The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-30
Ls&nof tho Hen. Edward Everett,
On TIE suijsct Of tAe NsstA Annies~ Fyskrtss ana

Lssn.os tho Hen. Edwaxd Everett,
On TIE sus;.es Of tAs Nsrtk Anniesn Fssk<vtss and
Reeipvecity. $3.50
The following letter was communicated to
the United States Senate on the 18th Of Feb
ruary last, and afterwards the injunction of &C.
cresy was removed from it by that body;
DEPARTMENT OF STATS,
WAsHINoroS December g. 1907.
s,R. The lone continued illness and decsase OF
NV nredacs.uor have prevented a reply TO Mr..
Law rence's despatches numbered 1871 ana IOV. ana
his short letter Of the 18th Aogost. Inc Two de-
spatches report IN osssi, hsct ~ ~. $780,.
The latter contains a copy OF note from Die lord
ali OF the 9Th OF August, acqualntfng Mr. Law
renee with the substance OF the oeoen sent out TO
the British admiral in command on the nshiag
orounds MY attention has also been called to a
Sespatch from Lord Malmesbury 10 her majesty's
minister here, Of the 10th of August last copy of
which was furnnhed TO Mr.. webster by MIR.
Champion.
These communications could not but allay the
alarm W hich had been generally excited in both
countries, in The month Of July last, the subject
of the fisheries. they conveyed the positive as
surance of the British government that it was not
intended to capture American fishing vessels ex
cept under precisely the same circumstances
those which have been acted on OF late years.
Some progress made by Mr.. Webster, be-
fore his death, in preparations to negotiate with
Mr.. Champion on the fisheries, and on the subject
wolch the colonies and tsreas Britain are de5lrOuS
of connecting with it'll inca commercial recipro-
city between the United States and the British pro
vinces. The President is still dssirous that this
negotiation should proceed, and II will be taken up
soon possible. He is, however, of opinion, as
the two subjects have natural or necessary con
nexion that 1t will not be advisable TO endeavor to
include them both In one treaty. Whatever agree
ment may be made on either Of these subjects by
treaty VIII probably require law to carry it into
effect; and the requisite legislation is much more
likely to De effected by keeping each subject by
itself, unsmbarrassed BY the difficulties of the
other.
In this state of things it is not worth while to
renew the general discussion of the occurrences oil
last summer. There are. however, some remarks
IN the despatch of Lord Malmesbury to Mr.. Crsmp
ton which, in justice TO this Government. to Mr.
Webster, and may add to myself, require some
reply.
Lord Malmesbury expresses the "sincerest re-
greet thai such publication (ss MIR. Webster's of
the Goth July) should have been made, without
what appears 10 her majesty's government suff-
clent inquiry into the circumstances OF he case,
and inilmates that this Government was hardly
justified in supposipg that any measures offensive
TO the United States could have been intended by
Great Britain. Ii must be recolIeced, however,
that MIR. Webster's notice was designed solely
warning to our fishermen not to incur a risk which
was for the moment supposed to be great and inn
Ininent. This interest is one OF too much una gni-
tude TO be left exposed even TO possible danger Of
serious injury. However great our reliance on the
friendly Intentions of the English government We
bad official notice, and that q very short notice
that a more efficient armed force ordered to
the fishing grounds to act against French and
American fishermen. The encroachments com
planned OF by the colonisis. and which caused this
step 10 be taken, bad never been represented to
this Government, nor was their precise nature
known. Under these circumstances, it was quite
natural TO believe, and it certainly was believed,
that some new and decisive measures of repression
were about to be adopted, against which it was
Important that our ishermen should be warned
without moments delay.
4 necessary o ben in mind b;sf, onrce
of uneasness and occasional irritation on this
subject, that, while the views of the Home govern
Iuent In reference to the fisheries have generally
been liberal, and founded on comprehensive
survey Of the lest interests of the two countries
those views have been steadily, and but too sue
cessfuly met. as shall show hereafter. by a
colonial influence Of an opposite character.
