Lord Malmesbury to Mr. Crampton.

FOREIGN OFFICE,

August 10, 1852.

SIR-I have received and laid before the Queen your des patch, No. 105, of the 20th ultimo, respecting the official publication, by the Secretary of State of the United States, of certain information relative to the measures adopted by her Majesty's government for the protection of British fisheries on the coasts, the mainland, and islands forming part of her Majesty's North American possessions.

Her Majesty's government must necessarily entertain the sincerest regret that such a publication should have been made without what appears to her Majesty's government sufficient inquiry into the circumstances of the case; for the terms of friendly alliance which so happily subsist between the two nations would, on the one hand, not have warranted her Majesty's government in adopting any measures which might be held to be offensive to the United States, and, on the other hand, could not have justified the government of the United States in supposing that any such measures were intended. Her Majesty's government, therefore, while it gives expression to the above-mentioned regret, will assume at once that neither government entertains towards the other any intention of acting discourteously, or of provoking collisions or unfriendly feelings between the subjects and citizens of the two countries; and I will now proceed to explain to you how greatly this question of the protection of British fisheries has been misunderstood and misinterpreted in the United States.

In the first place, it has been assumed by Mr. Webster, that "with the recent change of ministry in England, has occurred an entire change of policy;" and here I must take occasion to state that the question of protecting British subjects in the exercise of their undoubted rights under treaties, is one which, in this country, is not materially affected by changes of ministry; and the real question, therefore, is, what are those rights, and how they are understood respectively by Great Britain and the United States?

The rights are laid down in the treaty of 1818, as quoted by Mr. Webster; that is, undoubted and unlimited privileges of fishing in certain places were thereby given by Great Britian to the inhabitants of the United States; and the government of the United States, on their part, renounced forever any liberty previously enjoyed or claimed by its citizens to fish

within three marine miles of any other of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of the British dominions.

A point in dispute in regard to this matter, subsequently arose as to the interpretation to be given to the term "bay," namely, whether an American vessel could fish within a bay so long as she was beyond three miles from the shore, or whether the words of the treaty," within three miles of any of the bays," meant within three miles of a line drawn from headland to headland; and in the year 1845, a correspondence ensued between the British and the United States governments, which led to the despatch of a letter from Mr. Everett, the United States minister in this country, to his government, dated London, April 26, 1845. This letter has been published by Mr. Webster, and is, unfortunately, calculated to cause an incorrect view to be taken of the subject by the American public; for Mr. Everett therein stated that Lord Aberdeen's note of the 10th of March, 1845, conceded to American fishermen the right of fishing within the Bay of Fundy, but left doubtful the question of other bays, and that he had accordingly claimed the same right as regards other bays; and it is to be inferred from Mr. Everett's expressions, that Lord Aberdeen had replied that he would submit that question to the Colonial Office, and that meanwhile the concession was to be limited to the Bay of Fundy.

Now, if Lord Aberdeen's notes, to which Mr. Everett alluded, had been carefully examined by Mr. Webster, and had also been published, Mr. Webster, and the public of the two countries, would have seen that, instead of conceding a right, Lord Aberdeen expressly reserved it; but that in order to prove the friendly feeling of Great Britain towards the United States, her Majesty's government, by Lord Aberdeen's note, “relaxed," as regarded the Bay of Fundy, the right which her Majesty's government felt bound to maintain, of excluding American fishermen from that bay; and, moreover, it would have appeared that Lord Aberdeen, in the letter referred to, merely stated that he would submit to the Colonial Office the question relating to the seizure of two particular vessels, the "Washington" and "Argus," and that, as regarded the bays, his words were to be taken as applying to the Bay of Fundy alone. It appears, however, partly by Mr. Webster's communications with you and by terms of his official publications, and partly by the proceedings in the Senate of the United States, that it is supposed in the United States, first, that her Majesty's present government have resolved to overrule the

decision of the government of 1845, and to withdraw the privilege then granted to American fishermen to fish in the Bay of Fundy; and, secondly, that, notwithstanding the express terms of the treaty, American fishermen are privileged, either by usage or right, to fish upon any part of the British coast within three marine miles of the shore.

Both suppositions are entirely founded in error. Her Majesty's government, so far from having any intention of now excluding American fishermen from the Bay of Fundy, are prepared to maintain that the relaxation granted in 1845, was reasonable and just, and should be adhered to; and, in giving orders to strengthen the naval force employed to maintain the exercise of our rights under the treaty of 1818, they could not contemplate that the government of the United States would assume that a relaxation formally granted, as regards the Bay of Fundy, was thereby cancelled, without the equally formal notice which her Majesty's government would undoubtedly feel themselves bound to have given to an ally of the British crown, had such an act been intended.

