THE NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES QUESTION.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 705, 15 January 1853, Page 3

THE NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES QUESTION.

[Fto.ii tlif “Tin is,” is.] The dispute concerning the North American Fisheries has been greatly obscured, if not distorted, by its occurrence at a period ■when no Parliament was sitting in this country, and when statements of fact, no less than expressions of opinion, in the United States were likely to be biassed by the excitement of a political crisis. Ministerial communications arc made to the American Congress through the circuitous means of Messages only, and the far more summary “ explanations,” which in our own Houseot Commons would he promptly evoked at any moment of a session, are superseded during the recess hy such partial instalments of (he truth as Government prints find the means to obtain or the capacity to express. At length, however, by a careful comparison of these not very perspicuous authorities with the evidence obtained from the other side of the Atlantic, we think we may succeed in presenting an intelligible view of these unpleasant transactions. The reader is aware that hy the treaty of 1818 the Americans arc confessedly precluded from fishing within three miles of the British coasts, and further forbidden by a clause which we maintain, though they dispute, to enter, for fishing purposes, any British bay. Concerning the former provision there was no difference of interpretation, hut the latter had always been called in question by the Americans; and, though the British Government had not been indisposed to some relaxation of its literal rights, the colonies had strenuously opposed any concession, and urgently petitioned for the strict enforcement of all stipulations of the treaty. With (he change of Administration in February last came sundry changes of policy, and i-t was resolved, we arc told, that our colonists should no longer he deprived of the protection to which (hey were entitled. Sir John Pakinglon accordingly, on the 261h of May last, addressed a circular letter to the Governors of our North American dependencies, apprising them that a sufilcicnt naval force would he despatched to 44 enforce the observance of (he convention of 1818, and remove all grounds of complaint on (he part of the colonics.” J( should he l orn in mim! (hat, though we interpreted the terms of

the convention as plainly excluding the Amcri- j cans from our bays, we had not. practically j speaking, insisted on our rights, and the fisher- j men of the United States had pursued their calling without much hindrance in these parts of the British waters. The proceedings, therefore, of the Derby Administration would take their character wholly from the degree or species oi “■ enforcement" which it was now intended to apply. If it was proposed to do no more than protect the coast fishing within the three miles’ limit the Americans had no just reason to complain, for about our rights, both literal and reasonable, in this respect, there could be no dispute at all. If, however, there was any design of suddenly insisting on our full claims in respect of the “ bay” proviso, the measure would receive a very different aspect, for it would have been an ah: apt withdrawal of a practical concession at an exceedingly unseasonable period, and under circumstances well calculated to incense a friendly people and Government. Accordingly, no sooner had public attention been drawn to the transaction than a disclaimer was communicated to a Ministerial print, and it was declared on this reflected authority that Lord Derby’s Cabinet contemplated merely (hepreservation of such rights as the Americans had never disputed, and that they had left the debated interpretation of the convention exactly where if was;—in other words, (hat they had waved the u hay” question, and had merely determined to keep the inshore fisheries in heller order. Ihe only ponds to he decided, therefore, arc the sincerity of this declaration, and the propriety of the character given to the proceedings. A few days ago (he authentic evidence for this portion of the question was confined to an important paper issued from the American Department of State, on receipt of official communications from the British Government. In this document, which possessed all (he authority of a Royal proclamation among ourselves, Mr. Webster gave the people of America to understand that the British Government intended to enforce the convention of 1818, by carrying out the wishes of (he colonics, and closing the bays of the colonial coast against American vessels. He further predicted (he “complete interruption” of the New England fisheries, and, in his capacity as Secretary of State, pul all his countrymen “on Iheir guard." There could, in fact, be* no possible doubt respecting the construction which, either naturally or wilfully, was put by an American Minister on a communication of the British Government; and what remained to be ascertained in exculpation or conviction of our own Administration was the justice or injustice of Mr. Webster s inference. It was perfectly plain that the people of the Union had been led through their authorities to believe exactly that which the English public was advised by its own Government to discredit, and the question was wh-ch Government had the right. In elucidation of this point we can now appeal to two other important pieces of testimony —the actual letter in which Mr. Webster received information of Lord Derby’s intentions, and a second communication, which was elicited hy ins own manifesto.

As respects the former of these documents, we arc bound to say that it contains nothing which could justify Mr. Webster in concluding that the measures of the British Government were directed to the preservation of the in-shore fisheries exclusively. II certifies, on the contrary, the intention of our authorities to prevent a repetition of the complaints so made of the encroachment, of vessels belonging to citizens of the United Stales and of France upon the fulling grounds reserved by the conven *

tion of 1818;" and it intimates that a force will be maintained on the station sufficient to prevent the infraction of the treaty.” Now, these “ reserved fishing grounds,” according to the interpretation sustained by our Government, and demanded in the “ complaints” of the colonists, undoubtedly include the waters of the great bays; so that, in 'the absence of any apparent limitation in the terms of the note, Mr. Webster might assume that the u hay” fishing was pointed at., though there was something not wholly ingenous in his entire suppression of the point touching our in-shore privileges, which he must have feit were incontestable, and which he knew had been infringed. His manifesto, to which we have referred above, was, however, issued on the 6th of July, the day after the receipt of the British note ; but on the very next morning, the 7th, it was notified to him, as we collect from the colonial papers, that he had misconceived the inlcnion of the British Government, which was directed only to the border fisheries of the coast. Now, if this be the case, it is impossible not to regret that the American Secretary in his speech at Marshfield, which was delivered a whole fortnight later, should have fomented the | excitement due to his own proclamation, and deI claimed about the patriotic resolutions of theSu- ! preme Government, instead of correcting misj conceptions so prejudicial to the good underi standing between the United States and Great j Britain. If Mr. Webster, when he sonorously [pledged his faith that the “ poor fishermen of j New England should he protected, hook and : line—bob and sinker,” was really aware that | they needed no protection at all, and that even their encroachments on (he rights of others were only to he partially interfered with, he was acting no meritorious or creditable part before | the eyes of Europe. j At the same time, it cannot he denied that i both the circular of Sir John Pakinglon and the more particular note of Mr. Cram pi ion were so expressed as to put all provisions of (he treaty on the same footing, and to make it appear as probable that the bays would be closed, or that the coast fisheries would he protected. It seems plain on the very face of the transaction that I Lord Derby’s Government must have acted with | considerable lack either of sincerity or judgment ; for, if their original and genuine intentions had not only suggested' the withdrawal of no concession, but had even included, as is now | declared, an adjustment on terms, favourable to the Slates, such resolutions need clearly not have been so executed as In summon up the apparition of an American squadron of war. We are informed, upon the authority of Minisleral organs, that the whole question has now been virtually settled by liberal negotiation ; and, so easy and desirable was such a result, that we can scarcely discredit the report; hut the intelligence of Monday announces that American cruisers are actually on their way to the fishing grounds, and no limit can he pul to the danger of a policy which brings the ships of two such nations as Great Britain and the Stales into menacing -if not hostile presence.