THE RENAISSANCE OF THE FISHERIES 155 



Britain. During the progress of the war it became evident 

 that the British government would never again ratify a 

 treaty of peace without a very strong protest against grant- 

 ing liberties to American fishermen in the waters of the 

 British dominion. They were determined to wrest from the 

 Americans the rights and privileges granted to them under 

 the treaty of 1783. 



The peace commissioners from the United States, J. Q. 

 Adams, Clay, Bayard, Gallatin and Russell were expected 

 to conclude a treaty of peace ; and yet, rather than to allow 

 the subject of surrending the fisheries to come up for dis- 

 cussion, they were instructed to break off peace negotiations 

 and to return home. The peace commissioners of Great 

 Britain were determined to keep Moose Island the site 

 of Eastport and the fisheries. The assumption was made 

 by them that the effects of the war were to terminate any 

 and all privileges that the subjects of the United States held 

 under the treaty of 1783. The views of the American com- 

 missioners were set forth in a proposition offered by Clay 

 that we held our rights in the fisheries by the same tenure 

 as we did our independence; that the treaty of 1783 was 

 an instrument recognizing the rights and liberties enjoyed 

 by the people of the United States as an independent na- 

 tion, and containing the terms and conditions on which the 

 two parts of one empire mutually agreed thenceforth to con- 

 stitute two distinct and separate nations. 1 



The British commissioners found these grounds of main- 

 taining the fisheries by the Americans to be impregnable. 

 To offset this condition, they made a demand for the free 

 navigation of the Mississippi River. No justifiable reasons 

 for such a demand were presented, but it caused a certain 

 amount of consternation and confusion among the Ameri- 

 can commissioners, for these subjects the fisheries and the 

 navigation of the Mississippi were matters that would al- 



i Adams, Duplicate Letters, p. 55. 



