first was waived aside, as one on which there was no difference of
abstract principle; while as to the second, "you cannot be too
peremptory in discouraging, at the outset, the smallest expectation of
any restitution of captures made under the Orders in Council."[490]

Military and naval weakness, combined with the changed conditions in
Europe, made the United States powerless when thus confronted with
refusal. The British Secretary stood on far less sure ground, as to
success, when he began to formulate his own demands. These were
essentially two: suitable arrangements for the Indians, and a
rectification of the frontiers. There was a third question, concerning
the fisheries on the Great Banks of Newfoundland. As to these, the
general right of all nations to frequent the Banks, being open sea,
was explicitly admitted; but the subjects of a foreign state had no
right to fish within the maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain, much
less to land with their catch on coasts belonging to her. The
provisions of the Treaty of 1783 therefore would not be renewed,
unless for an equivalent.

As regarded the Indians, an adequate arrangement of their interests
was a _sine qua non_ of peace; nor would a full and express
recognition of present limits by itself alone fulfil this demand.
There must be security for its future observance. The particular
method by which this observance should be maintained was not made
indispensable; but it was plainly stated in the instructions that the
best means was "a mutual guarantee of the Indian possessions, as they
shall be established upon the peace, against encroachment on the part
of either State." The suggestion, in its logical consequence and in
its intent, went to establishing the communities of Indians as a
sovereign state, with boundaries guaranteed by Great Britain and the
United States,--a most entangling alliance. In support of this,
Castlereagh alleged that such a barrier of separation possessed a
distinct advantage over a line of contact between the two guaranteeing
states, such as now existed in their common boundary. The collisions
incident to intercourse between red and white men were easily
transferred from side to side of such a conventional line, causing
continual disputes. The advantages of a buffer state, to use the
modern term, would be secured by the proposed arrangement. Writing to
the prime minister, the Earl of Liverpool, he said, "The question is
one of expediency; and