MISCELLANEOUS. 1279 



convention, that we might take fish on the coast and coasts of these 

 islands, as really is said when speaking of the cod-fishery, would have 

 been a vain use of words; but since the ^ernn^-fishery requires the 

 use of shores, and without the use of shores cannot be prosecuted in the 

 common way, the reason why the term was used in relation to that 

 fishery is too manifest to need further illustration. 



Still, as it is argued that, "if the liberty of landing on the shores of 

 the Magdalene islands had been intended to be conceded, such an im- 

 portant concession would have been the subject of express stipula- 

 tion," &c., it may not be amiss to consider the suggestion. And I 

 reply that, if "a description of the inland extent of the shore over 

 which" we may use nets and seines in catching the herring is neces- 

 sary, it is equally necessary to define our rights of drying and curing 

 the cod elsewhere, and as stipulated in the convention. Both are shore 

 rights, and both are left without condition or limitation as to the 

 quantity of beach and upland that may be appropriated by our fisher- 

 men. It was proclaimed in the House of Commons, more than two 

 centuries ago, by Coke that giant of the law that "FREE FISHING" 

 included "ALL ITS INCIDENTS." The thought may be useful to the 

 Queen's advocate and her Majesty's attorney general when next they 

 transmit an opinion across the Atlantic which is to affect their own 

 reputation and the reputation of their country. The right to take 

 fish "on the shores of the Magdalene islands," without conditions 

 annexed to the grant, whatever these profoundly ignorant advisers of 

 the crown of England may say to the contrary, includes, by its very 

 nature and necessity, all the "incidents" of a "free fishery," and all 

 the privileges in use by and common among fishermen, and all the 

 facilities and accommodations, on the land and on the sea, which 

 conduce to the safety of the men employed in the fishery, and to an 

 economical and advantageous prosecution of it. 



We have cause of thankfulness, however, that we possess the right 

 to do at least one thing, under the convention, without bein<* liable to 

 the pains and penalties of her Majesty's court of vice-admiralty. The 

 sixth query of Lord Falkland is answered in our favor, and as follows : 

 "By the convention, the liberty of entering the bays and harbors of 

 Nova Scotia, for the purpose of purchasing wood and obtaining water, 

 is conceded in general terms, unrestricted by any condition, expressed 

 or implied , limiting it to vessels duly provided at the commencement 

 of the voyage; and we are of opinion that no such condition can be 

 attached to the enjoyment of the liberty." 



But Lord Falkland is not to be excused for proposing the inquiry. 

 That his question may not be lost sight of, (though once inserted,) it is 

 here repeated. ''Have American fishermen," he asked, "the right to 

 enter the bays and harbors of this province, [Nova Scotia,] for the 

 purpose of purchasing wood or obtaining water, having provided 

 neither of these articles at the commencement of their voyages in their 

 own country; or have they the right only of entering such bays and 

 harbors in cases of distress, or to purchase wood and obtain water 

 after the usual stock of those articles for the voyage of such fishing 

 craft has been exhausted or destroyed?" 



Did his lordship really believe that our fishing vessels ever, and 

 under any circumstances, depart from home "without providing" 

 wood and water? But, on the supposition that they always do malte 

 a voyage of three hundred miles with stocks of neither, what then? 



