i Aeddg. : iB abet toes i) fildesed Mad w/ 5 Uy mee Shere Kk NaN, A Shs 1 ite FEL Hay) HEDIS) ij. ii Xt ‘ i F TENE WERRe f Fea i } eed eddy vo , Anh A Jadey ees i Figasniek rd dseiydutet Nh Dy, 3 es ee HE SPARKS LIBRARY. [AMERICA.]} x Collected by 43 JARED SPARKS, LL. D., in President of Harvard College. : Purchased by the Cornell University, 1872. RETURN TO ALBERT R. MANN LIBRARY ITHACA, N. Y. DATE DUE GAYLORD PRINTEDINU.S A. I : Pi University Library . SH 11.A principal fisheries of th in i mann Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http:/Awww.archive.org/details/cu31924003258666 REPORT On ‘THE PRINCIPAL FISHERIES oF THE AMERICAN.SEAS: 2 MAAS A wre ‘ea “AD AtL - PREPARED FOR- © ! a THAREL r 1 on toll, eee THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY LORENZO SABINE, OF MASSACHUSETTS; AND reg SUBMITTED BY THE HON. THOMAS CORWIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, AS A PART OF HIS ANNUAL REPORT ON THE FINANCES, AT THE SECOND SESSION OF THE "I'HIRTY-SECOND CONGRESS. “, WASHINGTON: ROBERT ARMSTRONG, PRINTER. 1853. 880025 Extract from the report of Hon. Thomas Corwin, Secretary of the Treasury. “Treasory Department, January 15, 1853. * * * * * * * * * “The subject of the fisheries being one of high importance, and having recently attracted great and general attention, I transmit herewith a highly interesting and valuable report pre- pared for this Department by Lorenzo Sabine, esq., embracing— “1. A report on the fisheries in the American seas of France, Spain, and Portugal. “2. A report on the fisheries of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Prince Ed- ward’s island, Magdelene islands, Bay of Chaleurs, Labrador, and New Brunswick. “3. Report on the fisheries of the United States. “4, Review of the controversy between the United States and Great Britain as to the intent and meaning of the first article of the convention of 1818.” * * ” * * * * * * REPORT ON THE PRINCIPAL FISHERIES OF THE AMERICAN SEAS: BY LORENZO SABINE. Custom-nHovuse, Boston, Collector’s Office, December 10, 1852, Str: I transmit herewith a report on the fisheries, by Lorenzo Sabine, esq., which he has prepared for the department. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, P. GREELY, Jr., Collector. Hon. Tuomas Corwin, ; Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. Framincuam, December 6, 1852. Str: I submit herewith the report which I have prepared, in ac- cordance with your instructions of the 2d of February last. More than twenty years have elapsed since I formed the design of writing a work on the American fisheries, and commenced collecting materials for the purpose. My intention embraced the whale fishery of our flag in distant seas; the fisheries of our own coasts, lakes, and rivers, as well as those which we prosecute within British jurisdiction, under treaty stipulations ; and the fisheries of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States. That a part of my plan has now been executed, is owing entirely to the interest and zeal which you have manifested in the undertaking. Our first interview upon the subject was caused by a communication -to you from the Treasury Department, in which the Secretary con- veyed a request that a report of limited size should be furnished from your own office. During our conversation, you expressed a desire to look over my collection of documents and state-papers, and they were accordingly deposited with you for examination. On returning them to me, you were pleased to give a favorable opinion of their value, and to say that you would at once suggest and recommend to Mr. Corwin the expediency of employing me to write a paper somewhat more elaborate than he had contemplated. Subsequently, you announced to me that the Secretary promptly adopted your views, and submitted the whole matter to your discretion. 6 I undertook the task with all my heart, and with a determination to complete it, if possible, in a manner to meet the expectations of the department and of yourself. ' It is finished. Whatever the judgment pronounced upon it, I have still to express my grateful acknowledg- ments to Mr. Corwin for the kindness which has allowed the partial gratification of a long-cherished wish, and to you for the original sug- gestion, for your countenance, your sympathy, and your personal super- vision. If I may venture to hope that, as the result of my labors, an import- ant branch of national industry will hereafter be better understood and appreciated by such of our countrymen as have never devoted particu- lar attention to its history, I may venture to repeat that all commenda- tion rightfully belongs to you. Nor would I forget that my thanks are also due to William A. Well- man, esq., your principal deputy collector, who, at our second inter- view, generously relinquished his own favorite plan of writing a report upon our cod and mackerel fisheries, and expressed a decided wish that the duty should be transferred to me, as well as his readiness to afford me all possible aid. His knowledge and experience have been of material assistance. I am indebted to him for important facts which were to be obtained of no other person, for information which has cor- rected my views and opinions in several particulars, and for statisti- cal matter of great value. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, LORENZO SABINE. Pur Gree_y, Jr., Esq., Collector of the Customs port of Boston and Charlestown. 7 PART I. FRANCE, SPAIN, PORTUGAL. COD-FISHERY OF FRANCE. The French were the first European cod-fishers in the American seas. There is a tradition among the fishermen of Biscay that their countrymen visited Newfoundland before the time of Columbus. It is said, indeed, that the great discoverer was informed of the fact by a pilot who had been engaged in the enterprises. The story, improbable as it is, seems to have been treated with respect by some writers of the sixteenth century, but may be dismissed now as one which rests upon no clear and authentic testimony. But that the Newfoundland fisheries were known to the Biscayans and Normans as early as the year 1504, is quite certain. When Cabot discovered our continent, Kurope, including England, was Cath- olic; and during the fasts of the church, the pickled herring of Holland was the principal food. The consumption of fish was immense;* and ihe Dutch, having enjoyed the monopoly of the supply, had become immensely rich. The knowledge communicated by Cabot and the voyagers who followed him, that the waters of America contained, not only an abundance, but many varieties of fish, gave rise to an excite- ment on the subject of fishing hardly less intense than is witnessed at the present time relative to mining. Persons of the highest rank, and not engaged in commercial pursuits, became shareholders in adventures to the new fishing-grounds. And though the Dutch refused to abandon the particular fishery by which they had obtained both wealth and ce- lebrity, vessels wearing the flags of France, England, Spain, and Portugal came annually in search of the cod—as we shall see—for nearly a century before a single European colony was founded in America north of the ancient limits of the United States. Of the incidents of the French fishing voyage of 1504 I have not * Documents which show the immense consumption of fish are to be met with by tl students of history everywhere. The following incidents, selected from a number, will suffi- ciently illustrate the statement in the text: “The bill of fare of the feast given on the marriage of Henry IV to his Queen Joan, of Navarre, at Winchester, in 1403, ‘is yet in existence, written on parchment,’ remarks a chronicler of curious things of ‘ the olden time;’ andthe banquet consisted of six courses—three of flesh and fowl, and three of fish. In the ‘first course of Fyshe,’ were ‘Salty fyshe,’ and ‘ Breme samoun rostyd.’ ‘Of the comforts of the poor,’ 16th century, says an English journal, ‘we may form a tolerably correct notion from the lururies registered in the household book of the great Earl of Northumberland.’ From this document it appears that, in one of the most noble and splendid establishments of the kingdom, the retainers and servants had but spare and unwholsome diet—salt beef, mutton, and fish three-fourths of the year, with little or no vegetables; so that, as Hume says, ‘there cannot be anything more erroneous than the magnificent ideas formed of the roast beef of old England.’ Nor does it seem that ‘my lord and lady’ themselves fared much better than their ‘retainers,’ since for their breakfast they had ‘a quart of beer, as much wine, two pieces of salt fish, six red herrings, four white ones, and @ dish of sprats.’ In England, in the same century, ‘the first dish brought to table on Easter day was a red herring riding away on horseback;’ that is, it was the cook’s duty to set this fish ‘in corn sallad,’ and make it look like a man riding on a horse.” 8 been able to find any account; but there is mention, four years later, of Thomas Aubert, who came from Dieppe to Newfoundland, and who, previous to his return, explored the river St. Lawrence. We learn, further, that the fishery increased rapidly, and that, in 1517, quite fifty ships of different nations were employed in it. — ; The flag of France was probably the most numerous, since, in 1527, an English captain at Newfoundland wrote to his sovereign, Henry VIII, that in the harbor of St. John alone he found fishing eleven sail of Norman and one Breton. Francis I, at this period, was engrossed by a passionate and unsuccessful rivalry with Charles V of Spain, and could hardly attend to so humble an interest. ‘+ But Chabot, ad- miral of France, acquainted by. his office with the fishermen, on whose vessels he levied seme small exactions for his private emolu- ment, interested Francis in the design of exploring and colonizing the new world.” Jacques Cartier,* of St. Malo, who was considered the best seaman of his day, was accordingly intrusted with the command of an expedition in 1534. The French appear to have had establishments on shore, for the purposes of the fishery, in 1540; but we have no certain information with regard to them. In 1577 they employed no less than one hundred and fifty vessels, and prosecuted the business with great vigor and success. After the accession of Henry IV—the first of the Bour- bons—and under the auspices of his illustrious minister, Sully, the New- foundland cod-fishery was placed under the protection of the govern- ment. Previous to 1609, so constant and regular was intercourse with our fishing-grounds that Scavalet, an old fisherman, had made forty voyages. Without statistics in the early part of the seventeenth century, we only know, generally, that there was a material decline in this distant branch of industry, caused, possibly, by the civil commotions at home. But in the year 1645, though the number of vessels employed was fifty less than in 1577, the fishermen of France were deemed by English writers to be formidable rivals of their own. Disputes and bloodshed had then occurred—precursors of long and distressing wars for the mastery of the fishing-grounds. Meantime the successes, the explorations, and the representations of the hardy adventurers to our waters for an article of food for the fast-days of the church had led to the most important political results. The limits of this report do not permit minute statements; and I will only remark that, when Cartier—already referred to—made his first voyage, the design of the French monarch was merely to found a single colony in the, neighborhood of the fishing-banks, but that the informa- tion of the country communicated to Francis on the navigator’s return, confirming as it did the descriptions of the fishermen of Normandy * Jacques Cartier was a native of St. Malo. Francis I sent him on his first voyage in 1534. He made a second voyage in 1535; and, when ready to depart from France, he went to the cathedral, with his whole company, to receive the bishop’s benediction. Many of his.com- panions were young men of distinction. He came to the French possessions in America a third time in 1540, as pilot, and in command of five ships, under Francois de la Roque, lord of Roberval, who, commissioned as governor of Canada, was intrusted with the supreme au- thority. Cartier published an account of Canada after his second voyage. 