f 1 >*U Entered at Stationers' Ha|l. 
 
 i — ----- 
 
 1 THE NEWFOUNDLAN 
 
 Fishery Question, 
 
 Great Britain & France 
 
 ~ ■ 
 
 THE CASE FOR ENGLAND. 
 
 ► XITISH AND FOREIGN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION. 
 
 ■Eft . 
 
 KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER CO., L/F, LONDON; 
 JOHN HEYWOOD, MANCHESTER*; 
 
 British and ^oroijgn Arbitration Association, 
 
 Palar.A C.bamhars 0 KritDp Sfrppf « m 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION 
 
 AND 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE. 
 
 * 
 
 I ft 
 
 v3 
 
 A 
 
 CO 
 
 T 
 
 v 
 
 EARLY HISTORY. 
 
 The island of Newfoundland has not a very clear or definite 
 history. Discovered in 1497 by a Venetian Jean Cabot, for a long 
 period it served as a refuge for the adventurers of all nations, es- 
 pecially from the old world, who were bold enough to cross the 
 ocean on any adventurous enterprise. 
 
 The ancient and historic rights of France cover a period of nearly 
 four centuries. 
 
 In 1525, Francis I. sent Verazini to unfurl the French flag upon 
 Newfoundland, and as the result of his visit he declared its 
 annexation to France. 
 
 In 1534, another Frenchman, Jacques Cartier, explored the 
 greater part of Newfoundland, and on his return to Europe he gave 
 such a bright report of its resources that he returned in 1540 to 
 Newfoundland with a large number of his countrymen to found a 
 French colony. 
 
 Towards the middle of the 17th century, another body of French 
 fishermen landed, and founded a French colony at the port of 
 Plaisance,* situated on one of the peninsulas in the southern part of 
 the island. 
 
 In 1687, Louis XIV., King of France, gave the French colonists 
 of Newfoundland a garrison of fifty men, and placed a Commandant 
 at the head of the colony, of which Plaisance became the chief place, 
 until the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. 
 
 * Placentia. 
 
 A 
 
2 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 The relations of England with Newfoundland, although they are 
 not quite so far remote as those of France, yet they have been of a 
 more important and intimate character. 
 
 In 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert, acting under a Commission from 
 Queen Elizabeth, formally took possession of Newfoundland, on 
 behalf of the English Sovereign, but on the return voyage, the ex- 
 pedition was scattered and overwhelmed by a storm, and the Com- 
 mander perished. 
 
 In 1621 Sir George Calvert, who subsequently became Lord 
 Baltimore, settled and colonised on the peninsula in the south-east 
 portion of the island, which he constituted a province, under the 
 name of Avalon, and this title it still retains. 
 
 From 1583 down to the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, Great Britain 
 steadily and firmly established her rule and dominion over New- 
 foundland, as shown by several Measures of Administration, such as 
 the granting by the Crown of portions of territory to English Colonists 
 for cultivation ; the establishing of Courts of Justice ; the issuing 
 of Commissions of Authority for fishing operations ; the Rules and 
 procedure for the good Government of the Colony; and the en- 
 couragement generally to Settlers for the Colonisation of the Island. 
 
 In 1698 the Parliament of England passed an Act which recog- 
 nised the various Regulations, Commissions, and Procedures that had 
 been provisionally in operation, and thereby brought within the 
 sphere of English Legislation the whole of the dominions of New- 
 foundland, applicable to its rivers, its waters, and the islands 
 surrounding it. 
 
 The British Sovereignty established under the authority of Queen 
 Elizabeth in 1583, and subsequently consolidated by the Act of the 
 Imperial Legislature of 1698, was recognised by France, and as proof 
 thereof, in 1635, during the reign of Charles I., the French applied 
 for, and obtained permission of the English Government to carry on 
 fishing operations in the waters of Newfoundland, and also to dry 
 their fish on the shores of the Island, and for this concession from 
 England the French fishermen agreed to pay to the Colonial 
 Authorities a duty of five per cent, on the market value of their 
 produce. 
 
 In consequence of this concession, made by King Charles I. of 
 England, the fishermen of France annually visited Newfoundland to 
 prosecute the cod fishery, and they limited their fishing operations 
 to the Northern portion of the Island, which was called Le Petit 
 Nord, and also on the Southern coast-line, especially in the Bay of 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 3 
 
 Placentia, where they established the town of Placentia, for it pos- 
 sessed a harbour admirably adapted for commercial and fishing 
 operations. 
 
