The Sun.
London, England, 1852-08-07 00:00:00

EVENING, AUGUST

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
TIMES.—When the Senate of the United States
proceedetl, on the 23d of July, to discuss and adopt
Mr. Mason's proposition with reference to the fisheries
on the coasts of the British colonies in North Ame •
rice, that body had received no official information on
the subject beyond Mr. Webster's communication to
the newspapers, and by its constitution no member of
the Government could be present to explain what had
actually taken place. The consequence was that a
considerable amount of hasty invective and erroneous
imputations was discharged against the British Go-
vernment. The facts and the law of the case were
alike misrepresented ; and a debate ensued of so de-
sultory and intemperate a character that we cannot
but express our regret that such a spirit should be
manifested on so little provocation by the most sedate
I and statesmanlike Assembly in the United States.
The question was, in the first place, entirely misstated.
It has never been the intention of the British Govern-
ment to contest the rights which American fishermen
have been enjoying under the Treaty of 1818 for up •
wards of 30 years, but merely to protect the rights
reserved to our own fisheries, and expressly renounced
by the United States by that Convention. Mr. Cass
went so far as to assert that "the treaty was now over
30 years old, and that it clearly recognised the right
of the Americans to fish within three miles of
any shore." If he had looked at the Conven-
tion he would have seen that it is just the reverse,
The United States thereby renounced, and for ever,
any liberty to take fish on or within three marine
miles of the coasts, bays, &c., not specified in the
treaty. It is deplorable to see popular prejudices in-
flamed by such gross misstatements as this. The
Convention of 1818 was not a limitation of rights
previously enjoyed by the fisheries of the United
States, but on the contrary it was a concession to the
United States of the right to fishing on certain parts
of the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador, British
possessions, in lieu of the right of fishing granted
by the treaty of 1783, which had been abrogated by
the war of 1813. The British Government of the
day was strongly attacked for it. This concession
was geographically defined in conformity with the
proposition made by the American Plenipotentiaries
in London, and having obtained what they asked for
they solemnly renounced all the rest. Upon this
point we have direct evidence in the words of Mr.
Bush himself, the American negotiator on the oc-
casion. He states in the narrative of his Residence
at the Court of London that the most difficult part of
his task was to secure the permanence of this ar-
rangement by the insertion of the words " for ever,"
and he adds—
"lt was by our act that the United States renounced
the right to the fisheries not guaranteed to them by the
Convention. That- clauso did not find a place in the
British counter project. We deemed it proper-1. to
exclude the implication of the fisheries secured to us
being a new grant; 2. to place the rights secured and
renounced on the same footing of permanence; 3. that it
might expressly appear that our renunciation was
limited to three miles from the coasts."
Nothing can be more conclusive. The question
now raised is not about the rights then conceded to
the United States, which are undisputed, but about
the right they formally renounced. But they cannot
lay claim to the one without admitting the renuncia-
tion of the other. So much is this the case that
when the right of the Americans to fish off New-
foundland was disputed by the French Government
in 1821 and 1823, a correspondence took place be-
tween M. Monroe and M. Chateaubriand, in which
the American Government took its stand on this very
convention of 1818, and insisted on its execution, and
the British Government as sovereign in Newfound-
land concurred in that view. But the present discus.
sion arises with reference to the fisheries off Nova
Scotia and Cape Breton, to which no allusion is
made in the Convention of 1818, except under this
general renunciation, and Newfoundland seems to
have been needlessly mixed up with the question.
This is not the first time that discussions have
arisen with reference to fisheries off these coasts, or
that American vessels have been seized by British
cruisers for intruding into British waters. In 1845,
fur instance, a correspondence took place with refer-
ence to the seizure of the 'Washington and of the
Argus under similar circumstances; and it appears
from a dispatch of Mr. Everett, then American Mi-
' nister in London, that Lord Aberdeen intimated to
him, by a note of the 10th of March, 1845, that " the
British Government would concede to American
fishermen the right of pursuing their occupation in
the Bay of Fundy:' To judge of the full force and
value of this communication it would be necessary to
see the whole correspondence ; but the mere fact that
this permission to fish in the Bay of Fundy was so
conceded by the English Government, and accepted
by the Americans, clearly denotes that they went
there by permission and not by right, and that the
rigbt of granting or withholding such permission lay
with the British Government. Since, however, the
Britian Secretary of State for. Foreign Affairs thought
fit to make that concession in 1845, the Americans
might justly expect some clear notification if it
was at any subsequent period to be withdrawn.
