regulation. These remarks, of course, do not apply to the bank, or deep water fisheries, about which all formal stipula tions are needless.

We shall now proceed to relate the incidents, that led to the introduction of this subject into the negotiation for the convention of 1818. In the summer after the peace of Ghent, our fishing vessels were warned off the British coasts by regular endorsements on their enrolment and license to the distance, even, of sixty miles ;-and those, that had gone into creeks and inlets of Nova Scotia, were detained and sent to Halifax. The first of these acts was disowned by the British government, though, at the same time, it was intimated to be their intention, thereafter, to exclude American fishing vessels one marine league from their shores in British America ;-and in the other instance, the vessels, detained, having been tried in the Admiralty Court in Halifax, were released on the ground, as we understand the matter, not that the rights of the Americans to fish on British coasts were not dissolved by the war of 1812, but that condemnations could not take place without an act of Parliament. These circumstances, coupled with the declaration of the British government, just mentioned, left this country no alternative, but to subject, to a fresh examination, the stipulations on the subject in the first treaty of peace. Having in a former part of this work exhibited an outline of the argument, upon which rested the claim on the part of the United States, we may, without omitting any important considerations, state the general ground, upon which it was again vindicated, as well as the reply of the British government, though this will be presented with more detail, having only as yet adverted to one view of the subject.

"It cannot be necessary to prove that the treaty of '83 is not, in its general provisions, one of those, which, by the common understanding and usage of civilized nations, is or can be considered as annulled by a subsequent war between the same parties. To suppose that it is, would imply the inconsistency and absurdity of a sovereign and independent state, liable to forfeit its right of sove reignty by the act of exercising it on a declaration of war. But

the very words of the treaty attest, that the sovereignty and independence of the United States were not considered, or understood, as grants from his majesty; they were taken and expressed as existing before the treaty was made, and as then only, first, formally recognised and acknowledged by Great Britain.

"Precisely of the same nature were the rights and liberties in the fisheries. They were in no respect grants from the King of Great Britain to the United States, but the acknowledgment of them as rights and liberties enjoyed before the separation of the two countries, and which, it was mutually agreed, should continue to be enjoyed under the new relations, which were to subsist between them, constituted the essence of the article, concerning the fisheries. The very peculiarity of the stipulation is an evidence, that it was not on either side understood, or intended as a grant from one sovereign state to another. Had it been so understood, neither could the United States have claimed, nor would Great Britain have granted gratuitously any such concession. There was nothing either in the state of things, or in the disposition of the parties, which could have led to such a stipulation, as on the ground of a grant without an equivalent by Great Britain.

"But such is the ground, upon which it appears to have been contemplated, as resting by the British government, when their plenipotentiaries at Ghent communicated to those of the United States their intentions, as to the northern American fisheries, viz. "That the British government did not intend to grant to the United States gratuitously the privileges, formerly granted by treaty to them, of fishing within the limits of the British sovereignty, and of using the shores of the British territories for purposes, connected with the British fisheries."

"These are the words, in which the notice, given by them, is recorded in the protocol conference of the 8th of August 1814. To this notice the American plenipotentiaries first answered on the 9th of August, that they had no instructions from their government to negotiate upon the subject of the fisheries, and afterwards in their note of 10th November 1814, they expressed themselves in the following terms.

"In answer to the declaration, made by the British plenipotentiaries, respecting the fisheries, the undersigned, referring to what passed in the conference of the 9th August, can only state, that

they are not authorized to bring into discussion any of the rights or liberties, which the United States have, heretofore, enjoyed in relation thereto. From their nature and from the peculiar character of the treaty of 1783, by which they were recognised, no further stipulation has been deemed necessary by the government of the United States to entitle them to the full enjoyment of all of them."

"If the stipulation of the treaty of 1783 was one of the conditions, by which his majesty acknowledged the sovereignty and independence of the United States; if it was the mere recognition of rights and liberties, previously existing and enjoyed, it was neither a privilege gratuitously granted, nor liable to be forfeited by the mere existence of a subsequent war. If it was not forfeited by the war, neither could it be impaired by the declaration of Great Britain, that she did not intend to renew the grant. Where there had been no gratuitous concession, there could be none to renew; -the rights and liberties of the United States could not be cancelled by the declaration of Great Britain's intentions. Nothing could abrogate them, but the renunciation of them by the United States themselves."

