of February, 1841, which formed the basis of an able and elaborate note from Mr. Stevenson to Lord Palmerston, of the 27th of the following month. Mr. Stevenson's representations were acknowledged, and referred by the Colonial Office to the provincial government of Nova Scotia; but no other answer was returned to them.

The exclusion of American fishermen from the waters of the Bay of Fundy was the most prominent of the grievances complained of on behalf of the United States. Having received instructions from the department in reference to the seizure of the "Washington" of Newburyport, for fishing in the Bay of Fundy, I represented the case to Lord Aberdeen in a note of the 10th of August, 1843. An answer was received to this note on the 15th of April following, in which Lord Aberdeen confined himself to stating that by the terms of the convention the citizens of the United States were not allowed to fish within three miles of any bay upon the coast of the Britsh American colonies, and could not, therefore, be permittted to pursue their avocation within the bay of Fundy. I replied to this note on the 25th of May following, and endeavoured to show that it was the spirit and design of the first article of the convention of 1818 to reserve to the people of the United States the right of fishing within three miles of the coast. Some remarks on the state of the controversy at that time will be found in my despatch, No. 130, of the 26th of May last.

On the 9th of October last, in obedience to your instructions, No. 105, I addressed a note to Lord Aberdeen in reference to the case of the "Argus" of Portland, which was captured while fishing on St. Anne's bank, off the northeastern coast of Cape Breton. The papers relative to this case left the precise grounds of the seizure of the "Argus" in some uncertainty. It was, however, sufficiently apparent that they were, to some extent at least, similar to those for which the "Washington" had been captured.

I received a few days since, and herewith transmit a note from Lord Aberdeen, containing the satisfactory intelligence that after a reconsideration of the subject, although the Queen's government adhere to the construction of the convention which they have always maintained, they have still come to the determination of relaxing from it, so far as to allow American fishermen to pursue their avocations in the Bay of Fundy.

I thought it proper, in replying to Lord Aberdeen's note, to recognise in ample terms the liberal spirit evinced by her Majesty's government, in relaxing from what they consider their right. At the same time I felt myself bound to say that the United States could not accept as a mere favour what they had always claimed as a matter of right, secured by the treaty.

No. 85.-1845, March 25: Letter from Mr. Everett to Lord Aberdeen.

GROSVENOR PLACE, March 25, 1845.

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a note of the 10th instant from the Earl of

143

Aberdeen, her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for foreign affairs, in reply to the communication of the undersigned of the 15th of May last, on the case of the "Washington," and the construction given by the government of the United States to the convention of 1818, relative to the right of fishing on the coasts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Lord Aberdeen acquaints the undersigned, that, after the most deliberate reconsideration of the subject, and with every desire to do full justice to the United States and to view the claims put forward on behalf of their citizens in the most favorable light, her Majesty's government are nevertheless still constrained to deny the right of citizens of the United States, under the treaty of 1818, to fish in that part of the Bay of Fundy which from its geographical position may properly be considered as included within the British possessions; and also to maintain that, with regard to the other bays on the British American coasts, no United States fishermen has, under that convention, the right to fish within three miles of the entrance of such bay, as designated by a line drawn from headland to headland at that entrance.

Lord Aberdeen, however, informs the undersigned that, although continuing to maintain these positions as a matter of right, her Majesty's government are not insensible to the advantages which might accrue to both countries from a relaxation in its exercise; that they are anxious, while upholding the just claims of the British crown, to evince by every reasonable concession their desire to act liberally and amicably towards the United States: and that her Majesty's government have accordingly come to the determination "to relax in favor of the United States fishermen the right which Great Britain has hitherto exercised of excluding those fishermen from the British portion of the Bay of Fundy, and are prepared to direct their colonial authorities to allow, henceforward, the United States fishermen to pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided they do not approach, except in the cases specified in the treaty of 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick."

