299^ 



dicffed in Gortsequence of colonial importunities and representations, by 

 the present prime minister of England, while holding the office of Sec- 

 retary for the Colonies ? 



In the course of frequent researches among state papers, I do not 

 remember to have seen a public document of such a singular character 

 as his lordship's despatch to Lord Falkland. The American people ^ 

 are distinctly told in it that colonial interference has alone prevented 

 the home government from executing a determination already formed, 

 to put an end to all difficalties on the fishing grounds within British, 

 jurisdiction. How often has it happened that ah English statesman^, 

 while assuming the political responsibility of an act, has cast the moral 

 responsibihty of it upon the subjects under his special care? When 

 has a secretary for the colonies made known to the world that the- 

 representations of colonists have set aside the "intentions" of the cabi- 

 net ministers of the crown ? I do not ask how often colonial remon- 

 strances have actually prevailed with the ministry; but how frequently 

 has colonial opposition to a course of policy been avowed by ministers' 

 as their reason for a change of purpose? The common form of an-- 

 nouncing a cabinet decision is not that employed by Lord Stanley, in 

 his despatch of March 30th to Sir William Colebrooke ;* stiU that de-i 

 cision was deemed honorable and liberal. The niotive there stated for 

 opening the Bay of Fundy is, "the removal of a fertile source of disagree- 

 ment" between the United States and Great Britain. But in the des- 

 patch to Lord Falkland, of September 17th, though the same induce- 

 ments existed m full force for her Majesty's government to execute the 

 "intention" of opening the other "bays" to our fishermen in order to 

 perfect and perpetuate harmonious feeling, yet that "intention was 

 abandoned" on account of Lord Falkland's "statements." 



This despatch has been once quoted; but since it should be con- 

 tinually kept in view, it may be cited again : 



"Downing Street, September 17, 1845. 

 "My Lord: ***** Her Majesty's government have at- 

 tentively considered the representations contained in your despatches. 

 Nob. 324 and 331, of the 17th June and the 2d July, respecting the 



■ "* ! ■ 



* This documenii baa not been previoualy inserted. It bears date Marcb 30, 1845, and is 

 addressed to Sir William Colebrooks, lieutenant govemor of New Brunswick. It was the 

 first official annunciation to the people of that colony of the arrangement with Mr. Everett. 

 The colonial newspapers |Boimneut«d upon the course of the ministry in terms of great se- 

 verity, directly, and for some time after its publication. 



"Sir: I have the honor to acquaint you, for your information and guidance, that her Ma- 

 jesty's government have had under tiieir consideration the claim of citizens of the United 

 Sitates to fish in the Bay of Fundy— a claim which has hitherto been resisted on the ground that 

 that bay is included within the British possessions. 



" Her Majesty's government feel satisfied that the Bay of Fundy has been rightly claimed by 

 Great Britain as a bay within the treaty of 1818 ; but they conceive that the relaxation of the 

 exercise of that right would be attended with Biutual advantage to both countries : to the, 

 United States as confen^ng f. material benefit on their fishing trade, and to Great Britain mi 

 the United States conjointly and equally by the removal of a fertile source of disagreement' 

 between them. It has accordingly been announced to the United States govemmeBt that 

 American citizens would henceforward be allowed to fish in any part of the Bay of Fundyy pro- 

 vided they do not approach, except in the cases specified in the lireaty of 1818, withia.thre» 

 miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. 



have, &c., ■ 



"STANLEY." 



