On the 21st of July, Mr. Monroe addressed a letter to Mr. Adams, who was then our Minister to the Court of Great Britain, complaining of the outrage of the Jaseur. "This (says the Secretary) it is presumed has been done under a construction of the late Treaty of Peace, which by being silent on the subject, left that important interest to rest on the ground, on which it was placed by the Treaty of 1783." (Thus assuming the doctrine of Mr. Adams.) He continues, "the measure thus promptly taken by the British government, notwithstanding the declaration of our Ministers at Ghent, that our right would not be affected by the silence of the Treaty, indicates a spirit which excites equal surprise and regret: one which by no means corresponds with the amicable relations established between the two countries by that Treaty, or with the spirit, with which it has been executed by the United States." He further says, "Every right appertaining to the fisheries which was secured by the Treaty of 1783, stands now as unshaken and perfect as it then did, constituting a vital part of our political existence, and resting on the same solid foundation, as our Independence itself." He proceeds, "it can scarcely be presumed, that the British government, after the result of the late experiment, in the present state of Europe, and under its other engagements, can seriously contemplate a renewal of hostilities." He concludes with saying, that "we ought to be prepared at every point to guard against such an event," and exhorts Mr. Adams, to be attentive to circumstances, and to give timely notice of threatened danger.

On the 19th of September, Mr. Adams, in a letter to Mr. Monroe, after expressing an apprehension that a disposition existed, on the part of the British government, to renew hostilities, states the substance of a conversation with Lord Bathurst. Upon inquiry whether he had received from Mr. Baker, any communication respecting several subjects of complaint on the part of America, among which was the warning given by the Captain of the Jaseur, to the American fishing vessels, he answer

ed, that a communication on the subject, had been already sent to Mr. Baker, and at the request of Mr.: Adams, he stated to him its substance," that as on the one hand, Great Britain could not permit the vessels of the United States to fish within the creeks, and close upon the shores of the British territories, so, on the other hand, it was by no means her intention to interrupt them, in fishing any where in the open sea, or without the territorial jurisdiction, a marine league from the shore. And, therefore, that the warning given at the place stated, in the case referred to, was altogether unauthorized."

Mr. Adams then urged upon the consideration of the British Minister, the existence of an absolute right, on the part of America, still to take fish in the British waters, and expressed an intention of addressing a letter to him on the subject.

Lord Bathurst, replied, that due attention should be given to the letter, but that Great Britain had explicitly manifested her intention concerning this subject, that it had excited much feeling, and that the British fishermen, considered it as an excessive hardship to be supplanted by the Americans upon their own shores.

Mr. Adams considered this feeling, as the sensibility of a partial, and individual interest, which mistook a right for a privilege. If an attention to that interest was to have weight in determining the policy of the British Cabinet, there was another interest liable to be affected, which was also worthy of consideration; the manufacturing interest. "The question of right had not been discussed at the negotiations at Ghent. The British plenipotentiaries, had given a notice that the British government, did not intend hereafter, to grant to the people of the United States, the right to fish, and to cure and dry fish, within the exclusive British jurisdiction in America, without an equivalent, as it had been granted, by the Treaty of 1783. The American plenipotentiaries had given notice, in return, that the American government, considered all the rights and liberties in and to the fisheries, on the coast of North

America, as sufficiently secured by the possession of them, which had always been enjoyed by them previous to the Revolution, and by the recognition of them, in the Treaty of Peace, in 1783." Mr. Adams, also contended, for the non-abrogation of the Treaty of Peace, in 1783, by the war of 1812, and the right of fishing as being co-equal to, and co-existent with the right to independence, and that it could not be surrendered, without a virtual surrender of independence, &c.

