of coast frontiers, including bays and straits, as laid down by all acknowledged jurists, and which would clearly resolve the "difference of interpretation" in this matter in favour of Great Britain. But the rationale of this matter is clearly ascertainable from the very wording of the passage. The concurrence of the words "bays, creeks, and harbours," puts those three descriptions of coast formation on an equal footing; and it cannot be denied that each commences at the points of the coast where they respectively open upon the sea, and that all water within these points is part of the "bay, creek, or harbour," as the case may be; and that, as a consequence, not to be "within three miles" of such "bay, creek, or harbour," you must be beyond three miles of a straight line drawn between the two heads, or points of land, where the indentation forming the bay, creek, or harbour, commences. But further, if there could be any hesitation to admit this theory upon the face of the 1818 Convention itself, the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, modifying that Convention, would infallibly remove it. By this Treaty the right of fishing, mutually conceded, was on the sea-coasts and shores and

in the bays, harbours, and creeks," without any restriction as to the distance from shore-in other words, within the strict territorial domain of each contracting party respectively. The other question of doubt, or "difference of interpretation," admitted by Lord Granville, as to the Convention of 1818, is, when you come to look at it, so visionary, so absurd, that one can hardly conceive a public man of any reputation or position acknowledging its exist

ence. It is thus stated:-"Whether the proviso that the American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbours, for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever,' is intended to exclude American vessels from coming inshore, to traffic, transship fish, purchase stores, hire seamen, etc." One would have thought that the words "and for no other purpose whatever," would have been sufficient to exclude all but the particular purposes specified as permitted, and that to speak further in the matter would be an impertinent waste of time. But we will answer it by again referring to the terms of the "Reciprocity Treaty," which permit the entrance into "bays, harbours, and creeks," for the purpose of fishing, and the landing on the shores, for the purpose of "drying nets and curing fish,”—being a specific and limited qualification of the 1818 Convention,-which latter being now recurred to, could not by any possibility be construed to sanction the larger privilege "to traffic, transship fish, purchase stores, hire seamen, etc," recognized by his lordship as possibly coming within a fair interpretation of its provisions.

In the matter of the Fisheries, the British Commissioners proposed, as a basis of arrangement, that the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 "should be restored in principle." The American Commissioners peremptorily "declined" this proposal, and, at a subsequent sitting, made a counter proposition for a money payment, naming one million dollars, for the joint use of these fisheries in perpetuity; an offer which

the British Commissioners, on referring to their Government, were instructed to say "was regarded as inadequate" by the latter. The American Commissioners then "withdrew the proposal they had previously made," and afterwards laid down other terms, which the British Commissioners "received instructions to accept," and which were included in the Treaty accordingly. It is therein provided, that the fishermen of the United States, in addition to the rights under the Convention of 1818 shall have the liberty to fish on the coasts, and in the bays, harbours, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island and the islands adjacent; and to land upon them, as well as upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying nets and curing fish, subject to local rights of private property; British fishermen to have similar right of fishing and landing on the eastern coasts and shores of the United States, as far as the 39th parallel (instead of the 36th, as in the Reciprocity Treaty) of northern latitude. It is also provided reciprocally for the import, with certain restrictions, of fish and fish-oil free of duty. The Treaty records that, in making this arrangement, Great Britain asserts, but the United States deny, that the preponderance of advantage is in favour of the latter; and that it is to be left to a mixed commission, with a friendly power as umpire, to decide whether any, and if so, what amount of compensation the United States ought to pay for it. There can be no question that the sacrifice our colonial fishermen are called upon to make is a very serious one, not only in

respect of the actual value of the business in which the fishermen of the States are to be admitted to partieipate, but as to that feeling for territorial rights, which is so dear to all free peoples. It is difficult to imagine that any pecuniary payment can compensate for it.

The Reciprocity Treaty, it will be recollected, conceded the right of navigation of the River St. Lawrence, in exchange for that of Lake Michigan, in consideration of an important provision for esta lishing free trade in certain articles. The inhabitants of our colonies were very anxious to have these commercial facilities renewed, as an equivalent for a valuable concession; but the United States would not listen to any negociation on the basis of the Reciprocity Treaty. As it is, the new Treaty declares the right of navigation of the St. Lawrence from the 45th parallel, and of the Yukon, the Porcupine, and the Stickno, to be free and open to both countries, and the British Government undertakes to recommend to the Government of Canada to allow the equal use of the Welland, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the dominion, while the same privilege is to be extended to British subjects on Lake Michigan, and on the St. Clair Straits Canal in the United States. The free transit in bond, to and fro, of merchandize, both in the British possessions and in the United States, is stipulated, and the provisional export duty on American timber in the River St. John, when intended for shipment from New Brunswick, is abolished.

The rights of fishing are limited to a term of ten years, subject to two years' notice. The right of

L

navigation of the St. Lawrence and other rivers named, is to exist "for ever;" but the right of navigation of Lake Michigan, conceded to us, is restricted to ten years, subject to two years' notice thereafter.

Of course all these provisions were agreed upon subject to ratification by the Senate of the United States, and by the Government of Great Britain, as well as by the Canadian Parliament, and the Legislature of Prince Edward's Island.

The inconveniencies and anomalies attending a policy of concession, in derogation of the established principles of national right, are strikingly illustrated in all the recent proceedings in reference to, and consequent upon these arrangements-the hardship of the case being aggravated by the fact, too evidently manifest, that in these transactions the interests of the colonies have been sacrificed to those of the mother country. The recently published correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Ministers of the Canadian Dominion establishes the fact of the unqualified disapproval, and deep discontent of the bulk of the Canadian population at the manner in which their wrongs have been disregarded, and their territorial rights invaded, by consent of the Home Government, with the one purpose in view, by the latter, of obtaining a settlement, of some kind or other, of long-standing and embarrassing disputes with the United States. The complaints of the Canadians are under two heads:-1st. In "that the United States are permitted to refuse to make any sort of compensation for the Fenian raids, justly chargeable to their culpable neglect of international duties, or even