NEGOTIATIONS RESULTING IN TREATY OF 1818. 55 



of the vrestern coast of Newfoundland, and the privilege of entering 

 for shelter, wood, and water, in all the British harbors of North 

 America. Both were suggested as important to our fishermen, in 

 the communications on that subject which were transmitted to us 

 with our instructions,*^ To the exception of the exclusive rights of 

 the Hudson's Bay Company we did not object, as it was virtually 

 implied in the treaty of 1783, and we had never, any more than the 

 British subjects, enjoyed any right there; the charter of that com- 

 pany having been granted in the year 1670. The exception applies 

 only to the coasts and their harbors, and does not affect the right of 

 fishing in Hudson's Bay beyond three miles from the shores, a right 

 which could not exclusively belong to, or be granted by, any nation. 



The most difficult part of the negotiation related to the permanence 

 of the right. To obtain the insertion in the body of the convention 

 of a provision declaring expressly that that right should not be 

 abrogated by w^ar, was impracticable. All that could be done was 

 to express the article in such manner as would not render the right 

 liable to be thus abrogated. The words '" for ever " were inserted 

 for that purpose, and we also made the declaration annexed to the 

 protocol of the third conference, the principal object of which was 

 to provide in any event for the revival of all our prior rights. The 

 insertion of the words " for ever " was strenuoush'^ resisted. The 

 British plenipotentiaries urged that, in case of war, the only effect 

 of those words being omitted, or of the article being considered as 

 abrogated would be the necessity of inserting in the treaty of peace 

 a new article renewing the present one; and that, after all that had 

 passed, it would certainly be deemed expedient to do it, in whatever 

 manner the condition was now expressed. We declared that we 

 would not agree to any article on the subject, unless the words were 

 preserved, or in case they should enter on the protocol a declaration 

 impairing their effect. 



It will also be perceived that we insisted on the clause hj which the 

 United States renounce their right to the fisheries relinquished by 

 the convention, that clause having been omitted in the first British 

 counter-project. We insisted on it with the view — 1st. Of prevent- 

 ing anv implication that the fisheries secured to us were a new grant, 

 and of placing the permanence of the rights secured and of those 

 renounced precisely on the same footing. 2d. Of its being expressly 

 stated that our renunciation extended only to the distance of three 

 miles from the coasts. This last point was the more important, as, 

 with the exception of the fishery in open boats within certain har- 

 bors, it appeared, from the communications above mentioned, that 

 the fishing ground, on the whole coast of Nova Scotia, is more than 

 three miles from the shores; whilst, on the contrary, it is almost 

 universally close to the shore on the coasts of Labrador. It is in 

 that point of view that the privilege of entering the ports for shelter 

 is useful, and it is hoped that, with that provision, a considerable 

 portion of the actual fisheries on that coast (of Nova Scotia) will, 

 notwithstanding the renunciation, be preserved.* 



» See note on page 53 supra with reference to tliese communications. 

 'Appendix, p. 306. 

 92909°— S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 1 12 



