299 



dieted in consequence of colonial importunities and representations, by 

 the present prime minister of England, while holding the ofhce of Sec- 

 retary for the Colonies V 



In the course of frequent researches among state papers, I do not 

 remember to have seen a public document of such a singular character 

 as his lor(lshi]>'s despatch to Lord Falkland. The American people 

 are distinctly told in it that colonial interference has alone prevented 

 the home government from executing a determination already formed, 

 to put an end to all difficulties on the fishing grounds within British 

 jurisdiction. How often has it happened that an English statesman, 

 while assuming the political responsibility of an act, has cast the moral 

 responsibility of it upon the subjects under his special care? When 

 has a secretary for the colonies mad(; known to the world that the 

 representations of colonists have set aside the "intentions" of the cabi- 

 net ministers of the crown ? I do not ask how often colonial remon- 

 strances have actually prevailed wdth the ministry; but how fi-equently 

 has colonial opposition to a course of policy been avowed by ministers 

 fL6 their reason for a change of purpose '? The common l()rm of an- 

 nouncing a cabinet decision is not that employed by Lord Stanley, in 

 his despatch of March 30th to Sir William Colebrooke;* still that de- 

 cision was deemed honorable and liberal. The motive there stated for 

 opening the Bay of Fundy is, "^Ae removal of a fertile source of disagree- 

 ment'''' between the United States and Great Britain. But in the des- 

 patch to Lord Falkland, of September 17th, though the same induce- 

 ments existed in full force for her Majesty's government to execute the 

 "intention" of opening the other "bays" to our fishermen in order to 

 perfect and perpetuate harmonious feeling, yet that "intention was 

 abandoned" on account of Lord Falkland's "statements." 



This despatch has been once quoted; but since it should be con- 

 tinually kept in view, it may be cited again : 



"DowNiXG Street, Septcmher 17, 1845. 

 "My Lord: ***** fj^j- Majesty's government have at- 

 tentively considered the representations contained in your despatches, 

 Nos. 324: and 331, of the 17th June and the 2d July, respecting the 



* Tliis (locuinent lias not been previously inserted. It bears date March 30, ]R45, and is 

 a^ldressfil to Sir Williiuii Colebrooks, lieutenant {.'ovenior of New Brunswick. It was tlie 

 first official aiinimciafion to flic j)cople of that colony of the arrangement with Mr. Everett. 

 Tlie colonial iicws[ia|i<'rs coninicntcd u]ion the course of the ministry in terms of great se- 

 verity, directly, and lor some time after its publication. 



"Sir: I have the honor to acijuaint 3'oti, for your infomiat ion and guidance, that her Mjv- 

 jc*ity'« government have had under tiieir consideration the claim of citizens of the United 

 States to fish in the l?;iy <d" Fundy— a claim which has hitherto been resisted on the ground that 

 tiiut bay is included within the British possessions. 



" Ilcr Majesty's government fc(d satisfied tiiat the Bay of Fundy has been rightly claimed by 

 Great Britain as a iiay within the treaty of IHIH; but they conceiv)^ that th<! rela.xafion of tli<o 

 exercise of that rii,'ht would be attendt-d with mutual ailvantage to both countries: to the 

 ITiiited States as conferring a material benefit on tiieir fishing trade, and to (ireat Britain and 

 tiie I'nitetl States conjointly and e(|iia!]y by the removal of a fertile source of di-i;icreemcnt; 

 between ihem. Il has aecordiiiyly lieeii aiiiioMiiccd (o the I'nifed Stales i,'overniiieiit tluU; 

 American citizens wdubl henceforward be allowed lo fisii in any part of'ibi- I!ay of i-'midy, pro- 

 vided they do not a|iiiroaeh, excejit ill the case^^ specified in the treaty <il' i'^I"', witliin thrc« 

 miles of the entrance of any bay on tlie coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. 



have, &c., 



"STMLEY." 



