especially the first, had evidently been inflicted years before death, as appeared by the new deposition of bony matter on the injured portion of the skull. The life of St. Magnus is too well-known for it to appear possible that the occasion of such wounds should have been passed over by his biographers. If therefore the rest of the bones be those of the Martyr it seems necessary to conclude that the cranium as well as the maxilla has been a fraudulent substitute made at some period during the Middle Ages, and which could probably have been done with the greater impunity since the skull was probably enclosed in a bust of the precious metals.

ART. V. THE FISHERIES QUESTION-A CANADIAN

VIEW.

II.

THE history of this question was brought down in my first paper

to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. By that Treaty we were relieved of the troublesome duty of watching the American poachers; all our coasts were thrown open to the Americans, and the three-mile limit was, for the time, abolished; under certain restrictions they were given rights of fishing in our bays, and on the inshore grounds, equal to those of our own people; and in return we were permitted to take into the United States certain articles of produce free of duty. In addition, American waters north of the 36th degree of North Latitude were opened to British fishermen. This last donation proved of no value whatever. The Treaty was to remain in force for ten years, and further, for twelve months after either party should have given notice of its wish to terminate the engagement. It was signed 5th June, 1854, and received the assent of the United States Senate 3rd August following.

Lord Elgin will always be gratefully alluded to by Canadians for his skill and diplomatic ability in securing this valuable settlement of our daily recurring difficulties with the American fishermen, and, through their lawlessness, with the American people and Government. We had now ten years of peace and prosperity. There is a consensus of opinion, both in the United States and in Canada, that the Treaty was highly beneficial to

both parties; and the fact that each declared the other the greater beneficiary is tolerably good evidence that it was a fair and equitable arrangement. Nova Scotia grumbled a little; so also did New Brunswick; yet the broad fact remains that an immense trade sprang up between Canada and the Americans, by which the prosperity of both parties was greatly enhanced during the eleven years of the life of the Treaty. But our restless and grasping neighbours took an early opportunity of putting to death both the peace and the prosperity it conferred. On 17th March, 1865, Mr. Adams, the United States Minister in England, in pursuance of a Resolution of Congress, approved by the President of the United States, informed the British Government that he was instructed to give notice that at the expiration of twelve months from that day the Reciprocity Treaty was to terminate.

It will be asked, 'If the treaty had proved beneficial to both parties, why was it abrogated by one of them?' It is, of course, impossible accurately to measure the strength of the various motives which probably induced this abrogation, but so far as Canadians were at the time able to judge from the utterances in Congress and in the American Press, there were several reasons for the action of the United States. In the first place, the popular feeling in favour of Protection as against a Free Trale policy had been growing with increasing strength during the eleven years the Treaty had been in existence. In the second, the interests of those engaged in the fisheries had suffered from the Canadian competition. Both the fishing fleets of Gloucester and other American towns, and the rich fish merchants. of Boston and other centres of the great industry had felt severely the presence of the Canadian fishermen, who fished by the side of the Americans at a much less cost, and accompanied them to the American markets, where they were able to undersell them. The number of this class was comparatively small, but it was a wealthy class, and money has always had an exceptionally powerful influence in the corridors of the Capitol at Washington. In the third place, the Civil War broke out, the Trent difficulty arose, the Alabama raid took place, the Canadians, many of them, openly expressed sympathy with the South, and hundreds

of Southrons found refuge in Canada during the war. The Americans, it is believed, desired to punish us for our kindly dealings with the exiles; and besides all this, they evidently thought that, as we had largely benefitted by the Treaty, a withdrawal of its advantages would go far in fostering the feeling of annexation which had been feebly exhibited in some unimportant sections of the Canadian population. Influenced doubtless by all these considerations, the formal notice of abrogation was given, and under it the Treaty terminated on 17th March, 1866. As a consequence, the Convention of 1818 revived, and its provisions continued in force until the Treaty of Washington of 1871. It may be mentioned that during the year after the formal notice, the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with the approval of the British Government, sent delegates to Washington for the purpose of obtaining either a continuance of the Treaty, or a settlement of trade arrangements, which would meet the loss which these Provinces feared would fall on them if the old state of affairs were renewed. The delegation held several conferences with the American Committee of Ways and Means, but it soon became apparent that there was no desire at all on the part of the United States authorities to renew commercial intercourse with Canada on any basis of fair, reciprocal trade. The delegates accordingly returned from their fruitless visit in November, 1866.

