98 ARGUMENT OP GREAT BRITAIN. 



questions arose. It will be found that instead of expressing any 

 dissent or protest in answer to Mr. Stevenson's criticism of Nova 

 Scotia's proposed interpretation of the treaty, Great Britain promptly 

 referred his note to the Provincial Government with a request for a 

 report on which to base its reply. This delay obviously would have 



been wholly unnecessary if the understanding of the British 

 111 Government at that time as to the meaning of these treaty 



provisions had differed materially from that expressed by Mr. 

 Stevenson. Moreover, as will appear in the later correspondence, 

 after this report was received, the British Government still refrained 

 from stating its position on the subject of Nova Scotia's novel inter- 

 pretation of the meaning of the word ' bays ' in reply to Mr. Steven- 

 son's inquiry until that question could be submitted to the Law Offi- 

 cers of the Crown for an opinion, and even after their opinion was 

 rendered in support of the Nova Scotian construction, Great Britain 

 showed a decided inclination to avoid the effect of such opinion by 

 proposing a relaxation of the narrow construction recommended by 

 it, and was only prevented from so doing by vigorous protests from 

 Nova Scotia. It will also appear from the subsequent correspond- 

 ence that no answer whatever was made by Great Britain to the other 

 question presented by Mr. Stevenson." 



Mr. Stevenson had attributed to Nova Scotia certain actions and 

 certain opinions. He did not put to Lord Palmerston a mere abstract 

 question which could be discussed academically. His letter was not 

 confined to the question of headlands, it related to other matters also, 

 and he remonstrated against " the illegal and vexatious proceedings 

 of the authorities of Nova Scotia." Reference of the letter to the 

 Nova Scotia Government was, therefore, necessary before a reply 

 could be sent. 



The statement as to Great Britain's " decided inclination," and the 

 *' vigorous protests from Nova Scotia," is based upon complete mis- 

 apprehension. Not only was a relaxation proposed, but it was 

 actually made by Lord Aberdeen in his letter of the 10th March, 

 1845. And there were no vigorous protests against this concession. 

 On the contrary the Nova Scotia Government concurred in it (as 

 will shortly be pointed out) upon the ground that the United States 

 had, on their part, conceded the correctness of the British view of 

 the headland question (by Mr. Everett's letter, shortly to be quoted) ; 

 nnd it was, no doubt, because of the Governor's letter (of the 17th 

 September, 1844) that the concession was made. 



Afterwards (19th May, 1845) the new Colonial Secretary (Lord 

 Stanley), not apparently appreciating the value of the bays as fish- 

 ing grounds, suggested to the Governors of Nova Scotia and New 

 Brunswick a further relaxation of (British Case, App., p. 146) 



" the strict rule of exclusion exercised by G. Britain over the fishing 

 vessels of the U. States entering the bays of the sea on the B.N. 

 American coasts." 



