MISCELLANEOUS. 1261 



charged to ascertain whether there cannot be some measures adopted 

 by reciprocal legislation to adjust these difficulties and enlarge the 

 rights of our fishermen, consistently with all the existing interests of 

 the United States." 



It is understood that the Committee on Commerce, at the moment 

 of the misunderstanding in July, had nearly matured a bill which em- 

 braced, substantially, the propositions submitted by Sir Henry Bul- 

 wer, in June, 1851. To assume that such is the fact, and that the bill 

 would have passed Congress, but for the precipitancy of the parties to 

 the Toronto agreement, recalls the significant remark of Mr. Davis, 

 once already quoted, that the colonists were "playing a game which 

 may not advance materially the interests they have in view." 



Our record, thus far, contains a rapid notice of events connected 

 with the controversy to the close of August, 1852. It comprises, as 

 will be perceived, no account of any action on the part or the two 

 governments to adjust the difficulties between them, either by ne- 

 gotiation or by legislation. 



But there is good authority for saying that the British admiral 

 (Seymour) was instructed by the admirality, in the course of August, 

 to allow our fishermen to pursue their avocation in the Bay of 

 Fundy, on the terms of the arrangement of 1845; to allow us 

 to fish at the Magdalene islands, as in former years; to forbear 

 to capture our vessels when more than three miles from the 

 shore, as measured without reference to the "headlines," and 

 by the old construction of the convention; and generally to execute 

 his orders with forbearance and moderation. That the British 

 ministry have been disposed, from first to last, to adjust the contro- 

 versy on honorable terms, can hardly be doubted. In 1852, as in 

 1845, the clamors, remonstrances, and, I will acld.the misrepresenta- 

 tions of the colonists, changed their intentions. As at every former 

 time, the politicians of Nova Scotia led off in opposition to a set- 

 tlement. Early in September, a public meeting was called at Halifax, 

 which, according to the published report or its proceedings, was 

 attended by persons of all classes and interests, "to petition her 

 Majesty in regard to the rumored surrender of the rights of fishery 

 secured to British subjects by the convention of 1818. One gentle- 

 man of consideration and influence appears to have "protested against 

 the utility of the meeting," but to have been "promptly checked by 

 his worship the mayor," who presided. Several merchants were pres- 

 ent, but performed a secondary part. The political leaders had every- 

 thing their own way. One member of the "provincial parliament" 

 nominated the chairman; another introduced a series of resolutions; 

 while a third, who declared that "a strong expression of the opinion 

 of the meeting should go to the foot of the throne," closed his remarks 

 with submitting a memorial to her Majesty, which "Tie had prepared." 

 A fourth honorable M. P. P. is understood to have said, that "if her 

 Majesty's government give up the fisheries, they must be prepared to 

 give up the colony also;" and the Hon. Joseph Howe, provincial sec- 

 retary, is represented to have advocated, with his usual power, the 

 adoption of the measures presented by his associate politicians. Com- 

 ment upon these measures is not necessary. The tone of the resolu- 

 tions, of the address to the governor of the colony, and of the memo- 

 rial to the Queen, is offensive. These documents, from beginning to 

 end, show a spirit of deep hostility to the United States, and a deter- 