But, in regard to the three-mile distance, her Majesty's government are not aware that it has at any time been maintained by the government of the United States that there can be, or that there has ever been supposed to be, the slightest doubt that her Majesty's government are not only entitled, but bound, to maintain that distance free from encroachment.

Whatever construction either government may put upon the term "bay," as used in the treaty, there can be no possible question as to the three-mile limit from any British shore; and when, therefore, Mr. Webster alluded, in his official publication, to the seizure of the American fishing vessel "Coral," in the Bay of Fundy, near Grand Manan, he must have overlooked the fact that Grand Manan was British territory, and that the "Coral" was taken almost within musket-shot of the shore.

It is for the prevention of such infractions of treaty, and not with any view to disturb arrangements made in good faith with the United States government, that her Majesty's government issued orders to their officers to put a stop to illicit proceedings-proceedings which are not merely contrary to treaty, but which are mixed up with smuggling transactions damaging to British interests.

Little, therefore, as her Majesty's government could have contemplated the impression which this matter appears to have produced in the United States, still less could they have imagined that the orders given by them to Vice Admiral Sir

George Seymour to attend personally to this matter, should have been construed into an offensive proceeding, and one calling for the strictures which, without any defence on the part of the United States government, it occasioned in the Senate; for, although it is true that the flag of the commanderin-chief is hoisted on board a ship-of-the-line, and that, in the execution of his inspections, her Majesty's ship "Cumberland" was ordered, with other vessels, to the fishery station, this measure was not adopted with a view to show an imposing force, but in order that her Majesty's government might have the advantage, in a matter requiring judgment and discretion, of the presence of an officer so highly distinguished for both qualities, and whose recent judicious conduct in an affair at Greytown, called forth the praise of the officers and of the government of the United States.

As I propose that this despatch shall merely explain away certain points which have clearly been misunderstood, I shall abstain for the present from entering into a discussion upon the interpretation to be given to the term "bay ;" and upon this part of the subject I will only add that her Majesty's government intended to leave the matter precisely where it was left in 1845 by the governments of Great Britain and the United States-namely, that the relaxation as to bays applied, as is stated in Lord Aberdeen's note to Mr. Everett of the 21st of April, 1845, "to the Bay of Fundy alone"—any further discussion of that question being a matter of negotiation between the two governments.

I cannot, however, conclude without adverting to the fact that the proceedings of her Majesty's government which have called forth so much animadversion on the part of the United States were adopted, not merely with reference to the protection of British fisheries against American encroachments, but also against similar encroachments on the part of French. fishermen; and that a considerable proportion of the armed craft employed for protecting the British fisheries in North America, were placed there in order to use means equally used by the French government to protect French rights.

Now, with regard to such species of protection, the governments of Great Britain and France have not been in the habit of evincing any national jealousy, or of considering that offence was thereby intended. On the contrary, both governments have found that the surest mode of preventing misunderstandings, was to join in effectually protecting their respective lines of demarcation.

Such protection, or rather guard, is constantly maintained by both governments in the British channel, where the fishery is regulated by a convention between Great Britain and France, whereby the lines are clearly laid down, and where, notwithstanding the mutual precaution adopted by the cruisers of both nations, the fishermen of both countries are repeatedly found encroaching. But such encroachments are not countenanced by either government. The cruisers of each government are instructed to warn their own countrymen whenever they observe them disposed to cross the line of demarcation, and the fishermen who trespass, pay the penalty of their improper proceedings.

In like manner, trespasses have been committed by French and British fishermen, respectively, on the coast of Newfoundland; and, in order to avoid disputes, the two governments resolved to endeavor, by negotiation, to establish rules for the mutual regulation of the fisheries; but pending the conclusion of such negotiations, her Majesty's government and the government of France have placed a force off the coast of Newfoundland to watch the proceedings, respectively, of the fishermen of the two countries.

You will read this despatch to Mr. Webster, and, in leaving a copy of it with him, you will not fail to assure him, and to request him to assure the President of the United States, that her Majesty's government continue to feel the same anxiety that has long been felt in this country for the maintenance of the best relations between the two governments, and it will be to them a source of sincere satisfaction, if the attention which has thus been drawn to the subject of the fisheries should lead to an adjustment, by amicable negotiations, upon a more satisfactory footing than at present, of the system of commercial intercourse between the United States and her Majesty's North American colonial possessions.

I am, &c.,

MALMESBURY.

Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Webster.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

London, August 13, 1852.

SIR-On the 11th instant I again had an interview with Lord Malmesbury, at his request, at the Foreign Office, at which Sir John Packington was present. The conversation