189 



That this was the understanding of the article, by the British go- 

 vernment as well as by the American negotiators, is apparent to 

 demonstration, by the debates in Parliament upon the preliminary 

 articles. It was made in both Houses one of the great objections 

 to the treaty. In the House of Commons, lord North, the man who 

 as minister in 1775, had brought in and carried through the act for 

 depriving us of the fishery, but who had now become a leader of the 

 opposition, said : " By the third article, we have, in cur spirit of 

 ** reciprocity, given the Americans an unlimited right to take fish 

 *' of every kind on the Great Bank, and on all the other Banks of 

 *' Newfoundland. But this was not sufficient. We have aho givea 

 *' them the right of tishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at all 

 " other places in the sea where they have heretofore enjoyed, 

 ** through us, the privilege of fishing, They have likewise the 

 *' power of even partaking of the fishery which we still retain. 

 •' We have not been content with resigning what we possessed, but 

 *' even share what we have left. The United States have liberty 

 *' to fish on that part of the coast of Newfoundland which British 

 *' fishermen shall use. All the reserve is, that they are not to dry 

 ♦' or cure the same on the island, By this grant they are at liberty 

 *' to take our property, for which we have so long kept possession 

 *' of the island. This is certainly a striking instance of that liberal 

 *' equity which we find is the basis of the provisional treaty ! But 

 *' where shall I find an instance of that reciprocity which is also set 

 " fortli in the j)reamble ? We have given the Americans the unli- 

 " mited privilege of tishing on all the coasts, ba}s, and creeks, of 

 *' our American dominions. But where have they, under this 

 *' principle of reciprocity, given us the privilege of fishing on any 

 ♦' of their coasts, ba^s, or creeks ? 1 could wish such an article 

 *' could be found, were it only to give a colour to this boasted reci- 

 " procity. The advantage we should derive from such an article, 

 ♦' cannot be a consideration ; for every real and positive advantage 

 •' to Great Britain seems to have been entirely foreign to the intent 

 " and me;ming of this peace, in every particular ; otherwise I 

 "' should have thought it would have been the care of administra- 

 " tion not to have given without t})e least equivalent, that permis- 

 •' sion which they could never demand as British subjects. I am 

 •' at a loss to consider how we could grant, or they could claim it, 

 *' as a right, when they assumed an independency which has sepa- 

 " rated them from our sovereignty." 



In this speech, the whole article is considered as an improvident 

 concession of British property ; nor is there suggested the slight- 

 est distinction in the nature of the grant between the right of fishing 

 on the banks, and the liberty of the fishery on the coasts. 



Still more explicit are the words of lord Loughborough, in the 

 House of Peers : " The fishery," says he, " on the shores retained 

 " bij Britain, is in the next article, not ceded, but recognised as a 

 >' right inherent in the Americans, which though no longer British 

 ^' subiect'5 they are to coJitinue to enjoy unmolested, no right on the 