9 and Brittany, induced a more extended plan, and the possession, for permanent colonization, of the vast region from which, after the voyages and discoveries of Pontgrave, of Champlain, and others, were formed the colonies of Canada and Nova Scotia, and, in due time, Cape Breton. Thus it is historically true that France was directly indebted to her fisheries for her-possessions in America. The right to these possessions was soon disputed. In an age when kings claimed, each for himself, all the lands and seas that his subjects saw or sailed over, and when charters and grants were framed in data ignorance of the domains which they transferred, almost in evity, to favorites, it could not but sometimes happen that the subjects of different crowns received patents of precisely the same tracts of country, and that, on lines where French and English grants met, the boundaries were so vaguely and uncertainly described as to produce long and bitter contentions. Such, indeed, was the case to an extent to disturb the peace of the colonists of America for more than a century. As most of the contro- versies from this source are connected with our subject, a notice of them is indispensable. The first difficulties occurred in the country known for a long time as “Acadia,” which may be described, generally, as embracing the whole of the present colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and Maine between the Kennebec and the St. Croix rivers. It is suffi- ciently definite for our purpose to say that this immense territory was claimed by both crowns, and that the subjects of both—the one resting on the English grant to Sir William Alexander, and the other on the French patent to De Monts—settled upon it, and fished in its seas, as inclination led them. The treaty of St. Germains, in 1632, hushed for a while the earlier disputes, since Charles I, who had married a French princess, re- signed by that instrument all the plazes in Canada, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton occupied by persons who owed allegiance to him; yet, as the English people condemned the cession, and as neither lines nor limits were defined, new contentions arose, which, as we shall see, were terminated only with the extinction of French power in this hemi- sphere. In fact, historians of acknowledged authority consider the treaty of St. Germains as among the prominent causes of the American Revolution, inasmuch as the disputes to which it gave rise disturbed, finally, the relations between England and her thirteen colonies. Twenty-two mecha as and Cromwell, in a time of profound peace with France, took forcible possession of Nova Scotia, claiming that its cession by Charles was fraudulent. He erected it into a colony, and organized a government. It was considered highly valuable, and Englishmen of rank aspired to become its proprietary lords from the moment of its acquisition. : The French court remonstrated, without changing the purpose of the protector, But, after the restoration of the Stuarts, and by the treaty of Breda, in 1667, this colony passed a second time to France.* Though * Edward Randolph, the first collector of the customs of Boston, in a Narrative to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, in 1676, says that “'The French, upon the last-treaty of peace con- cluded between the two crowns of England and France, had Nova Scotia, now called Acadie, 10 St. John, Port Royal, La Heve, Cape Sable, as well as Pentagaet or Penobscot, were specially named in the cession, the general bounda- ries were not mentioned, and the soil and the fishing-grounds were again the scenes of collisions, reprisals, and fierce quarrels. A third treaty—that of London—in 1686, confirmed the two powers in the possession of the American colonies respectively held at the com- mencement of hostilities, but left the extent and limits of all as unset- tled as before. Sagacious men in New England had now seen for years that the ex- pulsion of the French was the only measure that would secure peace in the prosecution of the fisheries, and they endeavored to enlist the sympathy and co-operation of the mother country. The war between France and England which followed the accession of William and Mary was no sooner proclaimed at Boston than the general court of Massachusetts commenced preparations for the conquest of Nova Scoua and Canada. Sir William Phips, who was born and bred among the fishermen of Maine, was intrusted with the command of an expedition against both. He reduced the first, and established a government; but his enterprise in the St. Lawrence was disastrous. It is of interest to add, that the first paper money emitted in America was issued by Massachusetts to defray the expenses of these military operations. At the peace of Ryswick, in 1697, it was stipulated that mutual res- titution should be made of all conquests during the war; and, much to the dissatisfaction of the English colonists, Nova Scotia returned once more to the undisputed possession of the French. The strife in Amer- ica had been avowedly for the fisheries, and for territory north and west; and this treaty, which, with the exception of the eastern half of Newfoundland, secured to France the whole coasts, the islands, and the fishing-grounds from Maine to beyond Labrador and Hudson’s Bay, besides Canada and the valley of the Mississippi, was regarded as dishonorable to England and wantonly injurious to colonial industry and peace. . The evil consequences of the treaty of Ryswick were soon manifest. A year had not elapsed before the French government promulgated a claim to the sole ownership of the fisheries. In 1698, a frigate bound from France to Nova Scotia furnished the master of a Massachusetts vessel with a translated order from the king, which authorized the seizure of all vessels not of the French flag that should be found fishing on the coast. General publicity of the order followed, and its execution was rigidly enforced. Bonaventure, in the ship-of-war Enviux, boarded and sent home every English colonial vessel that appeared on delivered up to them, to the great discontent and murmuring of the government of Boston, that his Majestie, without their knowledge or consent, should part with a place so profitable to them, from whence they drew great quantities of beaver and other peltry, besides the fishing for cod. Nevertheless,” he adds, “the people of Boston have continued a private trade with the French and Indians inhabiting those parts for beaver skins and other commodities, and have openly kept on their fishing upon the said coasts.” He says’ further, that ‘‘ Monsieur La Bourn, governor for the French king there, upon pre- tence of some affronts and injuries offered him by the government’of Boston, did strictly inhibit the inhabitants any trade with the English, and moreover layd in imposition of four hundred codfish upon every vessel that should fish upon the coasts, and such as refused had their fish and provisions seized on and taken away.” By the “ Boston government,” Randolph means the government of Massachusetts. : 11 his “cruising-ground ; while Villabon, governor of Nova Scotia, in an official despatch to the executive of Massachusetts, declared that in- structions from his royal master demanded of him the seizure of every American fisherman that ventured east of the Kennebeck river, in Maine. The claim was monstrous. If-I understand its extent, the only fisheries which were to be open and free to vessels of the English flag were those westerly from the Kennebeck to Cape Cod, and those of the west- ern half of Newfoundland. It seems never to have occurred to a single French statesman that the supply of fish in our seas is inexhaustible, and that, reserving certain and sufficient coasts for the exclusive use of their own people, other coasts might have been secured to their rivals, without injury to any, and with advantage toall. In fact, evidence that such a plan was suggested by our fathers, or bythe ministry “at home,” does not, I think, exist. On both sides the strife was for the monopoly and for:the mastery. Richard, Earl Bellamont, arrived in Boston in 1699,* and, having assumed the administration of affairs in Massachusetts, pointedly re- ferred to these pretensions in a speech to the general court, and to the execrable treachery of the Stuart who had parted last with Nova Scotia and “the noble fishery on its coast.” But his lordship could afford no redress. In the first year of the reign of Queen Anne, the two nations were again involved in war. Among its causes was the claim of France to a part of Maine and to the whole of the fishing-grounds. The people of New England, driven from the Acadian seas by the common enemy, needed no solicitation from the mother country to engage heartily in the contest. On the other hand, employing armed vessels of their own, they were hardly restrained, in their zeal and success, from hanging as common pirates some of the French officers who had been the in- struments of interrupting their pursuits in the forbidden waters. Nor was this all. They attempted the conquest of Nova Scotia, and equipped a fleet at Boston. The enterprise failed. Promised ships from England three years later, but disappointed, a second expedition failed also. i At last, in 1710, Nova Scotia became an English colony. Its reduc- tion was a duty assumed by the ministry, while, in truth, it was accom- plished principally by colonists and colonial resources. Of the force assembled at Boston, six ships and a corps of marines were, indeed, sent from England; but the remainder, thirty vessels and four. regi- ments, were furnished by the four northern colonies. Strange it was that Anne, the last of her family who occupied the throne, should have permanently annexed to the English crown the culony and the “ noble fishery ” which all of her line had sported with so freely and so disas- trously. I have ‘barely glancef at events which occupy hundreds of pages ot documentary and written history. Whoever has examined the trans- actions thus briefly noticed has ceased to wonder that the Stuarts were * Tt was a new thing to see a nobleman at the head of the government of Massachusetts, and he was received with the greatest respect. ‘Twenty companies of soldiers and a vast concourse of people met his lordship and the countess, and there was firework and good drink all night.” He died in New York in 1701. He was an enemy of the Stuaris. 12 so odious in New England. I know of nothing more disgraceful to them, either as rulers or as private gentlemen, than their dealings with Sir William Alexander, their own original grantee of Nova Scotia, with the claimants under him, and with their subjects in America, who bled, reign after reign, and throughout their reigns, to rid themselves of the calamities entailed -upon them by the treaty of St. Germains, and who, in the adjustment of European questions, were defrauded of the fruits of their exertions and sacrifices by the stipulations in the treaties of Breda of London, and Ryswick. boa Taare The conquest of one French colony achieved, the ministry, yielding to importunities from America, projected an enterprise for the reduc- tion of Canada also—in which, as usual, the colonists were to bear a large share of the actual burdens. After unnecessary, even inexcusa- ble, delays on the part of those intrusted with the management of the affair in England, a fleet and a land force finally departed from Boston for the St. Lawrence. A more miserable termination to a military ope- ration of moment can hardly be found in history. ‘The whole de- sign,’”” wrote the celebrated Lord Bolingbroke, ‘*was formed by me ;” and he added, “I have a sort of paternal concern for the success of it.” But how could he have thought “success” possible ? The general appointed to command the troops was known among his bottle-companions as “honest Jack Hill,” and was pronounced by the Duke of Marlborough to be “good for nothing.” The admiral was so ignorant—so inefficient generally—as to imagine that “the ice in the river at Quebec, freezing to the bottom, would bilge ‘his vessels,” and that, to avert so fearful a disaster to her Majesty’s ships, he “‘ must place them on dry ground, in frames and cradles, till the thaw !”” He was spared the calamity of wintering in ice one hundred feet in thickness! On the passage up the St. Lawrence, eight of his ships were wrecked, and eight hundred and, eighty-four men drowned. But for this, said he, ‘‘ ten or twelve thousand men must have been left to perish of cold and hunger: by the loss of a part, Providence saved all the rest.” Of course, an expedition consisting of fifteen ships-of-war and forty transports, of troops fresh from the victories of Marlborough, and of colonists trained to the severities of a northern climate, and sufficient for the service, under such chiefs, accomplished nothing but a hasty departure. ‘Peace was concluded in 1713. Down to this period the French fisheries had been more successful, probably, than those conducted by the English or the American colonists. ¢ Their own account is, indeed, that, at the opening of the century, their catch of codfish was equal to the supply of all continental or Catholic Europe. By the treaty of Utrecht, in the year just men- tioned, England obtained what she had so logg contended for, as her statesmen imagined—namely, a supremacy ¥ or monopoly of, the fisheries of our seas. : On the coast of Nova Scotia, or Acadia, the French were utterly prohibited from approaching within thirty leagues, beginning at the Isle of Sable, and thence measuring southwesterly ; while the uncondi- - tional right of England to the whole of Newfoundland, and to the Bay of Hudson and its borders, was formally acknowledged. 