The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-25 00:00:00

MR. EVER E 7 7 ON 7 TIE DISPUTES 01;

EAGLAND TVlrlf AMERICA.

Mr. Everett has just given a curious chapter of
diplomatic history in the New York Ledger in re-
ference to the charge of the limes, that the affiir
of the Trent was "the last and most intolerable of
a series of studied insults offered by the United
States to Great Britain," and that " Englatrd was
treated with much rudeness on the question of the
fisheries of Nova Scotia." Mr. Everett says that the
limits of the right of the United States to fish in the
waters that wash the coast of the British provinces
were prescribed by the treaties of 1783 and 1812,
and by the convention of 1818. United States citi-
zens were constantly seized for alleged violations of
the treaty and the convention. Sometimes these
seizures were admitted to be unjustifiable by the Bri-
tish authorities. The matter was disputed by United
and British Governments invariably in a friendly
spirit. The dispute was whether the United States
fishermen should approach within three miles of
the shore or within three miles of a line drawn
from headlands. The former was the United States
interpretation, and the latter the British. I❑ the
convention of 1818 the United States renounced the

liberty to take, dry, or cure fish within three miles
of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of the
British provinces not included within limits, but
they did not consider that this excluded them from
such arms of the sea as the Bays of Fundy and
Chaleurs.

In 1852 a British naval force was ordered to the
fishing grounds, and Commodore Perry was sent to
protect the United States fishermen. The inter-
course of the naval officers was amicable, and the
affair ended in friendly explanations. The only
charge of rudeness ever made during the Nova
Scotia fisheries dispute was made by the United
States against Great Britain, and the person who
made it is one of the pet Southern Confederacy of
the Times. Mr. Mason, chairman of the Committee
of Foreign Relations in the United States senate in
1852, and now a Ccnfederate agent in England,
expressed himself on the subject of the British
naval force at the fishery grounds as follow :
" I had supposed in this civised age, and between
two such countries as Great Britain and the United
States, that, were it the purpose of England to re-
vive her construction of the convention, and require
that it should be enforced, ordinary national cour-
tesy would have required that notice should have
been given of that determination on the part of
Great Britain. But, sir, when no such notice is
given—when, on the contrary, the first intimation
that reaches us is, that Great Britain has ordered
into these seas a large naval force, for the purpose
of enforcing this alleged right—l know not in what
light it may strike senators, for it strikes me as a
fix higher offence than a breach of national cour-
tesy—as one of insult and indignity to the whole
American people."

So deep was the feeling of the patriotic senator
on the subject, that he was led to say further:--
"If there be official or satisfactory information
to the executive that this extraordinary naval
armament has been ordered by Great Britain into
the North American seas, for the purpose of exe-
cuting instantly the construction which Great Bri-
tain places on the convention, I say the American
people will demand of their executive that all the
force of the home squadron shall be ordered there
instantly to protect American fishermen. . . . If
I may be told there is danger of collision, I would
answer at once there is no danger; but if there
were, it becomes the executive immediately to re-
aent that which can be only looked upon as an in-
dignity and insult to the nation."

In 1841 Mr. Stevenson, the United States Minis-
ter in London, addressed a note to Lord Palmer-
ston, Foreign Secretary, complaining of the treat-
ment of United States fishermen. His lordship sent
it to the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia.
That official returned it with a case for the law offs•
cers, the chief point of which was this qu-2ry :
" Have American citizens the right, under that
convention, to enter any of the bays of this province
to take fish, if, after they have so entered, they pro-
secute the fishery more than three marine miles
from the shores of such bays, or should the prescribed
distance of three marine miles be measured from
the headlands, at the entrance of such bass, so as to
exclude them

Sir John Dodson and Sir Thomas Wilde, the law
officers, decided that the distance should be measured
from the headlands. " Curiously enough," says Mr.
Everett, "the word headlands does not occur in the
convention." The Meibourne ministry went out of
office about this time, and Sir Robert Peel came in.
Lord. Stanley (Earl Derby) was colonial secretary,
but he was so dissatisfied with the law officers'
opinion that he did not communicate it to the
British American provinces for 15 months, and
then be told them that no interference of the Im-
perial Government was required. Soon after this
a United States fisherman was seized in the
Bay of Fundy. Mr. Everett and Lord Aberdeen,
the Foreign Secretary, entered into the most friendly
correspondence on the subject, and at length his
lordship wrote a most courteous despatch, in which
he said that though he considered the British con-
struction of the convention was the correct one, yet
her Majesty's Government were not insensible to
the advantages which would accrue to both coun-
tries from a relaxation of the exercise of their right,
and that they were prepared to direct the colonial
authorities to allow United States fishermen to fsh
in the Bay of Fundy; and trusted that this conces-
sion would be followed by the reduction of the duty
on colonial fish in American ports. Such is the
history of the question of the fisheries of Nova Scatia,
which, according to the Times, was one of a series
of studied insults offered by the United States to
Great Britain.