Lord MalmesbUry objects TO a remark of Mr..
Webster, that "ith the recent chan &c Of ministry
in England has occurred entire change of
policy" in reference to the fisheries; and he OBJ
serves "the question Of protecting British subjects
in the exercise OF their undoubted rights under
treaties is which, in this country, is not ma
terially affected by changes of ministry" Such
Is unquestlonaoy the case, not only in Eng land
but in all countries where the government is
wisely and honestly administered. But there is
always room for difference of opinion what are
uodouoted rights, and what - the best mode OF
asserting them. | persuaded that Mr.. We
ster meant nothing more, not much more, by
his remark, than was meant by Lord Malmesbury
himself when be observed to Mr.. Lawrence thai
the only object of ministers at the present time
"to protect the rights OF the colopists in the
fisheries, which had been neglected by their pre-
decessors;" and hope 10 show, in the sequel oil
this note that, if the predecessors of the present
ministry bad, as Lord Maimesbury assumes been
somewhat indulgent In this respect, it q wise
policy, adopted for good reasons.
LORD Malrnesbury, having briefly alluded to the
earlier history of the discussions between the two
governments, says: ''In the year lS45 (should be
lS43) n correspondence ensued between the Bri
tisb and United States governments, which led to
the despatch of letter from Mr.. Everett, Uni
ted States minister in this country to bis govern
ment, dated London, 26th April, lS45 This letter
has been published b Mr.. Webster, and ia unfor-
tuuately calculated to cause incorrect view to
be taken OF the subject by the American public.
With respect to my letter thus characterized by
Lord Mamesbury, will frat observe, that il was
furnished by me to MIR. Webster, (who being then
absent from the seat OF Government, had no access
20 the public archives,) and was published by him
for the purpose of informing the public of what
was no. generally known, though announced at
the time Ia Is45 and we'll understood by the fish
ermen, viz: the. the Bay of Fundy had been for
merly opened to them in lS45 leaving the natural
inference to be drawn that i wa, not likely that it
would be closed without notice equally formal
The publication of my note was intended, in this
way, to calm the existing excitement, and, have
no doubt, contributed materially to that end.
If the publication of my letter alone, without The
rest OF the correspondence, was, as Lord Malmes-
bury intlmates, calculated to cause incorrect
view OF the subject to be taken, il must have ope.
rated In that way for very short time. My letter
appeared IN Boston the 2ist of July, and on
toe I'd OF August the entire correspondence was
CON munlcated TO Congress by the President and
Immediately transferred to the newspapers Imay
add that the only reason why Lord Aberd a note
of the 10Th Of March, lS45, not furnished to
Mr.. Webster, instead of my own of the 26th OF
April, giving account of it, was, that my letter
books contained only my own part Of the CORE
spondence.
Lord Malmesbury specifies two points, in which
as ne thinks, my letter Of the 2bIh April lS45,
calculated to produce an incorrect view OF the sub
Ject.
The drst is, that stated that Lord Aberdeen
note of the 10Th of March, lSa5, conceded to Anne
rican fishermen The right Of fishing within the Bal
Of Fundy, but lett doubtful the question Of othe
bays; whereas II Lord Aoerdeen's notes, TO which
Mr. Everett alluded, bad been carefully examined
by Mr.. Webster, and had aso been published
Mr. " ebster, and the public of the two countries
would have seen that instead of conceding a right
Lord Aberdeen expressly reserved it; but in orde
TO prove the friendly feeling of Great Britain to
ward the United States, her msjesty's government
By Lord Aberdeen's note, "relaxed," as REGARDED
the Bay of Fundy, the right which her ma jesty'
government felt bound to maintain of exclodins
American hsaermen from that bay.
This purpose of her majesty's government is a.
fully apparent in my letters "a in Lord Aberdeen's