Mr. Webster does not appear to have been aware
of the existence of this document when he wrote his
first communication, as he has made it the subject of
a second letter; and it is not impossible that,. consi-
dering the lack of experience in her Majesty's Go-
vernment, Lord Malmesbury, Sir John Pakington,
and the Queen's Advocate were equally uninformed.
But in March, 1845, Lord Derby was himself Se-
cretary of State for the Colonies, and it appears from
the tenor of Mr. Everett's dispatch, that the subject
was expressly referred to the Colonial-office, and
therefore the Lord Stanley of that date is as much
responsible for the concession in the Bay of Fundy
as Lord Aberdeen himself, for the colonial interests
affected by it were peculiarly under his charge. That
note is certainly a plea in favour of the Americans'
present occupation and enjoyment of fishing rights
in the Bay of Fundy which do not legally belong to
them. But although courtesy requires that such con-
cessions should not be withdrawn without cause and
without notice, it cannot be contended that limitations
and renunciations formally established by treaty are
permanently abrogated by a mere note from the Secre-
tary of State for the time being, and thesame power that
waves a right at one time may assert it at another.
We entertain no doubt as to the right in this cause, or
as to the language of the treaty, which is unmis-
takably clear, and cannot be evaded ; but in the pre.
sent state of our information on the subject we feel
much less confidence in the policy of the course which
the British Government has thought proper to adopt
at this particular time. If the right of fishing in the
Bay of Fundy had been conceded by a former Go-
vernment, and had passed into long usage, by suffer-
ance or otherwise, among a numerous class of foreign
fishermen, we think that they were entitled to ample
notice that it would be withdrawn, not on the eve of
the fishing season, but a year beforehand. Yet we
learn from Sir John Pakington's dispatch that the
strict and immediate execution of the Treaty of
1818 was one of the subjects which pressed most
urgently on the attention of Lord Derby's Govern-
ment. Further, there is no time at which it is so
unadvisable to engage in diplomatic disputes, or
even in negotiations, with the American Govern-
ment, as in that period which immediately precedes
the election of a President. The existing Govern-
ment will not commit itself to any positive engage-
ments ; the candidates for power on both sides are
eager to work upon the excitable national feelings
of the public, and raise a cry even of war for
electioneering purposes; the Government which will
have to deal seriously with the subject is not yet in-
stalled in office, or even sure of obtaining it. We
cannot suppose that this step, with reference to the
fisheries, has been taken from any motive so absurd
and injudicious as the idea that we can drive the
Americans into a commercial treaty by a squadron of
light vessels on the banks of Newfoundland, or in the
Bay of Fundy. Indeed, one of the points of which
we complain in the debate in the United States'
Senate is that this contemptible motive was imputed
to this country. The only effect of such an attempt
would be to render all future negotiations more diffi-
cult, since the Americans will certainly not concede
even what is just and reasonable in itself to a display
of force. But in the present state of parties in the
Union the time is ill-chosen to press any such nego-
tiations at all. We have to do with a Government pro-
fessing strong Protective principles, but liable to be
turned out of office by its political and commercial
antagonists in a few months. The prudent course
would, therefore, have been to give notice that the
privilege of fishing beyond the limits of the
Convention of 1818 would be withdrawn next
year, and the provisions of that agreement
more strictly enforced; and then to await the effect
which the Presidential election may have on the
policy of the American Government, and on its ne-
gotiations with ourselves. We strongly deprecate
all appeals to popular passions on either side of the
Atlantic, when questions of this nature arise, as they
will arise, between the two Government. They are
questions of law, to be settled by fair negotiation,
and we esteem it fortunate that Mr. Webster should
still be in (ince to render this service to his country,
for the real service to be rendered in such cases is to
bring the difference to an amicable and pacific con-
clusion. The Americans seem in some danger of
forgetting that this is no question of interference
on our part with their territories or waters, but sim-
ply how far they are entitled to extend their fishing
operations on British coasts and in British waters.
It the legal stipulations which are in existence are
not to govern their proceedings, their fishing vessels
may be captured and blood may be shed, not by the
naval forces which are sent there to keep the peace,
but in the broils and altercations of the fishermen
themselves. There is far less danger of a collision
from naval officers instructed to uphold and obey the
law, than there is from interested and irritated par-
ties ; and in the mean ime we trust that measures
will be taken to remove all grounds of apprehension
or complaint, without surrending any of the rights