1286 MISCELLANEOUS. 



be consumed fresh. And yet, our public and private armed ships, as 

 these very officers knew, were manned in a good measure by the class 

 of men to whom these indulgences were granted. How many in the 

 same service with Digby, Hotham, and Collier are there now in com- 

 mission, who will "crowd sail alow and aloft" to hunt up and drive 

 out such of our fishermen as shall continue to visit the "bays" inter- 

 dicted in consequence of colonial importunities and representations, 

 by the present prime minister of England, while holding the office of 

 Secretary for the Colonies ? 



In the course of frequent researches among state papers, I do not 

 remember to have seen a public document of such a singular character 

 as his lordship's despatch to Lord Falkland. The American people 

 are distinctly told in it that colonial interference has alone prevented 

 the home government from executing a determination already formed 

 to put an end to all difficulties on the fishing grounds within British 

 jurisdiction. How often has it happened that an English statesman, 

 while assuming the political responsibility of an act, has cast the moral 

 responsibility of it upon the subjects under his special care? When 

 has a secretary for the colonies made known to the world that the 

 representations of colonists have set aside the "intentions" of the 

 cabinet ministers of the crown? I do not ask how often colonial 

 remonstrances have actually prevailed with the ministry; but how 

 frequently has colonial opposition to a course of policy been avowed 

 by ministers as their reason for a change of purpose ? The common 

 form of announcing a cabinet decision is not that employed by Lord 

 Stanley, in his despatch of March 30th to Sir William Colebrooke;* 

 still that decision was deemed honorable and liberal. The motive 

 there stated for opening the Bay of Fundy is, "the removal of a fertile 

 source of disagreement" between the United States and Great Britain. 

 But in the despatch to Lord Falkland, of September 17th, though the 

 same inducements existed in full force for her Majesty's government 

 to execute the "intention" of opening the other "bays" to our fisher- 

 men in order to perfect and perpetuate harmonious feeling, yet that 

 "intention was abandoned" on account of Lord Falkland's "state- 

 ments." 



*This document has not been previously inserted. It bears date March 30, 1845, and 

 is addressed to Sir William Colebrooke, lieutenant governor of New Brunswick. It was 

 the first official annunciation to the people of that colony of the arrangement with Mr. 

 Everett. The colonial newspapers commented upon the course of the ministry in 

 terms of great severity, directly, and for some time after its publication. 



"Sis: I have the honor to acquaint you, for your information and guidance, that her 

 Majesty's government have had under their consideration the claim of citizens of the 

 United States to fish in the Bay of Fundy a claim which has hitherto been resisted on 

 the ground that that bay is included within the British possessions. 



"Her Majesty's government feel satisfied that the Bay of Fundy has been rightly 

 claimed by Great Britain as a bay within the treaty of 1818; but they conceive that the 

 relaxation of the exercise of that right would be attended with mutual advantage to 

 both countries: to the United States as conferring a material benefit on their fishing 

 trade, and to Great Britain and the United States conjointly and equally by the re- 

 moval of a fertile source of disagreement between them. It has accordingly been 

 announced to the United States government that American citizens would hencefor- 

 ward be allowed to fish in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided they do not 

 approach, except in the cases specified in the treaty of 1818, within three miles of the 

 entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. 



"I have, &c., 



"STANLEY." 