He then says, "There were also considerations of policy and expediency, to which I hoped, they would give suitable attention, before they should come to a final decision on this point. I thought it my duty to suggest them, that they might not be overlooked. The subject was viewed by my countrymen, as highly important, and I was anxious to omit no effort, which might, possibly, have an influence in promoting friendly sentiments, between the two nations, or in guarding against the excitement of others. These fisheries afforded the means of subsistence, to multitudes of people, who were destitute of any other. They also afforded the means of remittance to Great Britain, in payment FOR ARTICLES OF HER MANUFACtures, EXPORTED TO AMERICA. It was well understood to be the policy of Great Britain, that no unnecessary stimulus, should be given to the manufactures of the United States, which would diminish the importation from those of Great Britain. But by depriving the fishermen of the United States, of this source of subsistence, the result must be, to throw them back upon the country, and drive them to resort to manufacturing for themselves, while on the other hand, it would cut off the means of making remittances in payment for the manufactures of Great Britain."

Mr. Adams, also urged upon the British minister, considerations of humanity, such as the multiplication of the means of subsistence by the fisheries, and adverted to the indulgence granted to the Dutch, who were permitted even in a time of war, to fish upon the coasts of the island of Great Britain, and inferring from the.

interdiction of fishing to the Americans, on the British American shores, "an indication of animosity, trapscending even the ordinary course of hostility in war." Lord Bathurst, denied that any such disposition existed on the part of the British government. That instructions had been issued to the officers on the American station, not even to interrupt the American fishermen, who might have proceeded to the coasts, within the British jurisdiction for that year, but to allow them to complete their fares, but to give them notice that the privilege could not be extended beyond the year, and that they must not return the next year. Mr. Adams, supposed Lord Bathurst more anxious to prevent the Americans from curing their fish on the British territory, than from taking them in the British waters, and accounts for his anxiety on the supposition that the ministry knew that the immediate curing and drying of the fish, as soon as they were taken, was essential to the value, if not to the very prosecution of the fishery." Lord Bathurst, however, alleged the ground of his anxiety, to be the frequent disturbances between the fishermen of the two nations.

A few days after this conversation, between Lord Bathurst and Mr. Adams, the latter sent his contemplated letter to the former. He however brings forward no new arguments. He again takes his old ground, urges the indefeasible right of the Americans to this privilege, because they had always enjoyed it, because the character of the Treaty of 1783, gave it such a quality of perpetuity, that it could not be dissolved or abrogated by war; and that the right to fish rested on the same basis as the national independence; and therefore the omission of a Treaty stipulation, to continue that right, could not affect the question, notwithstanding the notice; and that Great Britain, by her nominal grant in the treaty of 1783, only acknowledged a pre-existing right, &c.

He then, on the part of the fishermen, appeals to the humanity, cupidity and interest of Great Britain, by representing that the labours of the fishermen "had the

ultimate result of pouring into her cup a great portion of their hardy and laborious industry, that these fisheries afforded the means of subsistence to a numerous class of people in the United States, whose habits of life had been fashioned to no other occupation, and whose fortunes had allotted them no other possession. That to another, and, perhaps equally numerous class of our citizens, they afforded the means of remittance and payment for the productions of British industry and ingenuity, imported from the manufactures of the United Kingdom. He then urged the usefulness of the labours of the fishermen, and the custom which spared them in times of hostility. That although the interest of the American and British fishermen might at times conflict, yet the labour of the first, "might produce advantages to other British interests, equally entitled to the regard, and fostering care of their sovereign.

On the 8th of November, Mr. Adams transmitted to Mr. Monroe, Lord Bathurst's reply, dated October 30.

The British minister, after protesting against the claim, observes in behalf of the ministry," that they feel every disposition, to afford the citizens of the United States, all the liberties and privileges, connected with the fisheries, which can consist with the just rights and interests of Great Britain, and secure his majesty's subjects from the undue molestations in their fishery, which they have formerly experienced from the citizens of the United States." He then forcibly controverts the doctrine of the eternal duration of the right, in the Americans, to enjoy the fishing privileges, within the limits of the British sovereignty. "If (says he) the United States derived from the Treaty, of 1783, privileges from which other independent nations, not admitted by treaty, were excluded, the duration of the privileges must depend upon the duration of the instrument, by which they were granted, and if the war abrogated the treaty, it determined the privileges. It has been urged indeed on the part of the United States, that the treaty of 1783, was of a peculiar character, and