1284 MISCELLANEOUS. 



The second instance is from the letters of the Hon. G. R. Young 

 (a distinguished gentleman of Nova Scotia) to Mr. Stanley.* 



"As early as the month of March," wrote Mr. Young, "if any 

 stranger approached the coasts of Nova Scotia, his observations 

 woulu induce him to believe that he was advancing to the territory 

 of some great commercial state. At a short distance from the shore, 

 and on the banks and most productive fishing grounds, he would per- 

 ceive fleets or continuous lines of small shallops; and if the day and 

 season were auspicious, he would discover that their crews were 

 busily employed in drawing forth the treasures of the deep. Seeing 

 them thus anchored within view, nay, within almost the shadow of the 

 shore, and employed in appropriating the resources which woula ap- 

 pear to belong to it, the deduction would be irresistable that they had 

 recently left the neighboring harbors, and were manned by their 

 inhabitants. He would, however, be in error. On inquiry he would 

 learn that they have come a distance of three hundred miles, to avail 

 themselves of the privilege that they belonged to a rival state, and that 

 they enjoyed the right by virtue of a treaty, which the government have 

 bestowed without necessity and without return. He would learn, also, 

 that this liberal concession was highly disadvantageous to the inhab- 

 itants on the coast by lessening the productiveness of the fishing 

 grounds." 



That the ministry consented to act on the opinion of the Queen's 

 advocate and her Majesty's attorney general, with much reluctance, 

 is very obvious. The first proof is found in their delay in transmitting 

 it to the colonial governor who furnished the "case" on which it is 

 founded. In the despatch which accompanied it at last, Lord Stan- 

 ley remarks that "the subject has frequently engaged the attention 

 of myself and my collegues, with the view or adopting further meas- 

 ures, if necessary, for the protection of British interests in accordance" 

 therewith. But he adds: "We have, however, on full consideration, 

 come to the conclusion, as regards the fisheries of Nova Scotia, that 

 the precautions taken by the provincial legislature appear adequate 



treaty neither has England; that they do not refuse to American fishermen the privi- 

 lege of taking fish in the Bay of Fundy ; whether right or wrong, is another thing. 



' ' All that we intend to do is nothing more nor less than we have been doing for the last 

 thirty years and that is, to seize vessels caught within three miles of the shore, taking 

 fish contrary to the treaty, as thoroughly under stood both by England and America, and 

 also by the fishermen themselves. Whenever it can be shown that an American vessel 

 has been taken outside of the prescribed limits, then it will be time enough for our 

 neighbors to get in a pucker." 



A newspaper published at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, (also in August, 

 1852,) in an article in answer to the question ' ' Is war probable? " advocates the policy 

 of permitting the Americans to have access to the colonial shores, and remarks: " But 

 a very pretty quarrel with America is by no means improbable, if our cruisers insist on 

 capturing all Yankee fishing vessels nearer the shore than three miles outside of a line drawn 

 from opposite headlands of a bay. Notwithstanding the opinion of the English crown law 

 officers, this interpretation of the treaty mil throw the argument entirely into the hands oj 

 the Americans. If the headlands be low, or the bay wide, like the entrance to the Bay 

 of Chaleur, it is not possible for the fishermen to know, or to estimate, their true posi- 

 tion in regard to those headlands. The horizontal line of vision, from the deck of a 

 schooner, is intercepted by the convexity of the earth at a distance of six or eight miles. 

 It is not to be concealed that a capture made, or a shot fired, under these circumstances, 

 might produce war. And if war be the result, can Britain rely on the hearty co-opera- 

 tion of the provincials? Exceedingly doubtful. Will the Canadians submit to have 

 their flourishing towns and villages destroyed, and their families slaughtered, in order 

 to protect a fow unprofitable fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?" 



* Now the Earl of Derby. 