7 13 | Yet, at Newfoundland, the privilege of fishing on a part of the east- ern coast from Cape Bonavista to the northern point, and thence along the western shore as far as Point Riche, was granted to the subjects of Louis. It is to be observed that England reserved the exclusive use of the fishing-grounds considered the best, and also the territorial juris- diction ; that the French were not permitted to settle on the soil, or erect any structures other than fishermen’s huts and stages; and that the old and well-understood, method of fishing was to be continued with- out change. By one party this adjustment of a vexed question was deemed fa- vorable to England and just to France. But another party insisted that their rival, humbled by the terms of the peace in other respects, should have been required in this to submit to her own doctrines and to an unconditional exclusion from the American seas. The opponents of the treaty did not view the case fairly. The cession of Acadia was supposed to include the large island of Cape Breton; and, this ad- mitted, the French were to be confined to a region from which their further, or at least considerable, interference with vessels wearing. the English flag was hardly possible: while, with regard to that very region, it should be recollected that, though England claimed New- foundland by the discovery of Cabot and the possession of Gilbert, no strenuous or long-continued opposition had been made, at any time, to all nations fishing, or even forming settlements, there; and that France was entitled to special consideration, inasmuch as her establishments for conducting the fishery had been held without interruption for more than half a century, and had been recognised at the peace of Ryswick.. Besides, she had captured several English posts in addition, and, in fact, was in actual possession of a large part of the island and its val- uable appendages. The party in opposition assailed the ministry in terms of bitter de-- nunciation. It was said that they ‘“‘had been grossly imposed uyon,” that they “‘had directly given to France all she wanted,” and that the concessions were “universally and justly condemned.” Such are some of the words of reproach that appear in an official report. In the po- litical ferocity of the time, Lord Oxford was impeached; and it is among the charges against him that, ‘‘in defiance of an express act of Parliament, as well as in contempt of the frequent and earnest repre- sentations of the merchants of Great Britain and of the commissioners of trade and plantations,” he, Robert, Earl of Oxford, and Earl Morti- mer,* had advised his sovereign that ‘‘the subjects of France should: have the liberty of fishing and drying fish in Newfoundland.” * Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, and Earl Mortimer, a distinguished minister of state in the reign of Queen Anne, was born in 1661. ‘After the peace of Utrecht, the tory statesmen, having no longer apprehensions of danger from abroad, began to quarrel among themselves and the two chiefs, Oxford and Bolingbroke, especially, became personal and political foes.’ Soon after the succession of George I, Oxford was impeached of high treason by the House of Commons, and was committed to the Tower. The Duke of Marlborough was among his enemies. Bolingbroke fled to the continent. Oxford was tried before the House of Peers in 1717, and acquitted of the crimes alleged against him. He was the friend of Pope, Swift, and other literary men of the time. He died in 1724. His son Edward, the second Earl of - Oxford, and Earl Mortimer, was also a great and liberal patron of literature and learned men, and completed.the valuable collection of manuscripts which he commenced, and which is now in the British Museum. y4 His lordship was committed to the Tower, and tried for high treason; but such has. been the advance of civilization and of the doctrine of’ human brotherhood, that an act which was a flagrant crime in his own age has become one honorable to his memory. The great principle he thus maintained in disgrace, that the seas of British America are not 1o-be held by British subjects as a monopoly, and to the exclusion ot all other people, has never since been wholly disregarded by any British minister, and we may hope will ever now appear in British diplomacy to mark the progress of liberal principles and of ‘‘man’s humanity to man.” : . . The lossiof Nova Scotia caused but a temporary interruption of the French fisheries.. Within a year of the ratification of the treaty of Utrecht, fugitive fishermen of that colony and of Newfoundland settled on Cape Breton and resumed their business. I have remarked that, as the English understood the cession of Acadia, ‘according to its ancient boundaries,” this island was held to be a part of it. The French contended, on the other hand, that Acadia was a continental possession, and did not embrace, of course, an island sufficient of itselz: to form a colony. The settlement and fortification of Cape Breton was therefore undertaken immediately, as a government measure. Never has there been a better illustration of the facile character of the French people than is afforded by the case before us. Wasting no energies in useless regrets, but adapting themselves to the circumstances of their position, they recovered from their losses with ease and rapidity. In 1721 their fleet of fishing-vessels was larger than at any former period, and is said to have been quite four hundred. ; Reference to the map will show that Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. are divided by a narrow strait. The meeting of vessels of the two flags was unavoidable. The revival of old grudges, collisions, and quarrels; was certain; but no serious difficulties appear to have occurred pre- vious to 1734. In 1744, England and France were still again involved in war. Among the earliest hostile deeds were the surprise of the English gar- rison at Canseau, Nova Scotia, and the destruction of the buildings, the fort, and the fishery there, by a force from Cape Breton, and the cap- ture at Newfoundland of a French ship, laden with one hundred and. fifty tons of dried codfish, by a privateer belonging to Boston. These, however, are incidents of no moment, and may be disposed of in a word. The French fisheries had continued prosperous. ‘They excited envy and alarm. Accounts which are ee authentic, but which Iam compelled to regard as somewhat exaggerated, show that they employed nearly six hundred vessels and upwards of twenty-seven thousand men ; and that the annual produce was almost a million and a half quintals. of fish, of the value of more than four and a-half millions of dollars. More than all else, the fishery at Cape Breton was held to be in viola- tion of the treaty of Utrecht; for, as has been said, that island was in the never-yet-defined country, Acadia. *t Robert: Auchmuty,* an eminent lawyer of Boston, and judge of the: *Robert Auchmuty was of Scottish descent, but was educated at Dublin. He came to Bos- ton when young, and was appointed judge of the court of admiralty in 1703. In 1740, he was- a director of the “Land Bank,” or bubble, which involved the father of Samuel Adams and’ 15. court of admiralty, when sent to England as agent of Massachusetts on the question of the Rhode Island boundary, published a pamphlet entitled “The importance of Cape Breton to the British nation, and a plan for taking the place,” in which he demonstrated that its conquest would put the English in sole. possession of the fisheries of North Amer- ica; would give the colonies ability to purchase manufactures of the mother country of the value of ten millions of dollars annually; would employ many thousand families then earning nothing ; increase English mariners and shipping; cut off'all communication between France and Canada by the river St. Lawrence, so that, in the fall of Quebec, the French would be driven from the continent ; and, finally, open a corres- pondence with the remote Indian tribes, and transfer the fur trade to _ Anglo-Saxon hands. All this was to follow the reduction and possession of a cold, distant, and inhospitable island. Such was the sentiment of the time. Bt In 1745, the conquest of Cape Breton was undertaken. Viewed as a military enterprise, its capture is the most remarkable event in our colonial history. Several colonies south of New England were invited to join the expedition, but none would consent to waste life in a project so mad; and Franklin, forgetting that he was ‘‘ Boston-born,” ridiculed it in one of the wittiest letters he ever wrote. In Massachusetts, and: elsewhere at the North, men enlisted asin a crusade. Whitefield made a recruiting house of the sanctuary. To show how the images in the Catholic churches were to be hewn down, axes were brandished and borne about; and, while Puritanism aimed to strike a blow at Catholi- cism, the concerns of the present life were not forgotten. Fishermen panted for revenge on those who had insulted them and driven them from the fishing-grounds. Merchants, with Auchmuty’s pamphlet in their hands, thought of the increased sale and the enhanced price of New England fish in foreign markets. Military officers who had served in Nova Scotia in the previous war were ambitious of further distinction and preferment. Such were the motives. William Vaughan, who was extensively engaged in the fisheries, and’ whose home was near Pemaquid, in Maine, claimed that, while listen- ing to the tales of some of his own fishermen, he conceived the design: of the expedition. Governor Shirley,* of Massachusetts, embraced his plans, and submitted them to the general court. By this body they were rejected. Renewed by the governor, and insisted upon by the merchants, they were finally adopted by the vote of the speaker, who had acted previously in opposition.t many others in ruin. He was sent to England on important service, and, while there, pro- jected an expedition to Cape Breton. After his return, he was appointed judge of admiralty a:second time. He died in 1750. His son, Samuel, a graduate of Harvard University, was an Episcopal minister in New York; and his grandson, Sir Samuel Auchmuty, a lieutenant general in the British army, and died in 1822. The Auchmutys of the revolutionary era ad- hered to the side of the crown. * William Shirley, Governor of Massachusetts, was a native of England, and was bred to the law. He came to Boston about the year 1733, and was appointed governor in 1741. In 1755, he was commander-in-chief of the British forces in America. He died in Roxbury, Mas- sachusetts, in 1771. ; + Mr. Oliver, a Boston member, broke his leg on his way to the house, and was not present, His vote would have caused the rejection of the plan a second time. ‘The members deliber- ated under the first oath of secrecy administered to a legislative assembly in America. 