The undersigned receives with great satisfaction this communication from Lord Aberdeen, which promises the permanent removal of a fruitful cause of disagreement between the two countries, in reference to a valuable portion of the fisheries in question. The government of the United States, the undersigned is persuaded, will duly appreciate the friendly motives which have led to the determination. on the part of her Majesty's government announced in Lord Aberdeen's note, and which he doubts not will have the natural effect of acts of liberality between powerful states, of producing benefits to both parties, beyond any immediate interest which may be favorably affected.

While he desires, however, without reserve, to express his sense of the amicable disposition evinced by her Majesty's government on this occasion in relaxing in favor of the United States the exercise of what, after deliberate reconsideration, fortified by high legal authority, is deemed an unquestioned right of her Majesty's government, the undersigned would be unfaithful to his duty did he omit to remark to Lord Aberdeen that no arguments have at any time been adduced to shake the confidence of the government of the

United States in their own construction of the treaty. While they have ever been prepared to admit, that in the letter of one expression of that instrument there is some reason for claiming a right to exclude United States fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, (it being difficult to deny to that arm of the sea the name of "bay," which long geographical usage has assigned to it,) they have ever strenuously maintained that it is only on their own construction of the entire article that its known design in reference to the regulation of the fisheries admits of being carried into effect.

The undersigned does not make this observation for the sake of detracting from the liberality evinced by her Majesty's government in relaxing from what they regard as their right; but it would be placing his own government in a false position to accept as mere favor that for which they have so long and strenuously contended as due to them under the convention.

It becomes the more necessary to make this observation, in consequence of some doubt as to the extent of the proposed relaxation. Lord Aberdeen, after stating that her Majesty's government felt themselves constrained to adhere to the right of excluding the United States Fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, and also with regard to other bays on the British American coasts, to maintain the position that no United States fishermen has, under that convention, the right to fish within three miles of the entrance of such bays, as designated by a line drawn from headland to headland at that entrance, adds, that "while her Majesty's government still feel themselves bound to maintain these positions as a matter of right, they are not insensible to the advantages which would accrue to both countries from the relaxation of that right."

This form of expression might seem to indicate that the relaxation proposed had reference to both positions; but when Lord Aberdeen proceeds to state more particularly its nature and extent, he confines it to a permission to be granted to "the United States fishermen to pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided they do not approach except in the cases specified in the treaty of 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick," which entrance is defined, in another part of Lord Aberdeen's note, as being designated by a line drawn from headland to headland.

In the case of the "Washington," which formed the subject of the note of the undersigned of the 25th May, 1844, to which the present communication of Lord Aberdeen is a reply, the capture complained of was in the waters of the Bay of Fundy; the principal portion of the argument of the undersigned was addressed to that part of the subject; and he is certainly under the impression that it is the point of greatest interest in the discussions which have been hitherto carried on between the two governments, in reference to the United States' right of fishery on the Anglo-American coasts.

In the case, however, of the "Argus," which was treated in the note of the undersigned of the 9th of October, the capture was in the waters which wash the north-eastern coast of Cape Breton, a portion of the Atlantic ocean intercepted indeed between a straight line drawn from Cape North to the northern head of Cow bay, but possessing none of the characters of the bay, (far less so than the Bay of Fundy,) and not called a "bay" on any map which the undersigned has seen. The aforesaid line is a degree

144

of latitude in length; and as far as reliance can be placed on the only maps (English ones) in the possession of the undersigned on which this coast is distinctly laid down, it would exclude vessels from fishing grounds which might be thirty miles from the shore.

Lord Aberdeen, in his note of the 10th instant, on the case of the "Argus," observes that," as the point of the construction of the convention of 1818, in reference to the right of fishing in the AngloAmerican dependencies by citizens of the United States, is treated in another note of the undersigned of this date, relative to the case of the Washington,' the undersigned abstains from again touching on that subject.