"Let it be supposed that the notice, given by the British Plenipotentiaries in relation to the fisheries, had been in reference to another article of the same treaty. That Great Britain had declared she did not intend to grant again, gratuitously, the grant in a former treaty of peace, acknowledging the United States as free, sovereign and independent states, or, that she did not intend to grant gratuitously the same boundary line, which she had granted in the former treaty of peace. Is it not obvious that the answer would have been, that the United States needed no new acknowledgment of their independence, nor any new grant of their boundary line. That if their independence was to be forfeited, or their boundary line curtailed, it could only be by their own acts of renunciation, or of cession, and not by the declaration of the intentions of another government? And if this reasoning be just with regard to the other articles of the treaty of 1783, upon what principle can Great Britain select one article, and say this particular stipulation is liable to forfeiture by war, or by the declaration of her will, while she admits the rest of the treaty to be permanent and irrevocable? In the negotiation of Ghent, Great Britain did

propose several variations of the boundary line, but she never intimated, that she considered the line of the treaty of 1783, as forfeited by the war, or that its variation could be effected by the mere declaration of her intention. She perfectly understood, that no alteration of that line could be effected, but by the express assent of the United States, and when she finally determined to abide by the same line, neither the British nor the American plenipotentiaries conceived that any new confirmation of it was necessary. The treaty of Ghent in every one of its essential articles refers to that of 1783, as being still in force. The object of all its articles, relative to the boundary, is to ascertain with more precision and to carry into effect the provisions of that prior compact. The treaty of 1783 is, by a tacit understanding between the parties and without any positive stipulation, constantly referred to as the fundamental law of the relations between the two nations. Upon what ground, then, can Great Britain assume, that one particular stipulation in that treaty is no longer binding upon her?"

The doctrine of the British government is fully developed in the following able letter of Lord Bathurst of October 1815, the greater part of which we shall extract.

"The minister of the United States appears by his letter to be well aware, that Great Britain has always considered the liberty, formerly enjoyed by the United States, of fishing within British limits and using British territory, as derived from the third article of the treaty of 1783 and from that alone. And that the claim of an independent state to occupy and use, at its discretion, any portion of the territory of another, without compensation or corresponding indulgence, cannot rest on any other foundation than convential stipulation. It is unnecessary to enquire into the motives, which might have originally influenced Great Britain in conceding such liberties to the United States, or whether other articles of the treaty, wherein these liberties are specified, did or did not, in fact, afford an equivalent for them, because all the stipulations profess to be founded on reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience. If the United States derived from that treaty privileges, from which other independent nations, not admitted by treaty, were excluded, the duration of the privileges must depend on the duration of the instrument, by which they were granted, and if the war abrogated the treaty, it determined the privileges. It has been urged, in

deed, on the part of the United States, that the treaty of 1783, was of a peculiar character, and that because it contained a recognition of American independence, it could not be abrogated by a subsequent war between the parties. To a position of this novel nature Great Britain cannot accede. She knows of no exception to the rule, that all treaties are put an end to by a subsequent war between the same parties ;-she cannot, therefore, consent to give to her diplomatic relations with one state a different degree of permanency from that, on which her connexion with all other states depends. Nor can she consider any one state at liberty to assign to a treaty, made with her, such a peculiarity of character as shall make it, as to duration, an exception to all other treaties, in order to found on a peculiarity, thus assumed, an irrevocable title to all indulgences, which have all the features of temporary concessions.

"The treaty of Ghent has been brought forward by the American minister, as supporting by its reference to the boundary line of the United States, as fixed by the treaty of 1783, the opinion, that the treaty of 1783 was not abrogated by the war. The undersigned, however, cannot observe in any one of its articles any express or implied reference to the treaty of 1783, as still in force. It will not be denied, that the main object of the treaty of Ghent was the mutual restoration of all territory, taken by either party from the other during the war. As a necessary consequence of such a stipulation, each party reverted to their boundaries as before the war, without reference to the title, by which these possessions were acquired, or to the mode in which their boundaries had been previously fixed. In point of fact the United States had before acquired possession of territories, asserted to depend on other titles, than those, which Great Britain could confer. The treaty of Ghent adverted, as a fact of possession, to certain boundaries of the United States, which were specified in the treaty of 1783, but surely it will not be contended, that, therefore, the treaty of 1783 was not considered at an end.

"It is justly stated by the American minister, that the United States did not need a new grant of the boundary line. The war did not arise out of a contested boundary, and Great Britain, therefore, by the act of treating with the United States, recognised that nation in its former dimensions, excepting so far as the jus belli had interfered with them, and it was the object of the treaty of Ghent to cede such rights to territory as the jus belli had conferred.