The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-04-27
The North American Fisheries and
Reciprocity.
CsMnunieation on the Subject from the Hon.
Edward Everett to Mr.. Ingersoll, US.
Minister 10 London.
Defence Of Mr.. Webster from the ImputatlOns
Of Lord Malmesbury.
DEPARTMENT OF STArx,

wAsHINcTos, Dec 4, 1852 !
SR-The Icing continued illness and decease of my pre-
IT. his
lie 18th August. The two dispatches report in detail
he fisheries The latter contains copy Of note from
his of the 18th of August acquantng Mr. Law
ins one the shnr Grounds
attention has also been called to despatch from LORD
to her Maestys minister here Of the 10TH
Of August last, copy OF which was FURNISHED 70 mr..
Webster by Mr.. Champion.
These communications could not but allay the alarm
which had generally excited in both countries in
the month July last the subject Of the asheres as
they conveyed the positive assurance Of the British gov
that was not 10 ZIP crenm
sta those which have been acted on OF late
Some progress was made ~ Mr. WeSste Oe,Sfs n
the fisheries and the subject which the colonies and
Great Britain desirous Of connecting with i'll mean
reciprocity between the United STATES and the
British provinces. The President is still DESTROYS that
this negotiation should proceed and it will be taken up
two subjects have no natural necessary connection
that 1t will not be advisable TO endcavor to include them
both in one treaty Whatever agreement may Dc
law to carry it into effect and the requisite legislation
much more likely to be effected by keeping each subject
by itself unemb by the difficulties OF the other
In this state Of things it not worth while to renew
the general discussion Of the Of last summer
There are however, some remarks in the despatch OF
Lord Maine bury to Mr. Champion which, in justice to
this government to Mr. Webster and may add to my
Lord amesbury expresses the sincerest regret that
such publication Gas Mr. Websters OF the goth July
should have been ade without what appears TO her
Aastys government sufficient inquiry into the circum
of the case and ntmates that this government
hardly justified in surprising that measures Often
sve to the United States could have been intended oy
Great Britain It must be recollected, however that Me-
Websters notice designed solely warning to our
supposed to be great and imminent This interest is one
of much magnitude to be left exposed to possible
Of s
had official notice and that very short notice that
efficient armed force was ordered to the fishing
grounds to act against French and American fishermen
The Entertainments complained of by the coonsts and
which caused this step to be taken had been repre-
sented to this government their precise nature
known Under these circumstances it quite natural
to believe and 1T certainly believed that some nev
and decisive measures of repression we're about to be
adopted against which it important that fisher.
men should be warned without moments delay.
is necessary to bear in mind, chief source Of un
while the views Of the home government in reference to
the fisheries have generally been LIBERAL and founded on
Countries those views have been steadily, and bu. too
successfully met shall show hereafter by colonial
influence Of an opposite character.
Lord Malmesbury objects to a remark of Mr.. Webster,
that with the recent change OF ministry in England
has occurred an entire change Of policy in reference to
ing Brish subjects in the exercise Of their undoubed
rights under treaties is one which, in this country is
materially affected by changes of ministry" Such
is unques onably the case not only in England but in
all countries where government is wisely and honestly
administered. But there is always room for difference
Of opinion what are undoubted rights and what is the
best mode Of asserting them. am persuaded that Mr.
Webster meant nothing more or not much more by his
when he observed to Mr. Lawrence that the only object
Of ministers ct the present time ito protect the rights
ed by their predecessors and hope to show in the
sequa Of this note that the predecessors Of the pre-
sent ministry had, Lord Hamesbury assumes, been
hat indulsen in this respect it wise policy
adopted for good reasons.
Of the the Two
ments says In the year 1S45 SHOULD be lS4S cor
respondence ensued between the British and United
States governments which led to the despatch of letter
from Mr. Everett the United States minister in this
try to his government. dated London. 10th April, 1s4s
unfortunately calculated to incorrect view to
be taken Of the subject BY the American public
Manesbury will first observe, that it furnehel by
me TO mr.. Webster twho, being then absent from the
seat Of government, had access to the public ar
chiyes and published by him for the purpose of in
forming the public of what not generally known,
stood by the .Sermen viz that the Bay Of Fundy had
BEEN formerly opened to them in 1915 leaving the
raj inference 10 be drawn that it was not likely
that II would be closed without notice equally
formal. The publication Of my note intended
in this to calm the existing excitement and have
NO doubt contributed ms terally to that end.
II the publication Of my letter alone, without the rest
Of the correspondence, vas, as Lord Mamesbnry init
ject to be taken must have operated in that way
very short time Ny letter appeared in Boston the 2lst
July ar on the "a Of August the entire eorrespon
and Immediately transferred to the newspapers. may
add that the only why rd Abe deems note of the
10th Of March, ls45 was not furnished to Mr. Webster
instead of my Ct the Goth Of April giving
of it. was that my letter books contained only my
part Of the cores pondence.
Lord Malmesbury specifies two points, in which he
thinks my letter OF the 26th April, 1915, calculated
TO produce an incorrect view Of the subject.
The first is that stated that Lord Aberdeen note Of
the 10th Of March, 1845 conceded to American fishermen
right Of shing within the Bay but left doubt
full The question Of other bays whereas if Lord
notes, to which Mr.. Everett alluded had been carefully
examined by Mr. Webster, aud bad also been published
H. III xIa
have that, instead OF concecng right Lord Aber-
teen expressly reserved it; but in order TO prove
rela, ed regarded the Bay Of Fundy the right which
her Msjesfys government felt bound maintain Of ex
GLIDING American fishermen from that bay.
This purpoe of her Majestys government is fully
apparent in my letters Lord Aderdeens and if Lord
published by Mr. Webster he will find that he has alto
getber inexperienced its purport In the sentence
reference TO the matter in hand is concede But after
stating that the British government had to the de-
termination to concede to American fishermen the right
to fsh in the Bay OF Fundy, added, not Lord Nal
mesburys despatch represents me to have done, that
had claimed the right regards other bay but
to extend to them and further that It ought to
be in the United States that the extension of
negotiation between the two government IS.
All this is certainly true. The Fright which state
to have been conceded is not the right which
served by Great Britain. The right conceded u.s.
she understood the matter the right to fish in the
Bay Of Fundy the right reserved by Great Britain
the right to exclude fishermen from that bay and
this right she deemed it, she relaxed in our favor
There is not only contra li-on between the state.
ments but the relaxation las Great Britain considers it,
Of her right to exclude from the bay the foundd
ton, by concession. of right to enter it, Lord
y amesbury does not surely deny that our fishermen
Lave now right to enter the Bay Of Fundy The die
between the two governments is that Claim that
right under the convention Of 1918 while Grea. Britain
admits it under the concession of 1915.
, Lord halmesbury's structures on my language imply
that concession cannot be the basis Of right Ehercas
half the land titles Of Europe have other foundation All
America Is hee under charters from the granting
or concediDg property to the grantees and the
European ntnent concession the technical term for
a grant Of land.
There Is one expression in my letter Of the 26th OF
April, 1S45 which, hastily read, may have led Lord
Malmesbury to suppose that it would an impes
sion that Great Britain had acknowledged right
under the convention of 1878 to fish in the Bay OF Fundy
That expression is as folowsI careful to point
ont TO Lord Aberdeen that all the for admitting
the right OF Americans to fish in the LAY OF Fundyn
ppy to the other outer bays. This Of course is true
but II refers to what had maintained, not to what
Acknowledged. Nv lett ~ Anil