211 



I 



I think it is necessary to go somewhat, yet briefly, into the historical aspects 

 of the fis!',cry question, in order to see whether tliat which has been the subject of 

 diplomatic controversy, and of public feeling in the past, is really tlic same thing; 

 which we have under discussion to-day. The question has been asked, and asked 

 with some earnestness, by my friends on the other side, " If the inshore (isheries 

 have the little importance which you say they have, why do your fishermen go to 

 the (iulf of St. Lawrence at aH?" And again it has been asked, " If the insiiorc 

 fisheries arc of such insignificant consequence, why is it that the fishermen and 

 people of the United States have always manifested such a feverish anxiety on the 

 subject?" Those questions deserve an answer, and unless an answer can be made, 

 you undoubtedly will feel that there must be some unseen importance in (his 

 question, or there would not have been ail the trouble witli refirence to it ii(?re- 

 tofore. Why do the fishermen of the United States come to the Gulf of St. Law- 

 rence at all .' Why sliouUI they not come here? What men on the face of the 

 earth have a better right to plough with their keels the waters of the Gull of 

 St. Lawrence than the descendants of the lishermen of New Kngland, to whose 

 energy and bravery, a century and a quarter ago, it is chiefly owing that there is 

 any Nova Scotia to-day unilcr tiie Hritish Hag ? I am not going to dwell ui)on the 

 history of the subject. It is well Known that it ;vas New Kngland that saved to the 

 Crown of Kngland these uiaritiine provinces; that to New England tisliernuMi is 

 due the fact that tlie ila^ of Great Britain flies on the citadel, and not the flag of 

 France, to-day. 



Karly in the diplomatic history of this case, we find that tiie Treaty of Paris, 

 in 17G3, excluilcd French lishermen tliree leagues from the coast belonging (o CJreat 

 Britain in the Gidf of St. Lawrence, and fifteen leagues fnmi the Island of Cape 

 Breton. We lind (hat the Treaty with Spain, in the same year, contained a relin- 

 quislimeiit of all Spanish fishing rights in tlie neighboiu'liood of Xewfoundlaiivl. 

 The Crown of S|)ain expressly desistetl from all pretensions to the right oi' lisliing 

 in the neighbourhood of Newfoundland. Those are the two 'frcaties of 1703 — the 

 Treaty of Paris with France, and the Treaty with Sjjain. Obviously, at that time, 

 (ireat Britain claimed for herself exclusive sovereignty over itiie whole tiulf of 

 St. Lawrence, and over a large part of the .idjacent seas. By the Treaty of 

 Versailles, in I7SI}, substantially the same provisions of exclusion were made with 

 reference! to the French fishermen. Now, in that broad claim of jurisdiction over 

 the adjacent seas, in tin; right asserted and maintained to have British subjects 

 fish there exclusively, the lishermen of New Kngland, as British subjects, shared. 

 Undoubtedly, the pretensions that were yielded to by those Treaties, have long 

 since disappeared. Nobody believes now that Great Britain has any exclusive 

 jurisdiction over the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or the IJanks of Newfoundland, but at 

 the lime when the United States asserted lh(>ir in<l(.peiulcnee, and wiien liie Treaty 

 was I'ormed betweiMi the United Stales and GnvU. Britain, sucii \v<'rr the claims of 

 England, and those claims had been ;u(piiesced in by France and by Spain. That 

 explains the reason why it was that the elder Adams saM he would rather cut 

 off his right hand tiian give up the fisheries, at the time the Treaty was iovnied, in 

 17.S.'5; and that explains the reason why, wh.en his sen, .lolin Qnincy Adams, was 

 one of the Commissioners who negotiated the Treaty ot (iiient, at the; end of the 

 war of '."TJ, he insisted so strenuously that nothing should be done to give away 

 the rights of the citizens of the Cnited States in these ocv^in fis-heries. Those are 

 the tisheries which existed in (hat <lay, and those alone. Tlie ;nack<'rel fishery was 

 unknown. It was tlie ctid fishery and the whale iishery that calh-d forth the eidogy 

 of Burke, over a hundred years ago. It was the cod fishery and whale Iishery for 

 which the lirsl and second .Vdanis so strenuously contended; and, inasmuch as it 

 was found impossible, in the Treaty at the end of the war of 1812, to come to any 

 adjustment of (he lisiiery cpiestion, all mentiim of it was omitted in the Treaty ; the 

 Treaty was made leaving each party to assert his claims at some future time. And 

 so it stood, Great Britain having given notice that she did not intend to renew the 

 rights and privileges conceded t'.; the United States in the Treaty of I7H;J, and the 

 United States giving notice that they regarded the privileges of the Treaty of 1783 

 as of a permanent character, and not terminated by the war of 1812 ; but no con- 

 clusion was arrived at between the parties. What followed ? The best account of 

 the controversy to befoimd, is in a book called "The Fisheries and the Mississippi," 

 which contains John Quincy Adams' letters on the subject of the Treaty of Ghent, 

 and the Cimvcntion of 1818. Mr. Adams, in that book, says that the year after 

 peace was declared, British cruiiecrs warned all American fishing vessels not to 



