^o [private.] 



to the rank of a sovereign right, and thereby to have assumed th^ 

 unnecessary and inconvenient obhgation of cLideringsTch a ,iber! 

 ty to be an indispensable condition of our national exisfpnL i 

 thus rendering that existence as precarious t the iSllsd^^ 

 They could not have considered a privileo-e which th^^lL \ 

 made to depend, to a very considerLle exfe^r for i s cL^^^^^^ 

 (32) on events and private interests as partakinl o^^^ 

 and entitled to the^uratlon of thi thTrlt'^'ro^ert^^ 

 reignty The settlement of the shores might at anv Hm! I 

 been effected by the policy of the British ^overnmeYt and VouM 

 have made the assent of British subjects, underX infl.! . 



that policy, necessary to the continuance of a very cons^rl 

 portion of that (33) liberty. Thev could nnf k ^ considerable 

 place, within the^ control'of a forelgn^a') gtltiraTd V'" U 

 jects, an (35) integral part, as we novv arfec to consider thi '" 

 lege, of our national rights. consider this privi- 



It is from this view of the subiect fhaf I hnv^ k« 

 to beheve that there was n„thin^rm".he\X ITe^'S 

 could, essentally„d,st,ngu,sh it from ordinarv treaties/or res^u '?f 

 on account of any peculiarity of character, from the ,Wa ?,/7 ' 

 from the operation of those events on which the Kn.l u '.ta 

 or termination of such treaties depends, i was in IH^TT 

 compelled to believe, if any such' peculiariry be "onjed TZse 

 provisions, m that treaty, which had an immediate connexion whh 

 our independence, that it did not necessarily affect the nat?,rp If 

 the whole treaty, (37) o. attach to a privilege^which had no analo 

 Sy to such provisions, or any relation to that independence 



1 know not, indeed, any treaty, or any article of a treatv wh». 

 ever may have been the subject to which it related, or theferms i„ 

 which It was expressed, that has survived a war betwepn ho 

 ties, without being specially renewed, by reference ^^redtal'Tn 

 the succeeding treaty of peace. I cannot, indeed, (38) conceive of ." 

 possibihty of such a treaty or such an article ; for, however clear 

 and strong the stipulations for perpetuity might be, thesrsdnuTa 

 tions themselves would follow the fate of ordinary unexecued en 

 gagemenls, and require, after a war, the declaredassentof the par- 

 ties tor their revival. ^^ 



We appear, in fact not to have had an unqualified confidence in 

 our construction of the treaty of 1783, or to have been willing o 

 rest exclusively on its peculiar character our title to any of the 

 rights nientioned m it and much less our title to the fishing (39)1 berty 

 m question. If hostilities could not affect that treaty (40) o/abrn 

 gate Its provisions why did we permit the boundarie; assigned by 

 it to be brought into discussion, or stipulate for a (41) restitution of aU 

 places taken from us during the present war ? If such (42) restitution 

 was secured by the mere operation of the treaty of 1783, why did 

 The tlnTnl'"? 'f^'^'^^ffor the status ante bellum. and not resist 

 the principle otuti possidetis on that ground ? 



