414 APPENDIX 



material was omitted, it may be useful to add some further details and observations. 

 On the subject of the fisheries, the abstract question of our right had been so ably 

 discussed in your two notes to the British Government that we had nothing to add 

 to that branch of the argument. We could only, and we did it with some effect, 

 demonstrate that, with respect at least to territorial rights. Great Britain herself 

 had not heretofore considered them as abrogated by the mere fact of an intervening 

 war. Thus, Tobago, ceded by her to France by the treaty of 1783, taken during the 

 ensuing war, and restored by the treaty of Amiens, had again been retaken by Great 

 Britain during the last war. She was in actual possession when the treaty of 1814 

 took place, and if the treaties of 1783 and of Amiens were abrogated by the last war, 

 the cession of that island by France had become null, and a retrocession was useless. 

 Yet Great Britain did not reason in that manner, and did not consider her right good 

 without a formal cession from France, which she accordingly obtained by the last 

 Treaty of Paris. Thus, neither the treaty of 1763 generally, nor the cession of Canada 

 to Great Britain particularly, having been renewed by the treaty of Amiens, if the 

 treaty of 1763 was abrogated by subsequent wars she now held Canada by right of 

 possession only, and the original right of France had revived. We apphed those 

 principles to fisheries which, independent of the special circumstances of our treaty 

 of peace of 1783, were always considered as partaking in their nature of territorial 

 rights. It is, however, true, although it was not quoted against us, that it had been 

 deemed necessary to renew in every subsequent treaty the right of fishing on part of 

 the coast of Newfoundland originally reserved to the French. Although our argu- 

 ments were not answered, it appeared to me that two considerations operated strongly 

 against the admission of our right. That right of taking and drying fish in harbors 

 within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain, particularly on coasts now inhabited, 

 was extremely obnoxious to her, and was considered as what the French civilians call 

 a servitude. And personal pride seems also to have been deeply committed, not 

 perhaps the less because the argument had not been very ably conducted on their 

 part. I am satisfied that we could have obtained additional fishing-ground in exchange 

 of the words "forever." I am perfectly sensible of the motives which induced govern- 

 ment to wish that the portion of fisheries preserved should be secured against the con- 

 tingency of a future war. But it seems to me that no treaty stipulation can effectually 

 provide for this. The fate of the fisheries in that case will depend on the result of 

 the war. If they beat us (which God forbid), they will certainly try to deprive us 

 of our fisheries on their own coasts. If we beat them, we will preserve them and 

 probably acquire the country itself. 



Yet I will not conceal that this subject caused me more anxiety than any other 

 branch of the negotiations, and that, after having participated in the Treaty of Ghent, 

 it was a matter of regret to be obliged to sign an agreement which left the United States 

 in any respect in a worse situation than before the war. It is true that we might have 

 defeated the whole object by insisting that the words "not liable to be impaired 

 by any future war" should be inserted in the article. But this course did not appear 

 justifiable. It was impossible, after a counter-project formed on compromise had 

 been once offered, that the United States could by negotiations alone be reinstated 

 in their enjojrment of the fisheries to their full extent; and if a compromise was to 

 take place, the present time and the terms proposed appeared more eligible than the 

 chance of future contingencies. I became perfectly satisfied that no reliance could 

 be placed on legal remedies; that no court in England would give to the treaty of 

 1783 a construction different from that adopted by their Government, and that if 



