294 



(1852,) that the act of Parliament of 181& (citpd in this report) asserts 

 the British construction as now maintained. It is not so. The act does 

 indeed recite the first article of the convention, and was passed in con-, 

 sequence of it ; but it does not contain a word which defines the terns 

 "bays," or which indicates the manner of measuiirig the throe-mile 

 interdiction. It authorizes the seizure of vessels that should violate its, 

 provisions. The proceedings of British naval ofllicers on the American 

 stations, who have always been furnished with a copy of the act, and 

 "w'itKa. copy of the convention, and whose orders from the Lords of the 

 Admiralty have always been founded on both, will enable us to ascer- 

 tain whedier or not the ships-of-wair have allowed our vessels to- fish 

 anywhere and everywhere, in the bays and outside- of the bays, more 

 than three miles fi-om the shore. 



• While my home was on the eastern fi-ontier, hardly a year passed 

 without my seeing one or more ships of the royal navy which were em- 

 ployed on this service in the Bay of Furidy ; and I am sure that a case of 

 seizure for " fishing broad" in that bay never occurred previous to the 

 year 1843. Even Captain Hoare, of the Dotterel, who, as we have seen, 

 spread consternation among our fishermen in 1824, and subsequently, 

 Hifofmed Admiral Lake, his commander-in-chief, that his orders to the 

 officers in command of his armed boats had been to capture only such 

 American vessels as " they found within three marine miles of the 

 shore," and to except those " in evident distress, or in want of wood 

 and water." The same was observed elsewhere. The report of Cap- 

 tain Fair, of her Majesty's ship Champion, in 1839, shows that he passed 

 through a fleet of six or seven hundred American ' vessels in various 

 positions — some within the headlands of the bays, and some along the 

 shores ; but none within the three-mile interdiction. His fi'ank declara- 

 tion on the subject is honorable to him. While cruising in the vicinity 

 of Prince Edward Island he states that there was not " a single case 

 which called for our interference, or where it was necessary to recom- 

 mend caution; on the contrary, the Americans say that a privilege has- 

 been granted them, and that they will not abuse it." That, in allow* 

 ing several hundreds of our fishermen to pursue their avocation with- 

 out molestation, his conduct was in accordance with his instructions, 

 we have positive evidence ; for Lieutenant Paine, who visited the fish- 

 ing grounds the same year in command of the Grampus, stated after 

 his return, in a letter to the Secretary of State, that the orders of " Ad- 

 miral Sir Thomas Harvey, as he informed me, were only to prevent" 

 our countrymen from " fishing nearer than th^ee mUes." But the au- 

 thorities of Nova Scotia, said Lieutenant Paine, "«eem to claim a right 

 to exclude Americans from aU bays, including those large seas — such, 

 as the Bay of Fundy and the Bay of Chale'urs; and also to draw a 

 line from headland to headland, the Americans not to approach within 

 three miles of this line." 



Here, then, two years before the crown lawyers gave the opinion 

 under examination, is our first knowledge of the " headlands." It wasi 

 but whispered even in 1839. Thfe naval officers knew nothing about it. 

 Our government knew nothing about it until 1841, when Mr. Forsyth^ 

 in a despatch to Mr. Stevenson, our envoy to the Court of St. James, 



