2^ 



aiwJiher Majesty's attorney general when next they transmit;an opinion 

 acYpss the Atlantic which is to afiect their own reputation and the rep- 

 utation of their country. The right to take fish " on the shores of the 

 Magdalene islands," without coiiditions annexed to the grant, whatevei 

 these profoundly ignorant advisers of the Crown of England may say 

 to the contrary, includes, by its very nature and necessity, all the 

 "incidents" of a "free fishery," and all the privileges in use by and 

 common among fishermen, and all the facilities and accommodations, 

 on the land and on the sea, which conduce to the safety of the men 

 employed in the fishery, and to an economical and advantageous pros- 

 ecution of it. 



We have cause of thankfulness, however, that we possess the right 

 to dp at least one thing, under the convention, without being li-able to 

 the pains and penalties of her Majesty's court of vice-admiralty. The 

 sixth query of Lord Falkland is answered in our favor, and as follows: 

 "By the convention, the liberty of entering the bays and harbors of 

 Nova Scotia, for the purpose of purchasing wood and obtaining water, 

 is conceded in general terms, unrestricted by any condition, expressed 

 or implied, limiting it to vessels duly provided at the commencement 

 of the voyage ; and we are of opinion that no such condition can be 

 attached to the enjoyment of the liberty." 



But Lord Falkland is not to be excused for proposing the inquiry. 

 That his question may not be lost sight of, (though once inserted,) it is 

 here repeated. "Have American fishermen," he asked, "the right to 

 enter the bays and hai-bors of this province, [Nova Scotia,]_ for the 

 purpose of purchasing wood or obtaining water, having provided 

 neither of these articles at the commencement of their voyages in their 

 own country; or have they the right only of entering such bays and 

 .harbors in cases of distress, or to purchase wood and obtain water 

 after the usual stock of those articles for the voyage of such fishing 

 crajt has been exhausted or destroyed ?" 



I>id his lordship really believe that our fishing vessels ever, and 

 under any circumstances, depart from home "without providing" 

 wood and water? But, on the supposition that they always do make 

 a vo5''agQ of three hundred miles with stoclis of neither, what then? 

 Common charity might dictate that their improvidence should not be 

 punished with an interdiction against procuring articles of so indis- 

 pensable necessity at the earliest possible mornent. Lord Falkland 

 lives in the middle of the nineteenth centurj'': he' is a British peer : he 

 is yet the governor of a British colony: he is the husband of a daughter 

 of a British king: and bte never should have said, substantially,. that 

 an American fisherman, when found in a British colonial .harbor bar- 

 gaining with a subject of her Majesty for a boat-load of fuel, or craving 

 leave to fill his water-cask at a well, or presuming to Hip a few gallons 

 from a running brook, would be adjudged a lawful prize, unless able 

 to prove to her Majesty's judges of vice-admiraliy that the "usual stock 

 of those articles for the Voyage" had been "exhausted or destroyed." 

 The sixth query was, however, necessary to complete the series, and 

 illustrate the spirit of the whole. The seventh and last answer requires 

 no comment, as it merely announces that — 



