961 



not (lis)ins(>(l, )it'rliaps, In rli-ny the ripht In (lu! nl)s(rnct, hut ns a servant of tlic Crown 

 lie ('(iiild mil iiilvisf the Crown to try Ihnt kind of cxporinicnt. I rrcollccl ilial wlit-n, 

 hcforc unr civil war, an anient and cntlnisiaHlic adniin;r of slavery wiid on llir lldor of 

 Coiil^i'i'ss llial ('a|iila1 on^lit lo own lalionr, and that w<; had niadt; a ^nat mistake in 

 Nrw Kn^laiid (hat the i-apitalist did not own tlic niun who workcil in llif tiictoric^s and 

 the iiH'M wlio flilluwi'd the sea, Mr. (^nincy rc|)lii'il l)y an anecdote resiieclin;;' the iiounty 

 which ilic Slate of Maine {ravo for every wolf's Jicad. A man was aHkciJ why In; did 

 not raise a Hock of wolves iiir the homily. He said ho was afraid it wonld turn out to 

 he a hard Hock to tend. And the wisest men in (ireat JJritain — and I can say this in 

 the iirescnce of ^:entlemen who are almost all JJriiish snhjccts now, wilhonl fear of 

 fjivin;;- ulfcnce- llie wisest men of Great Hrilain lhon,i,du it was an altemiit which had 

 lieiier nol he made. IJnt the Act of Ahircii ITTo, uv^d hy the ol)stinacy of li('or};e III 

 and his adherence lo worn-out traditions, was jiasscd. After a conilict with the Colonies 

 on the snhject of the Stamp Act and the Tea Tax, that fatal .Act was passed, aimed nt 

 iionie roll', selt-j,'ovcrniiient, and the trade of the New Kn^;lahd iieople, or rather, I 

 should say, in the llrst instance, of Massacinisetts, hecanse it \\as Miosachusctts over 

 wiiicli the contest was wafjed during; the early part ol' our struf;i;le, and atlemptin^ to 

 mwlo all we had heen doinf? for loO years; to revolutioni/o our entire political system, 

 and instead of leaving \is what we had enjoyed for that time, homo rule, to suhstituto 

 a liovennnent at St. James' or St. Stephens'. Amon|j^ other thing's, it attempted to 

 deprive us ol' our rif:;hl in the fisheries. The Slalnte acknowledged the existence of 

 Ihi' ri^^ht, hut .Massachusetts was to ho deprived of her right hy the Act of Parliament. 

 Tlien cante the dehate, fiercer than ever, "Can Parliament lake from ns this riglit ?" 

 M ('II, the claim restcil upon the assumption that all the grants the Cliarlers vested in 

 lis were held at the discretion of Parliament, and if Parliament could take away (mr 

 Jisiieries she could lake away our landmarks, she could take Boston and Salem, wiiich 

 liad lieeii u;ranted to us under the same Ciiarlcr that the lislieries had heen granted ; ami 

 when that Act was passed, Hurko and Kox, and Sheridan, and Harre, .iiid otiiers, our 

 friends in the IJrilish Parliament, called it a simple provocation lo rehellion. IJurke 

 said, ''It is a great Penal Hill which passed sentence on the trade and susleiianee of 

 America." New Kie^laiid refused oliedience. Tlie other Colonies assisted iier, and wc 

 always treated it as void. Then came the war, and what was the cH'ect of that on our 

 title? N\ iiy, may it please you, gentlemen, 1 do not deny tliat war has an ed'ect, hut 

 not the kind" of oflecl wiiicli has hieii contended for hy the IJrilisIi Government and hy 

 counsel. I agree that war puts at liazard, not only every right of a nation, hut the 

 existence of the nation. Tliere are honndary lines heforo v\ar, and they are good 

 against neutrals, a!id good hetween the helligereuts, unless something else happens; hut the 

 lioundary lines and everyiiiing they inclose are put at stake liy the war. If one party 

 enlireiv eoiKpiers the other, it has a right to decide upon the future existence of the 

 other nation, and all its rights; and w lien our ancestors pledged their " lives, t'ortunes, 

 and saeri'd honour" to mainlaiu all their rights, including this right against the demands 

 of Parliament, I agree that lliey put this right, as they put tlieir lives, at hazard ; hut, 

 forlnnalels for us, tiio war did not turn out a concpiest of any of our rights. At tlic 

 close of tin; war tlu; Treaty of 178^ was made. Now, at the time when the Treaty of 

 178;i was made, Clreat JJritain did not claim to have coiujuertd America, or to have 

 taken from us by military ibrce any of our rights, and the coiise(|uenco was that in 

 framing the Treaty of 17H3, while we altered hy common consent some of the boundary 

 lines, none hy riglit of con(|iiest, it was declared that the people of tiie United States 

 shall "continue to enjoy unmolested the right to lake fish of every kind on the British 

 hanks, and all oilier hanks of Newfoundland ; also in tiie (lulf of St. Lawrence, and all 

 other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time hereto- 

 fore to lisli." What could he stronger than that ? It was an acknowledgment of a 

 continued right possessed long before. And if any fpiestion of its constrnclion arose, 

 it ajipealed to what tliey had been heretofore accustomed to do, " where the inhabitants 

 of both countries used at any time lieretoibre to fish." 



How was it constrncd hy Hritish statesmen 'r* Is there any douht about it? I take 

 it my brethren of the Colonial Bar will consider Lord Loughborough good authority. 

 Ih; said these words in the House of Lords respecting the fishery clause of the Treaty : 

 " The Jishrrics were not conceded, but recoijnized as a right inherent in the Americunn, which, 

 though no longer British nulijects, they are to continue to enjoy unntoleitted." The same 

 thing, substantially, was said by Lord North, who had been, we are told now hy his 

 hiographers. the unwilling, but certainly llie subservient instrument in the hands of his 

 King for trying lo deprive \is of this, as well as our other rights. We then did continue 

 to enjoy them, as we had from 1G20 down. We had as much right to them as the 

 [280j 2 N 



