27B 



the ' responsibilit}'', arid it rests upon us. Let us no longer excite our- 

 selves and agitate the country with unavailing debates ; but let us ad- 

 dress ourselves to the relief of the fishermen, and to the improvement 

 of our commerce. 



" Now, sir, there is only one way that Congress can act, and that is 

 by reciprocal legislation with the British Parliament or the British colo- 

 nies of some sort. I commit myself to no particular scheme or project 

 of reciprocal legislation, and certainly to none injurious to an agricul- 

 tural or a manufacturing interest." 



As to the coarse to be pursued, he said, in concluding his speech, 

 "I, for one, will give my poor opinion upon this subject, and it is this : 

 that so long hereafter as any force shall be maintained in those north- 

 eastern waters,- an equal naval force must be maintained there by our- 

 selves. When Great Britain shall diminish or withdraw her armed 

 force, we ought to diminish or withdraw our own ; and in the mean 

 time a commission ought to be raised, or some appropriate com- 

 mittee of this body — the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Com- 

 mittee on Finance, or the Committee on Commerce — should be charged 

 to ascertain whether there cannot be some measures adopted by recip- 

 rocaL legislation to adjust these difficulties and enlarge the rights of our 

 fishermen, consistently with all the existing interests of the United' 

 States;" 



It is understood that the Committee on Commerce, at the moment of 

 the misunderstanding in July, had nearly matured a bill which em- 

 braced, substantially, the propositions submitted by Sir Henry Bulwer, 

 in June, 1851. To assume that such is the fact, and that the bill 

 would have passed Congress, but for the precipitancy of the parties to 

 the Toronto agreement, recalls the significant remark of Mr. Davis, 

 once already quoted, that the colonists were " playing a game which 

 may not advance materially the interests th^ey have in view." 



Our record, thus far, contains a rapid notice of events connected with 

 the controversy to the close of August, 1852. It comprises, as will 

 be perceived, no account of any action on the part of the two govern- 

 ments to adjust the difficulties between them, either by negotiation or 

 by legislation. 



But there is good authority for saying that the British admiral (Sey- 

 mour) was instructed by the admiralty, in the course of August, to al- 

 low our fishermen to pursue their avocation in the Bay of Fundy, on 

 the terms of the arrangement of 1845; to allow us to fish at the Mag- 

 dalene islands, as in former years; to forbear to capture our vessels 

 when more than three miles from the shore, as measured without ref- 

 erence to the; " headlands," and by the old construction of the conven- 

 tion ; and generally to execute his orders with forbearance and moder- 

 ation. That the British ministry have been disposed, from first to last, 

 to adjust the controversy on honorable terms, can hardly be doubted. 

 In 1852, as in 1845, the clamors, remonstrances, and, I will add, the 

 misrepresentations of the colonists, changed their intentions. As ^t 

 every former time, the politicians of Nova Scotia led off in opposition 

 to a settlement. Early in September, a public meeting was called at 

 Halifax, which, according to the published report of its proceedings, 

 was attended by persons of all classes and interests, " to petition her 

 18 



