QUESTION FIVE. 107 



undoubtedly an oversight in the Convention of 1818 to make so 

 large a concession to England, since the United States had usually 

 considered that those vast inlets or recesses of the Ocean ought to be 

 open to American fishermen, as freely as the sea itself, to within 

 three marine miles of the shore." 



Attempt has been made to minimise the effect of Mr. Webster's 

 declaration, and it is sometimes said that Mr. Webster indicated in 

 his Notice that the " strict and rigid construction " was not the true 

 construction. But Mr. Webster said nothing to that effect. His 

 language was (British Case, App., p. 153) : 



" Not agreeing that the construction thus put upon the treaty is 

 conformable to the intentions of the Contracting Parties, this infor- 

 mation is, however, made public, to the end that those con- 

 121 cerned in the American fisheries may perceive how the case 

 at present stands, and be upon their guard." 



In Mr. Webster's view, the British interpretation of the language 

 of the treaty was correct; but he suggested that possibly the lan- 

 guage had not properly expressed that which its authors had 

 intended. 



That Mr. Webster meant, by the language of his circular, pre- 

 cisely what he said, is shown (if that be necessary) by a despatch 

 from Mr. Crampton (British Minister at Washington) to Lord 

 Malmesbury (2nd August, 1852) : 



"I observe with satisfaction that Mr. Webster now clearly per- 

 ceives and fairly admits the correctness of the construction of the 

 Convention of 1818 maintained by Her Majesty's Government. The 

 opinion of the Queen's Advocate and of the Attorney General is, Mr. 

 Webster said, 'undoubtedly right': and he afterwards informed 

 me that the President, from whom he had just received a letter on the 

 subject, now concurred in that opinion." (British Case, App., p. 157.) 



Mr. Rush (one of the negotiators of the treaty of 1818) under- 

 stood Mr. Webster's language as an admission of the validity of the 

 British contention, and wrote a letter (18th July, 1853) in which, 

 declaring that the negotiators could not be chargeable with "over- 

 sight," he attributed Mr. Webster's language to "momentary inad- 

 vertence." (United States Case, App., p. 557.) 



The United States Case suggests that Mr. Webster's notice could' 

 not have been understood by the British Government as an accept- 

 ance of its view as to the meaning of the word " bays." because the 

 British Foreign Secretary (Lord Malmesbury) shortly afterwards 

 expressed regret that it should have been published. (United States 

 Case, p. 129.) 



But this suggestion disregards the true meaning of Lord Malmes- 

 bury's language. The expression of regret had no reference what- 

 ever to that part of Mr. Webster's announcement which has just 



