considered by them as the chief obstacle to the adoption of a system more friendly to Great Britain, and in urging the extension of jurisdiction they evidently consider the effect on the public mind in America more than the intrinsic value of the acquisition We have the honour to be &c &c &c Lord Viscount HOWICK, &c &c &c VASSALL HOLLAND No. 13.-1807, January 3: Extract from Letter from Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney (at London) to Mr. Madison. The twelfth article establishes the maritime jurisdiction of the United States to the distance of five marine miles from their coast, in favour of their own vessels and the unarmed vessels of all other Powers who may acknowledge the same limit. This Government contended that three marine miles was the greatest extent to which the pretension could be carried by the law of nations, and resisted, at the instance of the Admiralty and the law officers of the Crown, in Doctors' Commons, the concession, which was supposed to be made by this arrangement, with great earnestness. The Ministry seemed to view our claim in the light of an innovation of dangerous tendency, whose admission, especially at the present time, might be deemed an act unworthy of the Government. The outrages lately committed on our coast, which made some provision of the kind necessary as a useful lesson to the commanders of their squadrons, and a reparation for the insults offered to our Government, increased the difficulty of obtaining any accommodation whatever. The British commissioners did not fail to represent that which is contained in this article, as a strong proof of a conciliating disposition in their Government towards the Government and people of the United States. The limit established was not so extensive as that which we had contended for, and expected to have obtained; we persuade ourselves, however, that the great object which was contemplated by any arrangement of the subject, will result from that which has been made. The article in the treaty, in connection with the causes which produced it, forms an interesting occurrence in the history of our country, which cannot fail to produce the most salutary consequences. It is fair to presume, that the sentiment of respect which Great Britain has shown by this measure for the United States, will be felt and observed in future by her squadrons in their conduct on our coast, and in our bays and harbours. It is equally fair to presume. that the example of consideration which it affords in their favour, by a nation so vastly preponderant at sea, will be followed by other Powers. 63 No. 14.-1815, June 17: Letter from Lord Bathurst to Governor DOWNING STREET, June 17, 1815. SIR, As the Treaty of Peace lately concluded with the United States contains no provision with respect to the fisheries which the subjects of the United States enjoyed under the IIIrd Article of the Peace of 1783, His Majesty's Government consider it not unnecessary that you should be informed as to the extent to which those privileges are affected by the omission of any stipulation in the present Treaty, and of the line of conduct which it is, in consequence, advisable for you to adopt. You cannot but be aware that the IIIrd Article of the Treaty of Peace of 1873 contained two distinct stipulations; the one recognizing the rights which the United States had to take fish upon the high seas, and the other granting to the United States the privilege of fishing within the British jurisdiction, and of using, under certain conditions, the shores and territories of His Majesty for purposes connected with the fishery; of these, the former, being considered permanent, cannot be altered or affected by any change of the relative situation of the two countries; but the other, being a privilege derived from the Treaty of 1783 alone, was, as to its duration, necessarily limited to the duration of the Treaty itself. On the declaration of war by the American Government, and the consequent abrogation of the then existing Treaties, the United States forfeited, with respect to the fisheries, those privileges which are purely conventional, and (as they have not been renewed by a stipulation in the present Treaty) the subjects of the United States can have no pretence to any right to fish within the British jurisdiction, or to use the British territory for purposes connected with fishery. Such being the view taken of the question of the fisheries as far as relates to the United States, I am commanded by His Royal Highness the Prince Regent to instruct you to abstain most carefully from any interference with the fishery in which the subjects of the United States may be engaged, either on the Grand Bank of Newfoundland, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or other places in the sea. At the same time you will prevent them, except under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, from using the British territory for purposes connected with the fishery, and will exclude their fishingvessels from the bays, harbours, rivers, creeks, and inlets of all His Majesty's possessions. In case, however, it should have happened that the fishermen of the United States through ignorance of the circumstances which affect this question, should, previous to your arrival, have already commenced a fishery similar to that carried on by them previous to the late war, and should have occupied the British harbours and former establishments on the British territory which could not be suddenly abandoned without very considerable loss, His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, willing to give every indulgence to the citizens of the United States which is compatible with His Majesty's rights, has commanded me to instruct you to abstain from molesting such fishermen or impeding the progress of their fishing during the present year, unless they should, by attempts to carry on a contraband trade, render themselves unworthy of pro tection or indulgence. You will, however, not fail to communicate to them the tenor of the instructions which you have received and the view which His Majesty's Government take of the question of the fishery, and you will, above all, be careful to explain to them that they are not in any future season to expect a continuance of the same indulgence. I have, &c. No. 15.-1815, July 21: Extract from Letter from Mr. Monroe (United States Secretary of State) to Mr. Adams (United States Minister at London). Among the acts which we have to complain of with greatest earnestness is a late warning given by the commander of a British sloop of war to our fishermen near the coast of the British northern colonies to retire thence to the distance of twenty leagues. This, it is presumed, has been done under a construction of the late treaty of peace, which, by being silent on the subject, left that important interest to rest on the ground on which it was placed by the treaty of 1783. The right to the fisheries required no new stipulation to support it. It was sufficiently secured by the treaty of 1783. This important subject will claim your early attention. The measure thus promptly taken by the British Government, without any communication with this Government, notwithstanding the declaration of our Ministers at Ghent that our right would not be affected by the silence of the treaty, indicates a spirit which excites equal surprise and regret-one which by no means corresponds with the amicable relations established between