MISCELLANEOUS. l2?l 



curing fish within the limits designated by our instructions, as a sine 

 qua non, the liberty of fishing on the coasts of the Magdalen islands, 

 and of the western coast of Newfoundland, and the privilege of enter- 

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

 America. Both were suggested as important to our fisheries, in the 

 communications on that subject, whicn 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 im- 

 plied 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 grouted in the year 1670. The exception applies 

 only to the coasts and 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. 



"It will also be perceived that we insist on the clause by which the 

 United States renounce their right to the fisheries, relinquished by 

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

 counter projet. We insisted on it with the view 1st. Of preventing 

 an implication that the fisheries secured to us were a new grant, and 

 of placing the permanence of the rights secured, and of those re- 

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

 stated, that our renunciation extended only to the distance of three miles 

 from the coast. This last point was the more important, as, with the 

 exception of the fisheries in open boats within certain harbors, 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 shore; 

 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." 



But if, as the crown lawyers contend, we cannot fish in a single bay 

 of Nova Scotia, what did the American ministers mean, in the state- 

 ments which I have marked? Did they attempt to deceive an 

 Adams, on questions connected with the fisheries; or were they 

 ignorant of their duty? Neither; for Mr. Adams himself emphatically 

 and positively affirms their construction of the convention. Under 

 circumstances* highly interesting to his fame with this generation 

 and with posterity, he declared that this convention "secures essen- 

 tially and substantially all the rights acquired by the treaty of 1783; 

 it secures the whole coast fishery of every part of the British dominion, 

 excepting within three marine miles of the shores." What answer can 

 be made to this ? 



Still again: If the crown lawyers are in the right, how does it 

 happen that we were in the uninterrupted possession of the very 

 bays in dispute for a quarter of a century? The fact is not doubted; 

 indeed, the attempt to dispossess us is the cause of the controversy. 

 Mr. Everett afforded Lord Aberdeen an opportunity nay, invited 

 him to explain this circumstance; but ins lordsnip declined to 

 reply. Durmg these twenty-five years, ships of the royal navy 

 annually appeared on the fishing grounds under special orders to 

 prevent aggressions; yet not one of them, prior to the capture of 



* Controversy with Jonathan Russell. 



