293 



•"The rights of fisliery cedod to the citizens of the United Rtntes, and 

 Chose reserved for the exelusive enjf)yment of British sulijeets, depend 

 altogether upon the convention of ISIS, the only existing treaty on this 

 subject between the two countries; and the material points arising 

 thereon have beea specifically answered in our replies to the preceding 

 queries." 



That this opinion is not conclusive against us, and that, indeed, it 

 has no binding force whatever, hardly need be said; especially since 

 there is probable cause to believe that it was paid* for in the common 

 coarse of professional duty. But whether the Queen's advocate and 

 her Majesty's attornc}^ general did or did not appear in the "case" 

 submitted to them as the counsel of Nova Scotia, is a matter of no mo- 

 ment to us. The judgment which they have rendered, and the exam- 

 ination of which is now concluded, deserves no respect either for its 

 law, its common sense, its humanity, or its justice. Its only claim to 

 the notice bestowed upon it consist.s in the fact that it is relied on to 

 prove that we are in the v/ron,^ and England in the right, in the contro- 

 versy which has arisen as to the intent and meaning of the convention 

 of 1818. 



We are now ready to inquire what, up to 1841, was the British con- 

 struction? First, however, let us glance at the British pretension prior 

 to the corx'luding of the convention. In 1817, in the orders of Admiral 

 Milne to Captain Chambers, under which several American vessels 

 were seized, it is said: "On meeting Avith any foreign vessel fishing or 

 at anchor m any of the harbors or creeks in his Majesty's North American 

 provinces, or within our maritime jurmlicdon, you will seize," &c. Here 

 is the extent of the British claim. Captain Chambers, in reporting his 

 doings to his comntiander-in-chief, remarked that ho "did not receive 

 any intelligence of foreign vessels being within our jnrhdictlo/i, until the 

 3d iiistant," (June 3, 1817,) when he was informed "that they con- 

 stantly resorted to the crccJce on this coast in order to catch their bait, 

 clean their fif^h, wood, water, &c." The harbors of Cape Negro and of 

 dre Ragged Island, he said farther, were visited by such vessels; and 

 in these harbors and fijr resorting to these harbors he captured eleven 

 American fishermen. 



The bodies of sea-water of more than six miles in width were not 

 claimed, then, in 1817, and pending the negotiations ; and Admiral 

 Milne acted in strict conformity to Lord Bathurst's sugi:(\stion to Mr. 

 Adams in 1810, that we must rehnquisli "tlie harl)ors and creeks," and 

 the "nuaritime jurisdiction tliree niarine miles fi-om the shore." II" the 

 construction of the crov/n lawyers is just, it follows tliat the convention 

 of 1818 is an injury rather than a benefit, for the simple reason that 

 previous to that year we were allowed to fish in the bays which, it is 

 pretended b}' tliese gentlemen, we caimot enter under the slij)ulations 

 of that instrument. 



What, in the second place, has hrcn the course pursued si/irc 1818? 

 Some (>f the colonial writers have aliiinicd (hu'ing the present year, 



• When Lord Falkland solicited Lord John RusBell to Bubmit his queries, he said : " I 

 sm authori/pd by tho llouse of Ae^iembly hnro to dt-fray auy rxpcuse that mny be incurrod 

 ^•btaiuiu^' such oi>'wluii," itc. 