16 Instantly Boston became the scene of busy preparation. William Pepperell, of Kittery, in Maine, and the son of a fisherman of the Isles of Shoals, assumed command of the expedition. The merchants of Boston furnished a large part of the armed vessels and transports. The fishermen of Plymouth were the first troops to arrive. Those of Marblehead and Gloucester, and those who had been em- ployed by Pepperell and Vaughan, followed in rapid succession. Lumberers, mechanics, and husbandmen completed the force. Louisbourg was the point of attack; for Cape Breton would fall with its capital without another blow. This city was named in honor of the king. Twenty-five years and thirty millions of livres were re- quired to complete it. Its walls were built of bricks brought from France. More than two hundred pieces of cannon were mounted to defend it. So great was its strength that it was called the “Dunkirk of America.” It had nunneries and palaces, terraces and gardens. That such a city rose upon a lone, desolate isle, in the infancy of American colonization, appearsincredible. Explanation is alone found in the fishing enthusiasm of the period. The fleet sailed from Boston in March. Singular to remark, of a military order, Shirley’s instructions required an ample supply of cod- lines for use on the passage, so that the troops might be fed, as much as possible, on the products of the sea. A more undisciplined and disorderly body of men never disem- barked to attempt the reduction of a walled city. The squadron com- manded by Warren, and ordered by the ministry to co-operate with Pepperell, arrived in time to share in the perils and honors of the siege. The colonial fleet and the ships of the royal navy kept up a close blockade. The colonists on shore, without a regular encampment, lodged in huts built of turf and bushes. With straps across their shoulders, they dragged cannon in sledges over morasses impassable with wheels. Making jest of military subordination, they fired at marks, they fished and towled, wrestled and raced, and chased after balls shot from the French guns. Badly sheltered, and exhausted by toil in mud and water, and by exposure in a cold and foggy climate, fifteen hundred became sick and unfit for duty. Still the siege was conducted with surpassing energy, with some skill, and courage seldom equalled. Nine thousand cannon-balls and six hundred bombs were discharged by the assailants: The French commander submitted on the furty-ninth day of the investment. The victors entered the ‘* Dun- kirk of the western world” amazed at their own achievement. A single day’s delay in the surrender might have resulted in discom- fiture and defeat, and in extensive mortal sickness, since, within a few hours of the capitulation, a storm of rain set in, which, in the ten days. it continued, flooded the camp-ground and beat down the huts which the culonists abandoned for quarters within the walls. Pepperell and his companions were the most fortunate of men. Even after the fall of the city, the French flag (which was kept flying as a decoy) lured within their grasp ships with cargoes of merchandise worth more than a million of dollars. _ The exploit was commended in the highest and loftiest terms. Even thirty years afterwards, Mr. Hart- 17 ley* said, in the House of Commons, that the colonists “took Louisbourg from the French single-handed, without any European assistance—as mettled an enterprise as any in our history—an everlasting memorial to the zeal, courage, and perseverance of the troops of New England.”+ These are the mere outlines of the accounts of this extraordinary affair.{ Several of our‘books of history contain full details; but the correspondence of Shirley, Pepperell, and Warren, which is preserved in the Collections of the Historical Society of Massachusetts, as well as the letters and narratives of subordinate actors, shouldbe read in con- nexion. _& century has elapsed. With the present condition of Cape Breton imyiew, we almost imagine that we hold in our hands books of fiction Feces pathér than the records of the real, when we read, as we do in Smol- ety that the conquest of Louisbourg was “the most important achievement - of the war of 1744;” in the Universal History, that “ New England gave peace to Europe by raising, arming, and transporting four thousand men,” whose success ‘proved an equivalent for all the successes of the French upon the continent ; and in Lord Chesterfield, that, “in the end it produced peace,” and that the noble duke at the head of the ad- muiralty declared that, “if France was master of Portsmouth, he would hang the men who should give Cape Breton in exchange.” The peace of Aix la Chapelle, in 1748, was dishonorable to England at home and in her colonies. Of the adjustment of the questions which relate to our subject, I may remark, that she not only restored Cape Breton to France, and submitted. to the humiliating condition of send- ing two persons of rank and. distinction to reside in that kingdom as hostages until. that island and other'conquests should be actually sur- rendered, but consented also to omit all mention of the right of English subjects to navigate the American seas without being liable to search and molestation, though that pretension on the part of the French was one of the original causes of the war, as well as the basis of the attacks made on Walpole’s ministry. The results of the peace to England were an immense debt, the barren glory of supporting the German sovereignty of Maria Theresa, and the alienation of the affections of * He was one of the British commissioners of peace in 1783. : t Horace Walpole calls Sir Peter Warren “the conqueror of Cape Breton;” and says that he was “richer than Anson, and absurd as Vernon.” Walpole also quotes a remark of Marshal. Belleisle, who, when he was told of the taking of Cape Breton, said, “he could believe that, because the ministry had no hand in it.” Walpole pdds: “ We are making bonfires for Cape Breton, and thundéring over Genoa, while our army in Flanders ‘is running away and dropping to pieces by detachments taken prisoners every day.” t April 4, 1748, a committee of the House of Commons came to the following resolution: “ Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that it is just and reasonable that the several provinces and colonies of Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island be reirnbursed the expenses they have been at in taking and securing to the crown of Great Britain the island of Cape Breton and its dependencies.” . Mr. Burke, remarks on this resolution that “these expenses were immense for such colonies ; they were above £200,000 sterling—money first raised and advanced on their public credit.” “William Bollan, collector of the éustoms for Salem aud Marblehead, who married a daughter of Governor Shirley, was sent to England to solicit the reimbursement of these expenses. He obtained the sum of £183,649 sterling, after a difficult and toilsome agency of three years. He returned to Boston'in 1748, with six hundred and fifty-three thousand ounces of silver and ten tons of copper. This money was landed on Long Wharf, placed in wagons, and carried through the streets mid much rejoicing. 18 the people of New England, who saw evidence that the house of Har~ over, like the Stuarts, were ready to sacrifice their victories and their interests as“ equivalents” for defeats and disasters in Europe. | The fall of Louisbourg and the general hazards of war reduced the number of French vessels employed in the fisheries upwards of four hundred in a single year—to follow the received accounts ; while, of the one hundred whith still remained, nearly the whole, probably, made their fares at Newfoundland. This branch of industry was des- tined to a slow recovery of prosperity; for, in 1756, we record still another war between France and England. Among the causes of hostilities on the part of the latter power, a8 an- nounced in the royal declaration, were the aggressions of the French in ‘Nova Scotia.* In that region, and on other coasts frequented by fish- ermen, the war was attended with many distressing cireumstances.t Without spave for details, 1 can only give a single example at New~ foundland, where M. de Tourney, in command of a French force of four ships-of-the-line, a bomb-ketch, and a body of troops, landed at the Bay of Bulls, destroyed the English settlements of Trinity and Carbo- near, captured several vessels, destroyed the stages and implements of fishery of the inhabitants, and, appearing off St. John, the capital of the island, demanded and obtained its surrender. Omitting notice of minor events, we come, in 1759, to the second siege of Louisbourg. The force employed was immense, consisting of twenty ships-of-the-line, eighteen frigates, a large fleet of smaller ves- sels, and an army of fourteen,thousand men. ‘The success of this ex- Sisal caused great rejoicings throughout the British empire. The french colors were deposited in St. Paul’s, London, and a form of thanksgiving was ordered to be used in all the churches; while in New England, prayers and thanksgivings were solemnly offered on the do- mestic altar and in public worship. General Wolfe commanded a detached body of two thousand troops, and was highly distinguished.t He sailed from Louisbourg the follow- ing year, at the head of eight thousand men, to ‘die satisfied’”’ on the Plains of Abraham. Well might he utter these words! He was the victor in one of the decisive battles of the world! In the hour that the British troops entered Quebec, the rule of America passed from the Gallic to the Anglo-Saxon race. Between the death of a Jesuit father and the breaking up of a French settlement in Maine, and the treaty of Paris, was just a century and a half. We have seen how large a part * Mr. Huskisson, in a speech in Parliament in 1826, said: “ Sir, the war which began in the ‘year 1756, commonly called the Seven Years’ War, was,-strietly speaking, so far as relates to this country and to the Bourbon governments of France and Spain, a war for colonial privileges, colonial claims, and colonial ascendency. In the course of that war, British skill and British valor placed in the hands of this country Quebec and the Havana. By the capture of these fortresses, Great Britain became mistress of the colonial destinies of the western world.” t The first conquests of British arms in America in the French war were the French fort of Beau Séjour, in the Bay of Fundy, aud two other posts in the same region. Colonel Monckton, the conqueror, gave the name of Fort Cumberland to Beau Séjour. +“ Wolfe,” says Horace Walpole, “who was no friend of Mr. Conway last year, and for whom I consequently have no affection, has great merit, spirit, and alacrity, and shone extremely at Loujsbourg.” 19 ‘of the period was devoted to war. The contest’ was at anend. The ‘Gaul resigned the mastery of the New World to the Briton.* In view of the past and the rururE, our fathers were ‘‘sATISFIED.” It remains to give a summary of the exertions of the northern colo- ‘nists to achieve the conquest of Canada. So numerous were the sea- ‘men and fishermen of New England on board of the ships-of-war, that ‘her merchants were compelled to navigate their qwn vessels with In- dians and negroes. More than four hundred privateers were fitted out during the contest to ravage the French West Indies and distress the commerce of France in all parts of the world; and it was asserted in the House of Commons, without contradiction, that, of the seamen employed in the British navy, ten thousand were natives of America. For the’ attack on Louisbourg and Quebec alone, the number furnished by the single colony of Massachusetts was five hundred, besides the fishermen who were impressed.t A single example of the pecuniary burdens of those who personally bore no part in hostile deeds will suffice. A Boston pe ee of fortune sent one of his tax-bills to a ‘friend in London for his opinion, and received for answer that ‘he did ‘not believe there was a man in all England who paid so much, in pro- * It may be said that Great Britain has hardly had a moment’s quiet with Canada since the day when Wolfe rose from a sick bed to “die happy” in planting her flag on the walls of Quebec. We cannot stop to trace the reasons for this state of things, but must confine our remarks to the course of events immediately following the conquest. After the fall of Quebec and the reduction of the entire country, but before the final cession, there arose an exciting controversy among some of the leading statesmen of the time, whether Canada should be re- tained or restored to France, and the island of Guadaloupe be added to the British dominionsin its stead. There seems to have been a prevalent fear that, if Canada were kept, the colonies, rid of all apprehensions from the French, would increase at an alarming rate, and finally throw off their dependence on the mother country. A tract was published in support of this view, sup- posed to have been written either by Edmund or William Burke, to which Franklin replied in his happiest and ablest manner. Franklin’s answer, in the judgment of Mr. Sparks, “was be- lieved to have had great weight in the ministerial councils, and to have been mainly instru- mental in causing Canada to be held at the peace.” In the course of the dispute, the charge was openly made that the treaty of peace which re- stored to France the conquests of Bellisle, Goree, Gaudaloupe, St. Lucia, Martinique, and Ha- vana, which guarantied to her people the use of the Newfoundland fishery, and whicn re- tained an acquisition of so doubtful value as Canada, was the result of corrupt bargaining. Lord St. Vincent (a great naval captain, and hardly inferior to Nelson) was of the opinion, even in 1783, that Canada ought not to be retained by England. Lord Brougham, in his his- torical sketches, relates that, ‘when Lord Shelburne’s peace (1783) was signed, and before the terms were made public, he sent for the admiral, and, showing them, asked his opinion.’ ‘I like them very well,’ said he, ‘but there is a great omission.’ ‘In what?’ ‘In leaving Canada asa British province.’ ‘How could we possibly give it up?’ inquired Lord Shel- burne. ‘How can you hope to keep it?’ replied the veteran warrior: ‘with an English re- public just established in the sight of Canada, and with a population of a handful of English settled among a bedy of hereditary Frenchmen, it is impossible; and, rely on it, you only re- tain a running sore, the source of endless disquiet and expense.’ ‘Would the country bear it? have you forgotten Wolfe and Quebec?’ asked his lordship. ‘No: it is because I re- member both. I served with Wolfe at Quebec. Having lived so long, I have had full time for reflection on this matter ; and my clear opinion is, that if this fair occasion for giving up Canada is neglected, nothing but difficulty, in either keeping or resigning it, will ever after be known.’” This remarkable prediction has been fulfilled, as every one who is familiar with Canadian af- fairs will admit. t “The Massachusetts forces,” in 1759, says Hutchinson, “were of great service. Twenty- five hundred served in garrison at Louisbourg and Nova Scotia, in the room of the regular troops taken from thence to serve under General Wolfe. Several hundred served on board the king’s ships as seamen, and the remainder of the six thousand five hundred men voted in the spring served under General Amherst. Besides this force, upon application of General Wolfe, three hundred more were raised and seut to Quebec by the lieutenant governor, in ‘the absence of the governor at Penobscot.” ; 20 portion, for the support of government.” I find it stated that the amount assessed, in taxes of every kind, was nearly half of the payer’s income. - In this rapid notice of the events which preceded and led to the ex- tinction of French power, I have not exaggerated the importance at- tached to the fisheries. Few of the far-sighted saw, even in the distant future, as we really see, in New France, and that half-fabulous coun- try, Acadia, the building of ships to preserve and increase the maritime strength of England, wheat-lands to rival our own, the great lakes united with the ocean, and upon the St. Lawrence and St. J ohn some of the principal timber-marts of the world. Nay, among the wisest, the Indian was forever to glide in his canoe on the waters—forever to ream the dark, limitless forest. In a word, the vision of most was bounded by the fur trade on the soil, and by the fish trade on the sea, A single remark upon the influence of these events in producing the Revolution, limited as is the plan of this report, cannot be omitted. In the “paper stuff” emitted by Massachusetts to pay off “Phips’s men, we see the germ of the ‘continental money.” In the levying of taxes, in the raising of troops, and the general independence of the colonial assemblies during periods ot war, we find explanation of the wonder- ful ease of the transition of these bodies into “provincial congresses.” In the many armies embodied and fleets fitted at Boston, we learn why the people, familiar with military men and measures, almost reck- lessly provoked collision with the troops sent by their own sovereign to overawe and subdue them. In truth, the prominent actors in the wars of 1744 and of 1756 were the prominent actors in the struggle of freedom. Thus, with Pepper- ell at the siege of Louisbourg were Thornton, who became a signer of the Declaration of Independence; Bradford, who commanded a conti- nental regiment; and Gridley, who laid out the works on Bunker’s Hill. On the frontiers of Virginia and in the west, in the last-mentioned war was the illustrious Washington. Engaged in one or both of the French wars were Lewis, Wolcott, Williams, and Livingston, who were signers of the Declaration of Independence; and Prescott, who commanded on the memorable 17th of June. Among those who became generals in the Revolution were Montgomery, who fell at Quebec; Gates, the victor at Saratoga; Mercer, who was slain at Princeton, and who, in the estimation of some, was second only to Washington; Morgan, the hero of the ‘‘Cowpens;” Thomas, who commanded in Canada after the fall of Montgomery; James Clinton, the father of De Witt Clinton; Stark, the victor at Bennington; Spencer, Israel and Rufus Putnam, Nixon, St. Clair, Gibson, Bull, Charles Lee, and Durke. There were also Butler, the second in command at Wyo- ming; and Campbell, a distinguished colonel; and Dyer, chief justice of Connecticut; Craik, director-general of the American hospital, and the “‘old and intimate friend” of Washington; Jones, the physician of Franklin; John Morgan, director-general and physician-general of the army; and Hynde, the medical adviser of Wolfe, ‘who was with him when he fell, and accompanied Patrick Henry against Lord Dunmore. It was in Nova Scotia and Canada, and on the Ohio, then—at Port Royal, Canseau, Louisbourg, Quebec, and in the wilds of Virginia— 21 and in putting down French pretensions, that our fathers acquired the skill and experience necessary for the successful assertion of their own. We pass to consider the terms of the treaty of 1763. In reply to the propositions of the court of London, the French ministry, at the commencement of the negotiations in 1761, consented to guaranty to England the possession of Canada, provided England would restore the island of Cape Breton, and confirm the right of French subjects to take and cure fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as on the banks and in the island of Newfoundland. The fortifications of Louisbourg, the court of Versailles, however, suggested should be destroyed, and the harbor laid open for common use. These terms seem to have been the ultimatum of France. In reply, the British ministry insisted upon the unconditional cession of Canada, with all its dependencies, and the cession of Cape Breton and all other islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. They replied, further, that the important privilege of fishing. and curing cod on the coast of Newfoundland, as provided in the treaty of Utrecht, they had not designed to refuse, but merely to connect with stipulations relative to Dunkirk; and that the island of St. Peter would be ceded to France upon four indispensable conditions: first, that the island should not be fortified, or troops be stationed upon it, under any pretext whatever; second, that, denying the vessels of other nations all rights even of shelter, France should use the island and its harbor for her own fisher- men alone; third, that the possession of the island should not be deemed to extend in any manner the stipulations of the treaty of Utrecht—that is to say, “A loco Cap Bonavista non cupato usque ad extremitatem ejusdem insula septentrionalem, indique at latus occidentale recurrendo usque ad locum Pointe Riche appellatum’—[From the place called Cape Bonavista to the northern extremity of the said island, and thence running westerly to the! place denominated Point Riches} fourth, that an English commissary should be allowed to reside at St. Peter, and the commander of the British ships-of-war on the New- foundland station have liberty, from time to time, to visit the island, to see that these four conditions be duly observed. With these propositions the French ministry were dissatisfied. They desired rights of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, while, with regard to the cession of St. Peter, they remarked that it was so sinall and so near Placentia, that, as a shelter, it would prove altogether illusive, and serve to create disputes between the two nations, rather than. facili- tate the fishery of the French subjects; and they referred to the cession ot Cape Breton, or of the island of St. John, as at first suggested, but expressed a willingness to accept of Canseau instead of either. Still, if the British ministry, for reasons unknown to them, could not agree to the cession of Canseau, then they submitted that Miquelon, an island, or, as they considered, a part of St. Peter, should be included in the cession of the last-named island, for the two joined together did not exceed three leagues in extent. ‘They said also that they would main- tain no military establishment at either of the places mentioned, except a guard of fifty men to support police regulations ; and that, as much as possible with so weak a force, they would prevent all foreign vessels trom sheltering, as required ; while they would limit their fishery on the 22 coast of Newfoundland to the stipulations of the treaty of Utrecht, provided it should be understood that they could take and dry fish on. the coast of St. Peter and Miquelon. To the condition relative to the residence of the commissary on the ceded islands they did not object. In England, opposition to any concessions to France was soon mani- fest. The fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Banks of Newfoundland were held to constitute a great source of wealth to. France, and to be her principal nursery for seamen. The voluntary offer of the ministry, therefore, to continue the privileges enjoyed under, the treaty of Utrecht, was viewed with great displeasure. The jfish- eries, it was said, were worth more than all Canada. The common coun- cil of London, as representing the commercial interest of the- kingdom, transmitted to the members of the House of Commons from the city peremptory instructions on the subject of the treaty, and particularly that the sole and exclusive right of fishing in the American seas should be reserved to the subjects of the British crown. Such, indeed, were the sentiments of a large party. But their remonstrances were disre- arded. : The negotiations were concluded at Paris February 10, 1763. The articles of the treaty which relate to our subject are the following : “The subjects of France shall have the hberty of fishing and dry- ing on a part of the coasts of the island of Newfoundland, such as it is specified in the thirteenth article of the treaty ot Utrecht, which article is renewed and confirmed by the present treaty, (except what relates to the island of Cape Breton, as well as the other islands and coasts in the mouth and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.) And his Britannic Majesty consents to leave to the subjects of the Most Christian King the liberty of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on condition that the subjects of France do not exercise the said fishery but at the distance of three leagues from all the coasts belonging to Great Britain, as well those of the continent as those of the islands situated in the said Gulf of St. Lawrence. And as to what relates to the fishery on the coasts of the island of Cape Breton, out of said gulf, the subjects of the Most Chris- tian King shall not be permitted to exercise the said fishery but at the distance of fifteen leagues from the coasts of the island of Cape Bre- ton; and the fishery on the coasts of Nova Scotia, or Acadia, and every- where else out of the said gulf, shall remain on the footing of former treaties.” “The King of Great Britain cedes the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, in full right, to his Most Christian Majesty, to serve as shelter to the French fishermen ; and his said Most Christian Majesty engages not to fortify the said islands, to erect no buildings upon them but merely for’ the convenience of the fishery, and to keep upon them a guard of fifty men only for the police.” These stipulations were severely attacked in Parliament and else- where. “Junius,” in his celebrated letter to the Duke of Bedford, does not scruple to charge his grace with bribery. “ Belleisle, Goree, Gua- daloupe, St. Lucia, Martinique, the Jishery, and the Havana,” said he, ‘fare glorious monuments of your grace’s talents for negotiation. My lord, we are too well acquainted with your pecuniary character to think it possible that so many public sacrifices should have been made without some 23 prwate compensations. Your conduct carries with it an wnternal evidence. beyond all the legal proofs of a court of justice.” - Peace had hardly been concluded before the French were accused of violations of the treaty. 