gore, and proceedings in the admiralty court of Nova 

 Scotia were instituted against her in August, ISIS, only two months 

 before the convention w%'is concluded. Elcv(^n o\hvx American vessels 

 were seized by Captain Chambers, under orders fiom Admiral Milne, 

 for alleged violations of British maritime jurisdiction. 'J'iiat some of 

 these vessels were captured for good cause, is quite probable; but yet. 