Before proceeding further, let us look at the actual position of the parties at this moment. The Convention of 1818 had been. the subject of constant and often excessive irritation between Britain and the Colonies on the one part, and the American fishermen, people, and Government on the other. The Reciprocity Treaty had worked well, bringing peace and prosperity to all parties. It was abrogated by the Americans themselves. Britain and the Colonies had joined in a strenuous attempt to obtain either its renewal, or some fair system by which an interchange of commercial benefits might be secured. The Americans would hardly listen to our overtures, and had haughtily refused even to propose an alternative scheme. They had refused everything and offered nothing. They had deliberately, and with an ill-concealed hostility to Britain and us, preferred the jars of the Convention

of 1818 to the peace and beneficial intercourse of a new and more liberal policy.

*

An intelligent business man would surely now have been convinced, that the time had arrived when the feeble and tortuous course heretofore adopted by Britain, should be exchanged for one just to her Colonial snbjects, fair to the American fishermen and people, and firm in the eyes of the nations. She had sacrificed the rights of the Colonists, encouraged the American fishermen in their poaching proclivities, and degraded herself in the eyes of the whole world—and all for nothing. Now, she was put back to the position she occupied in 1818, and the British reader is doubtless prepared to learn that, again free, she adopted at least a manly policy. But he will be disappointed. The old irresolution reappeared. Without any expressions of a wish for further indulgence on the part of the Americans, the British Ministry actually offered them a continuation of the free fishing during the season of 1866, although on the 20th of February, 1866, a Royal Proclamation was issued by Lord Monck, the Governor General of Canada, notifying American fishermen of the termination on the 17th of the next month of the privileges they had for eleven years enjoyed under the Treaty:-that is to say, Canada informed the United States that they, the United States, had formally terminated the Treaty. A common lay mind, unafflicted by red tape would have supposed that this duty should have been performed by the United States authorities, but the abyss of diplomatic absurdity seems unfathomable. The Americans did not desire this concession-they never asked for it, and in practice spurned it. The proposition was that American fishermen should be allowed during 1866 to fish in all Provincial waters, upon payment of a nominal license fee, to be exacted as a formal recognition of right. This absurdity was laughed at. The American fishermen cared nothing for rights:—all they wanted was fish, and the y well knew from the experience of the past that their poaching would be winked at, as of yore, by the comfortable red tapists in Downing

*This short period was mentioned, because it was hoped that in the meantime a new treaty would be obtained from the Americans.

Street. To this British proposal the Canadian Government sent to the Colonial office a vigorous protest. To the men composing the Canadian Cabinet, several of whom were inhabitants of the Maritime Provinces, and possessed of an intimate knowledge of every matter connected with the fisheries, including a painful experience of the injustice which had for many years been inflicted upon the Canadian fishermen by the wretched policy of the British authorities-to these men this new pandering to American greed was simply nauseous. Their protest, though drawing heavily on our space, is given below in full. If it were merely historical it might be disposed of in a few lines, but its sound sense, and its forcible enunciation of the principles which ought to govern Britain in her dealings with the Americans in this question, are as valuable in 1887 as they were in 1866, because at this moment the authorities of the United States are renewing the policy they have ever pursued in this matter, and the warning against their dealings, conveyed in language as strong as the etiquette of diplomatic usages permits, is just as necessary now as it was then. The protest is in the form of a Minute of Council of the Canadian Government, and is as follows:

'The Committee of Council have given their best consideration to the despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 3rd March, on the subject of the course to be adopted on the termination of the right of of American citizens to use the inshore fishing of the British North American Provinces.

'The Committee desire to assure Her Majesty's Government of their earnest wish to avoid any step that would be likely to produce collision with the American fishermen, and consequent difficulty with the United States. They have no disposition to use the apprehension of national differences arising out of the fisheries, as a means of influencing the United States to replace their trade relations with British North America on a satisfactory footing. They believe that the advantages of a free interchange of the productions of the two countries, will ere long, become so apparent as to induce the United States to modify or recede from their present policy. But even if this be not the case, they prefer submitting to all the inconveniences of the present interruption of trade, rather than to seek its restoration by the adoption of a policy which might involve the risks and sacrifices attendant upon war. Her Majesty's Government may therefore feel assured that, so far as Canada is (and it is confidently affirmed the other Provinces are) concerned, the question of the fisheries will be dealt with in a spirit of