1n1764,a sloop-of-war carried intelligence to England that they had a very formidable naval force at Newfoundland ; that they intended to erect strong fortifications on St. Peter’s; and that the English commodore on the ‘station was without force sufficient to prevent the consummatien of their plans. The party opposed to the ministry pronounced a war with France to be inevitable, unless the British government were disposed to surrender both Newfoundland and Canada. The alarm—which illustrates the spirit of the time, and the sensibility of the English people—proved to be without cause, since the French governor gave assurances that nothing had been or would be done contrary to the letter of the treaty; that he had but a single small cannon mounted, without a platform, designed merely to answer signals to their fishermen in foggy weather ; that no buildings or works had been erected ; and that his guard consisted of only torty-seven men. It appeared, however, that the French naval force was considerable, consisting of one ship of fifty guns, another of twenty-six guns, and others of smaller rates. Remarking that the French employed at Newfoundland two hundred and fifty-nitie vessels in 1768, and about the same number five years later, we come tothe war ofour own Revolution. To induce France to aid us in the struggle, our envoys were authorized, in 1776, to stipulate that all the trade between the United States and the French West Indies should be carried on either in French or American vessels: and they were specially instructed to assure his Most Christian Majesty, that if, by their joint efforts, the British should be excluded from any share in the cod-fisheries of America by the reduction of the islands of New- foundland and Cape Breton, and ships-of-war should be furnished, at the expense of the United States, to reduce Nova Scotia, the fisheries should be enjoyed equally between them, to the exclusinn of all other nations; and that one-half of Newfoundland should }elong to France, and the other half, with Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, to the United States. We may smile at—we can hardly commend—our fathers for claiming so large a share as this notable scheme devised; but the spirit which conceived and was prepared to execute so grand an enterprise, addi- tional to the main purposes of their strife with the mother country, is to be placed in strong contrast with the indifference manifested now about preserving our rights in the domains which they thus designed to conquer. P In 1778, the project was renewed. In the instructions to Franklin, he was directed to urge upon the French court the certainty of ruining the British fisheries on the Banks of Newfoundland, and consea .ently the British marine, by reducing Halifax and Quebec. Acce mperying his instructions was a plan for capturing these places, in which the benefits of their acquisition to France and the United States were dis- tinctly pointed out. They were of importance to France, it was said, because “‘the fishery of Newfoundland is justly considered the basis of a good marine ;” and because “the possession of these two places neces- 24 sarily secures to the party and their friends the island and fisheries.” Among the benefits to the United States would be the acquisition of “two States to the Union,” and the securing of the fisheries jointly with France, “to the total exclusion of Great Britain.” An alliance with France secured, a plan to reduce Canada at least was accordingly matured and adopted by Congress in the course of the last-mentioned year. It was the prevalent opinion in the United States that the French ministry not only approved of this measure, but that one of their vbjects in forming an alliance with us was to regain a part or the whole of the possessions in America which they had lost in pre- vious wars, and thus regain their former position and influence in the western hemisphere. But the fact is now well ascertained that they were averse to the design against Canada, and that, from the first, it was their settled policy to leave that colony and Nova Scotia depend- encies of England. Washington dissented from Congress, and pre- sented that body with along letter on the subject. He thought the plan ‘both impracticable and unwise. Among his reasons for the latter opin- ion was, that France would engross “the whole trade of Newfoundland whenever she pleased,” and thus secure “the finest nursery of seamen in the world.” The expedition was never undertaken. The treaty of commerce between France and the United States con- cluded in 1778, and annulled by act of Congress in the year 1800, con- tained the following provisions : “Arr. 9. The siiecis (ubetsimatamerhauts, commanders of ships, masters, and inariners of the states, provinces, and dominions of each party, respectively, shajl abstain and forbear to fish in all places pos- sessed, or which shall be possessed, by the other party. ‘The Most Chris- tian King’s subjects shall not fish in the havens, bays, creeks, roads, coasts, or places which the said United States hold, or shall hereafter hold ; and in like manner the subjects, people, and inhabitants of the said United States shall not fish im the havens, bays, creeks, roads, coasts, or places which the Most Christian King possesses, or shall here- after possess. And if any ship or vessel shall be found fishing contrary to the tenor of this treaty, the said ship or vessel, with its lading, proof being made thereof, shall be confiscated. It is, however, understood that the exclusion stipulated in the present article shall take place only so long and so far as the Most Christian King or the United States shah not in this respect have granted an exemption to some other nation. “Art. 10. The United States, their citizens and inhabitants, shall never disturb the subjects of the Most Christian King in the enjoyment and exercise of the right of fishing on the Banks of Newfoundland, nor in the indefinite and exclusive right which belongs to them on that part of the coast of that island which is designated by the treaty of Utrecht, nor in the rights relative to all and each of the isles which belong to his Most Christian Majesty—the whole conformable to the true sense of the treaties of Utrecht and Paris.” Embarked in war with. the greatest maritime power in the world, France had need of all her seamen; and to secure for her ships-of-war her fishermen absent at Newfoundland, her treaty of alliance with the United States was kept secret for some weeks, to give time for their return. During hostilities, St. Pierre and Miquelon, if not almost aban- doned by fishing-vessels, were the scene of no incidents to detain us. 25: At the peace in 1783, the whole subject of the French rights of fish- ing was examined: and arranged. As will be seen, several important changes were made, and explanations exchanged, by the two contract- ing powers. It may be observed, further, that the new fishing-grounds acquired were thought less valuable than those which she’ relinquished, though the privileges obtained by France, considered together, were much greater than those provided in the treaty of 1763. The. articles which relate to the. subject in the treaty, and in the * declaration” and ‘“‘ counter declaration,” or separate articles, are as follows: “Art. 2. His Majesty the King of Great Britain shall preserve in full right the island of Newfoundland and the adjacent islands, in the same manner as the whole was ceded to him by the 138th article of the treaty of Utrecht, save the exceptions stipulated by the 5th article of the present treaty. “Arr. 3. His Most Christian Majesty, [of France,] in order to | prevent quarrels, which have hitherto arisen between the two nations — of England and France, renounces the right of fishing, which belongs to him by virtue of the said article of the treaty of Utrecht, from Cape Bonavista to Cape ‘St. John, [Point Riche,] situated on the eastern | coast of Newfoundland, in about fifty degrees of north latitude ; whereby the French fishery shall commence at the said Cape St. John, [Point » Riche,] shall go round by the. north, and, going down to the western | coast of the island of Newfoundland, shall have for boundary the place | called Cape Ray, situated in forty-seven degrees fifty minutes latitude. ; “Art. 4. The French fishermen shall enjoy the. fishery assigned them by the foregoing article, as they have a right to enjoy it by virtue of the treaty of Utrecht. “ Art. 5. His Britannic Majesty will cede, in full right, to his Most Christian Majesty the islands of St Pierre and Miquelon. _ “Arr. 6.. With regard to the right of fishing in the Gulf of St. Law- rence, the French shall continue to enjoy it conformably to the 5th article of the treaty of Paris,” [1763.] In the “ declaration” on the part of Great Britain, it is said that— “In order that the fishermen of the two nations may not give cause for daily quarrels, his Britannic Majesty will take the most positive measures for preventing his subjects from interrupting, in any manner, by their competition, the fishery of the French, during the temporary exercise of it which is granted to them, upon the coasts of the island of Newfoundland ; and he will, for this purpose, cause the fixed settle- ments which shall be formed there to be removed. “His Britannic Majesty will give orders that the French fishermen be not incommoded in cutting the wood necessary for the repair of their scaffolds, huts, and fishing-vessels. The 18th article of the treaty of Utrecht, and the method of carrying on the fishery which has at all times been acknowledged, shall be the plan upon which the fishery shall be carried on there. It shall not be deviated from by either party—the French fishermen building only their scaffolds, confining themselves to the repa'r of their fishing-vessels, and not wintering there; the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, on their part, not molesting, in any manner, the. French fis'.ermen during their fishing, nor injuring their scaffolds during their absence. The King of Great Britain, in ceding the islands 26 of St. Pierre and Miquelon to France, regards them as ceded for the purpose of serving as a real shelter to the French fishermen, and in full confidence that these possessions will not become an object of jealousy between the two nations, and that the fishery between the said. islands and that of Newfoundland shall be limited to the middle of the channel.” Sa of In the “counter declaration” on the part of France, it is said that—. “The King of Great Britain undoubtedly places too much confidence in the uprightness of his Majesty’s intentions not to rely upon his con- stant attention to prevent the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon from becoming an object of jealousy between the two nations. As to the fishery on the coasts of Newfoundland, which has been thé object of the new arrangements settled by the two sovereigns upon this matter, it is sufficiently ascertained by the 5th article of the treaty of peace signed this day, and by the declaration likewise delivered this day by his Britannic Majesty’s ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary ; and his Majesty declares that he is fully satisfied on this head. In re- gard to the fishery between the island of Newtoundland and those of St. Pierre and Miquelon, it is not to be carried on, by either party, but to the middle of the channel; and his Majesty will give the most posi- tive orders that the French fishermen shall not go beyond this line. His Majesty is firmly persuaded that the King of Great Britain will give like orders to the English fishermen.” The fishery at St. Pierre and Miquelon, at the period of the French revolution, was ina prosperous condition ; butthe confusion and distresses of civil war soon produced a disastrous change, and the fishing-grounds were in a great degree abandoned for several years. In 1792, the number of men employed both at Newfoundland and Iceland was less than thirty-four hundred. The hostile relations with England which followed the domestic commotions caused additional misfortunes, until the peace of Amiens, in 1802.* In the year 1800, by a treaty between the United States and France, concluded at Paris, it was stipulated that “neither party will interfere with the fisheries of the other on its coasts, nor disturb the other in the exercise of its rights which it now holds, or may acquire, on the coast of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or elsewhere on the American coast northward of the United States. But the whale and seal fisheries shall be free to both in every quarter of the world.’’ Napoleon, at this time, was “ premier consul of the French republic.” The French cod-fishery at Newfoundland was hardly re-established at the peace of Amiens, when renewed hostilities with England occa- sioned fresh calamities. Until the downfall of Napoleon, in 1814, this io of distant industry was pursued without vigor, and with severe osses. * a * The fishing privileges which were continued to France were again the subject of complaint at the peace of Amiens. The Right Hon. William Windham, in a speech in Parliament, Novem- ber 4, 1801, said that, by the terms of the proposed peace, “ France gives nothing, and, excepting Trinidad and Ceylon, England gives everything;” and in the enumeration of cessions which “tended only to confirm more and more the deep despair in which he was plunged in con- templating the probable consequences of the present treaty,” he mentioned, “in North America, St. Pierre and Miquelon, with a right to the fisheries in the fullest extent to which they were ever claimed.” 27 ' At the. peace, a deputation of English merchants and others con- nected with Newfoundland entreated their government to refuse. to France continued rights of fishing allowed under the treaties of 1718, of 1763, and of 1783, But the British ministry, aside from general considerations, regarded the restoration of the Bourbons as an event of momentous consequence to Europe, and confirmed to France all her. foreign possessions exactly as they stood at the commencement of the war. The Newfoundland colonists have never ceased to complain of the renewed competition which this policy required them to meet. They contend that, whatever was the opinion in 1783, the fishing-grounds along the shores from Cape Ray to Cape John, which are enjoyed by. the French to the exclusion of all others, are, in the judgment of every. erson competent to decide, the very best at Newfoundland; and they ther insist, by reason of the advantages possessed by France and the United States, that the English deep-sea fishery has been aban- doned. These and similar statements are to be found in official papers and in private letters, and are never omitted by the colonists in their conversations on the subject of their fisheries. It may not be unkind to reply that the French and Ameiican fisher- men are industrious, and that there need be no other explanation of their success. The insertion here of the thirteenth article of the treaty of Paris in 1814 is not necessary. As already intimated, the French were con- firmed in the rights which they possessed previous to the war. The eleventh article of the treaty of Paris in the following year, at the general pacification in Europe, reiterates the confirmation. Reference, therefore, to the articles of the treaty of 1783, to the “declaration” and “counter declaration” recorded at length in the proper connexion, will afford a perfect knowledge of the present extent, limitations, and local- ities of the fishing-grounds of France in the American seas. With peace came prosperity. In 1816, the French tonnage at New- foundland was nearly thirty-one thousand; the amount in 1823, how- ever, appears to have been reduced nearly one-half. It rose suddenly, and in a single year, to about thirty-seven thousand, and, increasing an- nually, except in 1825, was upwards of fifty thousand in 1829. In the succeeding ten years the increase was only five thousand. The number of vessels employed in 1841 and two years later was about four hundred; and the number of seamen in 1847 was.estimated at twelve thousand. These facts, on which I rely, afford proof that the Newfoundland fishery is now prosecuted with energy and success. To follow the statements of the English colonists which are to be met with in official documents, the number of men engaged at St. Pierre and Miquelon, and on various parts of the coast between Cape Ray and ape John, should be computed at twenty-five thousand. There is the same authority for estimating the annual catch of fish at one mil- lion of quintals. I regard the views of M. D. L. Rodet, of Paris, as far more accu- rate. He states that, ‘‘ without her colonies,’ the cod-fishery would ‘“be- come nearly extinct; that these colonies ‘‘only consume annually eighty thousand quintals;” that foreign nations “scarcely take a fifth” of the catch; and that ‘it is by submitting to the exorbitant duties, which at 28 any moment may be changed into prohibition, that the precarious and trifling market in Spain is retained.” A very large proportion, then, of the produce of the cod-fishery is consumed in France; and it is a sufficient refutation of the estimate of the English colonists to say that the quantity remaining after deducting the exports, as computed by M. Rodet, is not wanted in that kingdom. The number of vessels since the peace of 1815 has not exceeded four hundred, except in the single year of 1829; and, assuming that the statement in discussion is correct, these vessels employed an average of sixty men each, or double the number which, as all persons familiar with the business well know, is necessary on board as fishermen, or on shore as “shoresmen.” The same fallacy exists as to the catch; for a million of quintals for four hundred vessels is twenty-five hundred quintals to each, or considerably more than double the mean quantity caught by the vessels of any flag in the world. To allow liberally for the catch of the “boat fishery,” and to consider “boat fishermen” as included in the estimate, 1 cannot think that the figures of the English colonial documents are accurate by quite one-half. If further evidence of exaggeration be wanted, it may be found in the grave assertions of the same writers that our own vessels fishing in the waters of British America are manned with upwards of thirty-seven thousand men, and catch in a year one and a half millions of quintals of fish! The statements thus refuted are of consequence, as will be seen in another part of this report. Equally exaggerated are the averments that the French and Ameri- can fisheries, “bolstered up by bounties and prohibitions,” have ‘as completely swept” the English flag from the Grand Bank of New- foundland “as if Lord Castlereagh had conceded the exclusive right ” in 1814, or as if the “‘combined fleets of France and America had forced it” to retreat to ‘the in-shore or boat fishery;’’ and that the * French and Americans, having taken possession of the Grand Bank,” have, by so doing, ‘“ extended lines of circumvallation and contravalla- tion round the island, preventing the ingress or egress of fish to and from the shore, and, according to the opinions of those best qualified to judge, greatly injuring the in-shore fishery—the only fishery left to British subjects, and that only to a portion of the island.” Deferring a full answer to these complaints until the subject of colo- nial allegations relative to our own aggressions and violations of our treaty rights are considered in detail, the only answer necessary to be made here is, simply, that the “‘ingress” and ‘egress of fish to and from the shore” has not entirely ceased, as yet, since the export of codfish from the English Newfoundland fishery amounts to nearly one million of quintals annually! The lamentations of a people who, though “com- pletely swept” from their own outer fishing-grounds, still show, by their own returns of the customs, that they have sold, between 1841 and 1849, both inclusive, a@ mean quantity of nine hundred and staty-seven. thousand quintals (to be exact in the statistics) annually, may well excite a smile. That the charge against the French fishermen of trespassing upon the fishing-grounds reserved to British subjects is true, to a considera- ble degree, may be admitted. Her Majesty’s ships-of-war have some- 29 times found them aggressors, not only.at Newfoundland, but on the coast of Labrador. Troubles from this source occurred in 1842; and in the following year the British sloop-of-war Electra, in endeavoring to drive off a vessel fishing on the southwesterly shore of Newfound- land, unfortunately killed one man and wounded others on board of her. It appears that the Electra was on the station for the purpose of enforcing the treaty stipulations; that one of her boats gave chase to the French vessel, and, not being able to come up with her, fired across her bows for the purpose of bringing her to; that, not having accom- plished this object, another shot was fired over her; which, proving as ineffectual as the first, was followed, by order of the officer in charge, by a shot aimed directly on board, and producing the results mentioned, The affair created much excitement at the moment. A french frigate arrived at the capital to demand explanations, and the governor of Newfoundland immediately sent a despatch to the ministry ‘‘at home,” stating the facts of the case. The-offence, in this instance, consisted merely in taking bait on the shore not within the limits prescribed for ‘vessels of the French flag by the treaties of 1713 and of 1783. The officer in command of the Electra’s boat is said, .by the colonists, to have acted in accordance with the rules of the service; but a contrary opinion was expressed by the French.* The “Bultow” system of fishing is clearly in violation of treaty stipulations. Prior to the peace of 1815, there is good reason to believe that both French and English fished from the decks of their vessels, without coming to anchor, and without lines moored with several thou- sand baited hooks attached thereto, as at present. There is much dif ference of opinion as to the degree of injury to the shore, or English fishery, on this account; but since the question is one to be settled entirely by the “declaration” in 1783—namely, that “the method of * The French fishermen suffered much at the hands of the British officers who guarded the coasts in 1852, A colonial newspaper contained the following account: “It appears that the Charles, under the command of James Tobin, esq., commissioner of fisheries, has been doing, service at Belleisle, where, onthe 29th ultimo, there were about one hundred French fishermen, with about thirty batteaux, who were just commencing their an- nual invasion of British rights. Mr. 'Tobin immediately ran down to H. M. brig Sappho to ob- tain help, as James Finlay had not then arrived with his crew. His messenger had to tfavel seven miles over land on the night of that day, and by half-past eleven of the same night re- turned with an intimation from Capt. Cochran that he would land the required force by day- light on the following day in Black Joe Cove, whither Mr. Tobin then proceeded with the Charles, and found that the Frenchmen had been already routed by the men of. the Sappho, and were running in their batteaux under reefed foresail and mainsail—the wind blowing half a gale at the time. The Charles escorted them round the island of Belleisle, and then left them, without one fish, to make the best of their way in a pelting storm to Quirpon.” Near the close of the season, another colonial newspaper stated that— “The Vigilance brig-of-war vessel, on the coast of Newfoundland, has damaged the French fisheries very much. Fifty vessels of the fleet in the straits of Belleisle will return home, having eighty thousand quintals short of last year’s catch.” These proceedings, it would seem, were authorized by the ministry, under the general plan adopted in 1852 to prevent encroachments on the fishing-grounds. Admiral Seymour, in a letter to the governor of Newfoundland, remarks that— “Her Majesty’s government are so desirous that ample means should be given to check the numerous encroachments which have been represented to have taken place in the last years at Belleisle and the coast of Labrador, that I am further authorized.to hire and employ some small schooners, for which I am to provide officers and men, for the purpose of carrying the object of her Majesty’s government fully into effect on the coast of Labrador, under the direc. -tion of the-captain of the ship or steamer there employed.” : 30 carrying on the fishery which has at all times been acknowledged shall be the plan upon which the fishery shall be carried on there,” and that “it shall not be deviated from by either party,”—there need be no inquiry into any other matter. The “plan” of the “ Bultow” had not “at all times been acknowledged” in 1783, and it is therefore an aggres- sion. “es The last complaint of the English colonists which I shall notice 1s, that ‘the exclusive right of fishing exercised by the French from Cape Ray to Cape John,is a usurpation.” The “declaration” just referred to was framed expressly that ‘the fishermen of the two nations may not give cause for daily quarrels ;” and different fishing-grounds were assigned to each, to accomplish an object so desirable to both. More- over, the British ministry engaged to remove “the fixed settlements” of their own people within the limits prescribed to the French, and actually issued orders for the purpose soon after the conclusion of the treaty. The intention was, I cannot doubt, that vessels of the two flags should never pursue the cod on the same coasts ; and unless the words quoted convey this meaning, they mean nothing. The expe- rience of more than a century had shown that, under any other arrange- ment, “daily quarrels” would be inevitable. I submit, with deference, that the interest of all parties imperatively requires that people of dif- ferent origin, language, and religion, and of national prejudices almost invincible, should be kept apart. The French government wisely protect their fisheries by bounties— wisely consider them of national importance.