This expression taken by itself would seem to authorize the expectation that the waters where these two vessels respectively were captured would be held subject to the same principles, whether of restriction or relaxation, as indeed all the considerations which occur to the undersigned as having probably led her Majesty's government to the relaxation in reference to the Bay of Fundy, exist in full and even superior force in reference to the waters on the north-eastern coast of Cape Breton, where the "Argus" was seized. But if her Majesty's provincial authorities are permitted to regard as a bay any portion of the sea which can be cut off by a direct line connecting two points of the coast, however, destitute in other respects of the character usually implied by that name, not only will the waters on the north-eastern coast of Cape Breton, but on many other parts of the shores of the Anglo-American dependencies where such exclusion has not yet been thought of, be prohibited to American fishermen. In fact, the waters which wash the entire south-eastern coast of Nova Scotia, from Cape Sable to Cape Canso, a distance on a straight line of rather less than three hundred miles, would in this way constitute a bay, from which United States fishermen would be excluded.

The undersigned, however, forbears to dwell on this subject, being far from certain, on a comparsion of all that is said in the two notes of Lord Aberdeen of the 10th instant, as to the relaxation proposed by her Majesty's government, that it is not intended to embrace the waters of the northeastern coasts of Cape Breton, as well as the Bay of Fundy.

Lord Aberdeen, towards the close of the note in which the purpose of her Majesty's government is communicated, invites the attention of the undersigned to the fact that British colonial fish is, at the present time, excluded by prohibitory duties from the markets of the United States, and suggests that the moment at which the British government are making a liberal concession to United States trade, might be deemed favourable for a counter concession on the part of the United States to British trade, by the reduction of duties which operate so prejudicially to the interests of British colonial fishermen. The undersigned is of course without instructions which enable him to make out any definite reply to this suggestion. It is no doubt true that the British colonial fish, as far as duties are concerned, enters the United States market, if at all, to some disadvantage. The government of the United States, he is persuaded, would gladly make any reduction in these duties which would not seriously injure the native fishermen; but Lord Aberdeen is aware that the encouragement of this class of the seafaring community has ever been considered, as well in the United States as Great Britain, as resting on peculiar grounds of expediency. It is the great school not only of the com

mercial but of the public marine, and the highest considerations of national policy require it to be fostered.

The British colonial fishermen possess considerable advantages over those of the United States. The remoter fisheries of New foundland and Labrador are considerably more accessible to the colonial than to the United States fishermen. The fishing grounds on the coasts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, abounding in cod, mackerel and herring, lie at the doors of the former; he is therefore able to pursue his avocation in a smaller class of vessels, and requires a smaller outfit; he is able to use the net and the seine to great advantage in the small bays and inlets along the coast, from which the fishermen of the United States, under any construction of the treaty, are excluded. All or nearly all the materials of ship building, timber, iron, cordage and canvas are cheaper in the colonies than in the United States, as are salt, hooks and lines. There is also great advantage enjoyed in the former in reference to the supply of bait and curing the fish. These, and other causes, have enabled the colonial fishermen to drive those of the United States out of many foreign markets, and might do so at home but for the protection afforded by the duties.

It may be added that the highest duty on the kinds of fish that would be sent to the American market, is less than a half-penny per pound, which cannot do more than counter-balance the numerous advantages possessed by the colonial fishermen.

The undersigned supposes, though he has no particular information to that effect, that equal or higher duties exist in the colonies on the importation of fish from the United States.

The undersigned requests the Earl of Aberdeen to accept the assurance of his high consideration.

145

EDWARD EVERETT.

No. 86.-1845, April 21: Letter from the Earl of Aberdeen to
Mr. Everett.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 21, 1845. The undersigned, Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the two notes which Mr. Everett, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America, addressed to him on the 25th ultimo and on the 2d instant, relative to the case of the Argus, and that of the Washington, United States' fishing vessels.

Those notes have been brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the colonies, and the undersigned post pones, therefore, replying to their contents, until he shall have become acquainted with the results of that reference.

In the meantime, however, the undersigned thinks it expedient to guard himself against the assumption of Mr. Everett, that it may have been his intention by his note of the 10th ultimo, to include other bays on the coasts of the British North American provinces, in the relaxation which he therein notified to Mr. Everett, as to be applied henceforward to the Bay of Fundy. That note was intended to refer to the Bay of Fundy alone.

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to renew to Mr. Everett the assurances of his high consideration.

ABERDEEN.