the two countries by that treaty, or with the spirit with which it has been executed by the United States. As you are well acquainted with the solidity of our right to the fisheries in question, as well as to those on the Grand Bank, and elsewhere on the main ocean, to the limit of a marine league 64 only from the coast, (for the pretension to remove us twenty leagues is too absurd to be discussed), I shall not dilate on it, especially at this time. It is sufficient to observe here, that the right of the United States to take fish on the coast of Newfoundland, and on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, and to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands. and Labrador-in short, that every right appertaining to the fisheries, which was secured by the treaty of 1783, stands now as unshaken and perfect as it then did, constituting a vital part of our political existence, and resting on the same solid foundation as our independence itself. In the act of dismemberment and partition, the rights of each party were distinctly defined. So much of territory and incidental rights were allotted to one, so much to the other; and as well might it be said, because our boundary had not been retraced in the late treaty, in every part, that certain portions of our territory had reverted to England, as that our right to fish, by whatever name secured, had experienced that fate. A liberty of unlimited duration, thus secured, is as much a right as if it had been stipulated by any other term. Being to be enjoyed by one, adjoining the territory allotted by the partition to the other party, it seemed to be the appropriate term. I have made these remarks to show the solid ground on which this right is deemed to rest by this Government, relying on your thorough knowledge of the subject to illustrate and support it in the most suitable manner. It can scarcely be presumed that the British Government, after the result of the late experiment, in the present state of Europe, and under its other engagements, can seriously contemplate a renewal of hostilities. But it often happens with nations, as well as with individuals, that a just estimate of its interests and duties is not an infallible criterion of its conduct. We ought to be prepared at every point to guard against such an event. You will be attentive to circumstances, and give us timely notice of any danger which may be menaced. No. 16.-1815, September 7: Letter from Lord Bathurst to Mr. Baker. FOREIGN OFFICE, September 7, 1815. SIR: Your several despatches to No. 25 inclusive have been received and laid before the Prince Regent. The necessity of immediately dispatching this messenger with my preceding numbers prevents my replying to the various topics which your more recent communications embrace. I shall therefore confine myself to conveying to you the sentiments of His Majesty's Government on the one requiring the most immediate explanation with the Government of the United States, namely, the fisheries, premising the instructions I have to give to you on the subject, with informing you that the line which you have taken in the discussion on that point, as explained in your No. 24, has met with the approbation of His Majesty's Government. You will take an early opportunity of assuring Mr. Monroe that, as, on the one hand, the British Government cannot acknowledge the right of the United States to use the British territory for the purpose connected with the fishery, and that their fishing vessels will be excluded from the bays, harbours, rivers, creeks, and inlets of all His Majesty's possessions: so, on the other hand, the British Government does not pretend to interfere with the fishery in which the subjects of the United States may be engaged, either on the Grand Bank of Newfoundland, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or other places in the sea, without the jurisdiction of the maritime league from the coasts under the dominion of Great Britain. Upon these principles, therefore, the case against which the American Government has remonstrated, if well founded, was not authorized by His Majesty's Government. I am, &c. (Signed) BATHURST. No. 17.-1815, September 19: Extract from Letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Monroe stating the Substance of a Conversation with Lord Bathurst. Having formally renewed the claim for the restitution of the slaves carried away contrary to the engagements of the treaty of peace, or for payment of their value as the alternative, there were other objects which I deemed it necessary to present again to the consideration of this Government. In the first instance, it seemed advisable to open them by a verbal communication; and I requested of Lord Bathurst an interview, for which he appointed the 14th instant, when I 65 called at his office in Downing Street. I said that, having lately received despatches from you respecting several objects of some importance to the relations between the two countries, my first object in asking to see him had been to inquire whether he had received from Mr. Baker a communication of the correspondence between you and him relative to the surrender of Michilimackinac; to the proceedings of Colonel Nichols in the southern part of the United States; and to the warning given by the captain of the British armed vessel Jaseur to certain American fishing vessels to withdraw from the fishing grounds to the distance of sixty mile from the coast. He answered, that he had received all these papers from Mr. Baker about four days ago; that an answer with regard to the warning of the fishing vessels had immediately been sent; but, on the other subjects, there had not been time to examine the papers and prepare the answers. I asked him if he could, without inconvenience, state the substance of the answer that had been sent. He said, certainly: it had been that as, on the one hand, Great Britain could not permit the vessels of the United States to fish within the creeks and close upon the shores of the British territories, so, on the other hand, it was by no means her intention to interrupt them in fishing anywhere in the open sea, or without the territorial jurisdiction, a marine league from the shore; and, therefore, that the warning given at the place stated, in the case referred to, was altogether unauthorised. I replied that the particular act of the British commander in this instance being disavowed, I trusted that the British Government, before adopting any final determination upon the subject, would estimate, in candour, and in that spirit of amity which my own Government was anxiously desirous of maintaining in our relations with this country, the considerations which I was instructed to present in support of the right of the people of the United States to fish on the whole coast of North America, which they have uniformly enjoyed from the first settlement of the country; that it was my intention to address, in the course of a few days, a letter to him on the subject. He said that they would give due attention to the letter that I should send him, but that Great Britain had explicitly manifested her intention concerning it; that this subject, as I doubtless knew, had excited a great deal of feeling in this country, perhaps much more than its importance deserved; but their own fishermen considered it as an excessive hardship to be supplanted by American fishermen, even upon the very shores of the British dominions. I said that those |