* Without its aid, they *([TRaNsLaTion. ] The National Assembly of France has passed a law of the following tenor relative to the great maritime fisheries—June 24th, 9th and 22d July, 1851. Car. I.—Con-Fisuery. From the 1st January, 1852, to the 30th June, 1861, the bounties granted for the encourage ment of the cod-fishery will be fixed as follows: : 1st.— Bounty on the outfit— Fifty francs per man of the crew employed at the fishery, either on the coast of Newfound- land, at St. Peter’s and Miquelon, or on the Grand Bank, and possessing a drying-place. Fifty francs per man of the crew employed in the Iceland fishery, without a drying-place. Thirty francs per man of the crew employed at the fishery on the Grand Bank of Newfound- fand, and without a drying-place. Fifteen francs per man of the crew employed at the Dogger Bank fishery. 2d.— Bounty on the produne of the fshery— Twenty francs per metric quintal of ary codfish, the produce of the French fishery, to be shipped, either direct from the fishing settlements or from the ports of France, for the markets of the French colonies of America and India, or for the settlements on the west coast of Africa; and other transatlantic countries—provided, always, that the fish be landed at a port where there is a French consul. Sixteen francs per metric quintal of dry codfish, the produce of the French fishery, shipped either direct from the fishing settlements or from the ports of France, and destined for the countries of Europe and the foreign states on the shores of the Mediterranean, Sardinia and Algeria being excepted. Sixteen francs per metric quintal of dry codfish, the produce of the French fishery, that may be imported into the French colonies of America and India, and other transatlantic coun- tries, when said fish are exported from the ports of France without having been there landed. Twelve francs per metric quintal of dry codfish, the produce of the French fishery, shipped for Sardinia and Algeria, either direct from the fishing settlements or from the ports of France. Twenty francs per metric quintal of the hard roe of codfish, the produce of the French fish- ery, brought into France by their fishing-vessels. Note.—One kilogramme is equal, to 2 Ibs. 34 oz.;, 2204 lbs. equal to 1 quintal metrique, (say metric quintal.) . 31 admit that “the cod-fishery could not exist.” . This:fishery, says M. Senac, ‘is a productive industry; and it furnishes more than a fifth part of the whole number of our seamen, and by far the best-portton of them. There is no cheaper, better, or more useful school for the formation of scamen for the navy, and none is more capable of extension and development. The doubling of the consumption and exportation of the produce of the fisheries would furnish our fleets with twelve thousand more seamen.” We have seen that when, in 1778, France embaiked in our revolu- tionary struggle, her fishermen, absent at Newfoundland, were recalled to enter her ships-of-war. The same reliance is placed upon them now. War was apprehended in 1841, and M. Thiers followed the ex- ample of the statesmen. referred to; and M. Rodet affirmed that, “without the resources which were found in the sailors engaged in the jish- eries, the expedition to Algiers could not have taken place.” These reasons are not only sufficient to justify, but to demand, national encouragement. But it-may be urged, in addition, that the open or deep-sea cod-fishery differs from almost every other employ- ment; that in war it is‘nearly or quite destroyed; that in peace it cannot be pursued for more than four or five months in a year; that often skill and industry are insufficient to insure good fares; and that, when success attends severe toil and exposure, the fishermen barely subsist. The effects of a ‘bad catch” are, indeed, sad and calamitous. The disasters of 1847 afford a recent and a forcible illustration. In that year the French cod-fishery proved a failure. The quantity of fish caught was scarcely a sixth part of that of former seasons; and the fishermen, discouraged, abandoned the business as early as the middle of August. The labor of the summer and the expenses of repairs and of outfits lost, the actual want of food and clothing until another year came round was alone prevented by the bounty allowed by the gov- ernment. The manner of fishing is now the only topic that. need claim atten- tion. It is to be observed that the principal fishing-grotnds are three, and that on each there is a difference in the mode of operations and in the size of the vessels. First, the fishery on the coasts of Newfound- land, which has always been considered the most important, as being more certain and employing the greatest number of men. The vessels are of all sizes—trom thirty to two hundred, and even three hundred tons. The latter size is, however, rare. When the vessel arrives on the coast, which is generally early in June, she is dis- mantled. Her boats, with two men and a boy in each, are sent out every morning, when the weather will permit, to fish until night. On the return in the evening, the fish taken are split, salted, and put in “‘kenches” or piles; remaining in piles a few days, they are ‘‘ washed ‘out” and dried until they are fit to ship. ‘These processes are re- peated from day to day until the fare is completed, or the season has passed away. Towards the close of September, fishing is suspended, and the vessels depart for France or the West Indies. The Grand Bank fishery is pursued in vessels of between one’ and two hundred tons burden, with two strong chuloupes, or boats, to each. From sixteen to twenty men compose a crew. The vessels proceed first to St. Pierre, land the shore-fishermen and “curers,” and thence 32 take position on the banks, anchoring in seventy or eighty fathoms of water. Everything in readiness the chaloupes are launched and sent out at night to place the “ground-lines,” to which are attached some four or five thousand hooks. When not too boisterous, these lines are examined every day, and the fish attached to the hooks split, salted, and placed in the hoid of the vessel. Meanwhile, the fish caught on board by the men not assigned to the boats are treated in the same way. The first fare is usually secured in June, and carried to St. Pierre to be dried. The second fare is cured at the same place; but the third— if fortunately there be another—is commonly carried to France “green.” This fishing is difficult and dangerous. It requires expert and daring men. It is prosecuted in an open, rough, and often a stormy sea, and frequently involves the loss of boats and their crews. The third fishery, at St. Pierre and Miquelon, is similar, in some re- spects, to that between Cape Ray and Cape J ohn, on the coast of Newfoundland. Boats, instead of vessels, are, however, employed in it. The boats of the two islands are between three and four hundred in number, and require two men to each. They go out in the morning and return at night. Thus, as in all shore-fisheries, the fishermen always sleep at their own homes. As this is the only business of the islands nearly all the men, women, and children are engaged in catching or curing. The season opens in April, and closes usually in October. We have seen the importance attached by France to her immense American domains and with what pertinacity she maintained her pre- tensions to the monopoly of the fishing-grounds. It remains to speak more particularly than has yet been done of the two lone, bare, and rocky islands that remain to her as monuments of the vicissitudes of human condition and of national humiliation. The situation of St. Pierre and Miquelon commands the entrance of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The growth of wood is insufficient even for fuel. They produce no food, and the inhabitants are dependent on France and other countries for supplies. The population of St. Pierre in 1847 was 2,030, of which about one-quarter was “floating” or non-resident. The population of Miquelon at the same time was 625. There are several Catholic churches and schools, priests, monks, and nuns. In 1848, a hospital, sufficiently commodious to receive up- wards of one hundred sick persons, was erected. The dwellings are of wood. The government-house is of the same material, and plain and old-fashioned. The streets are narrow, short, and dirty. The official personages are a governor, a commissary or minister of marine, a har- bor-master, and some inferior functionaries. The military, limited by treaty to fifty men, consist of about thirty gens d’armes. Upon the sta- tion is a single armed ship, though other armed vessels are occasional visiters. The present light-house was erected in 1845, at a cost of 80,000 francs, and, well built of brick, is a substantial edifice. Such are the TWo IsLANDS—TW0 LEAGUES IN EXTENT—which remain to the power that once possessed the whole country bordering on the Mis- sissippi, the limitless regions penetrated by the St. Lawrence—Acadia, from Canseau, in Nova Scotia, to the Kennebeck river, in Maine; the island of Cape Breton; and the hundred other isles of the bays of the northern and eastern possessions. 33 French cad-fishery. No. of | Tonnage. | Number of | Quintals of Value. | Years. vessels. men. fish. BAH ses accaat ed atcioul sll eMeaiacdl se walaer deat 12, 000 450, 000 COD-FISHERY OF SPAIN. - Participating in the excitement which prevailed in Europe on the discovery in the American seas of varieties of fish not previously known or used in the fasts of the Roman church, Spain was an early competi- tor with France and England. Vessels of her flag were certainly at ‘Newfoundland as soon as the year 1517. Sixty years later, the num- -ber of her vessels employed in the fishery there is estimated at one hundred. The number rapidly diminished. Sylvester Wyat, of Bris- tol, England, who made a voyage to the St. Lawrence and Newfound- land in 1593, found only eight Spanish ships in a fleet of upwards of eighty sail of French and English vessels. From the remarks of Smith—who became the father of Virginia—it would seem that in the early part of the seventeenth century, the Spanish fishery was pursued with greater vigor than at’ the time last mentioned. But the greater wealth to be acquired in the gold regions of South America soon lured the Spaniards from an avocation of so great toil, and of so uncertain rewards. No controversy between Spain and England as to their re- spective rights to the fishing grounds, ever arose. 34 Spain retired from our waters in peace, and at her own pleasure. Little is heard of her in connexion with our subject for quite a century, and until the peace of 1763. Her claim—resting on discovery—ever vague and uncertain at the north, had become almost as obsolete as that of the King of England to the title of King of France. Still, in the _ definitive treaty concluded at Paris, she formally renounced ‘all pre- “tensions which she has heretofore formed, or might form, to Nova Scotia or Acadia, in all its parts, and guaranties the whole of it, and with all its dependencies,” and ceded and guarantied to England, ‘in fall right, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all other islands and coasts in the gulf and river of St. Lawrence; and, in general, everything that depends on the said countries, lands, islands, and coasts, with the sovereignty, property, possession, and all rights acquired by treaty or otherwise.” With this treaty the history of the Spanish fishery in America terminates.* COD-FISHERY OF PORTUGAL. An account of this fishery may be embraced in a single paragraph. If materials exist by which to ascertain its progress.and final extent, I have not been able to find them. Portuguese vessels were at Newfoundland as early as those of Spain; and in 1577, the number employed there is estimated at fifty. These two facts comprise the substance of my information upon the subject, except that Portugal, like Spain, soon abandoned all attention to the claims derived from the voyages of her navigators to the northern parts of our continent, and devoted her energies and resources to colonization in South America, and the acquisition of wealth in the mines of Brazil.t * Spain relinquished her rights at the peace of 1763, with reluctance, though she had long ceased to exercise them.