 In 1637 letters patent were granted by the Crown to the Marquis 
 of Hamilton, the Earl of Pembroke, the Earl of Holland, and Sir 
 David Kirke, by which King Charles I. conferred important conces- 
 sions in Newfoundland, which permitted them to levy from foreign 
 fishermen a tribute for all fish taken in the seas, and rivers in and 
 around Newfoundland, and at the time of these rights being granted, 
 the following declaration was made : 
 
 That all other Kings, Princes, and Potentates, their heirs, allies, and subjects, may 
 know our, (the King’s), just and undoubted right and interest in, and to the said 
 Continent Island and region of Newfoundland, and in and to all and every the islands, 
 seas, and places, to the same belonging. 
 
 In 1662, shortly after the restoration of the Monarchy in England, 
 certain subjects of France, availing themselves of the confusion aris- 
 ing from the political state of affairs in England, at a time when the 
 relations of the two Countries in Europe were pacific, provoked 
 serious disturbances in Newfoundland, raised fortifications at Pla- 
 centia, forced the English Colonists from their settlements, and pro- 
 claimed over the whole of Newfoundland the Sovereignty of France. 
 In 1666, war having broken out between England and France, mili- 
 tary operations were carried on at Placentia, and other parts of the 
 Island, and for a time the encroachments of France were widely 
 extended ; but this exercise of French Sovereignty was but tempor- 
 ary, for by the Treaty of Peace concluded between England and 
 France, at Breda, on the 21st July, 1667, France was compelled to 
 withdraw all her pretensions of Sovereignty in Newfoundland, and 
 to surrender to Great Britain, all the fortresses, islands, or whatever 
 portion of Newfoundland that she had annexed prior to the signing 
 of this Treaty. 
 
 From this period Great Britain claimed and exercised unchallenged 
 dominion over Newfoundland, for not only did King Charles II. 
 confirm the letters patent of 1637 and 1661 granted by his Royal 
 predecessor, but in 1670 he made an Order in Council, granting 
 additional powers for regulating the Newfoundland fishery, and the 
 first Article of that Act of the Royal prerogative authorised the 
 subjects of England to fish in all waters and to dry their fish on 
 shore in any part of Newfoundland “as fully and as freely as any of 
 the subjects of his Royal predecessors and by Article II. it was 
 declared : 
 
4 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 That no alien or stranger be permitted to take bait, or fish in any of the rivers, 
 lakes, creeks, harbours, or roads in Newfoundland between Cape Race or Cape Bona 
 Vista, or in any of the islands thereunto adjoining. 
 
 Soon after the accession of William III. to the throne of England, 
 war was declared between England and France, arising from the 
 jealousy and the ill-feeling evinced by King Louis XIV. of France 
 consequent on the deposition and banishment of James II., and in 
 that declaration of war of the 7th May, 1689, the following paragraph 
 appeared. 
 
 “ It is not long since the French took licences from the English 
 Governor of Newfoundland to fish in the seas upon that coast, and 
 paid a tribute for such licences as an acknowledgment of the sole 
 right of the Crown of England to that island ; and yet of late the 
 encroachments of the French upon our said island, and our subjects 
 trade and fishery, have been more like the invasions of an enemy 
 than becoming friends, who enjoyed the advantages of that trade 
 only by permission.” 
 
 By the Treaty of Ryswick of 1697, which terminated the war of 
 the Revolution, the supremacy of the Crown of England was firmly 
 established over Newfoundland. 
 
 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 
 
 The island of Newfoundland is situated at the mouth of the river 
 St. Lawrence, by which it may be said to form an immense lake of 
 water called the Gulf of St. Lawrence, with two outlets to the 
 Atlantic, the one north by the Straits of Belle Isle, the other south 
 between Cape Breton Island, and Cape Ray. 
 
 The island has the form of a great triangle, and is 370 miles in 
 length, and 290 miles in breadth, and covers not less than 400 
 leagues of coast-line, 1,200 miles, deeply indented, especially on the 
 eastern and the northern shores. 
 
 The appearance of its coasts is sad and mournful, yet grand in its 
 sadness; the lands are high, and rather sombre, without verdure, and 
 the sea breaks with fury upon its desolate cliffs. 
 
 In the interior, nature is beautiful, but savage in its beauty, 
 consisting of umbrageous lakes, innumerable torrents, which rush 
 impetuous to the sea, impenetrable forests of fir and of birch 
 abound, and as the traveller leaves the coasts, his march is a 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 5 
 
 painful solitude ; everywhere it appears a profound silence, for not a 
 house, nor a person is to be met with. 
 
 The climate has been described as a cast-iron climate ; the fine 
 days are rare, even in the months of July and August, and the fog 
 seems to obscure everything. 
 
 The character of the country harmonises with the heavens above 
 that illumine it, for the horizons are pale and severe, and the rays of 
 the sun are rarely felt or seen in Newfoundland. 
 
 From October to April the ground is covered with snow, and the 
 bays are surrounded by ice. In February the ice-packs of the 
 Baffin Seas descend, and, following in the track of the Polar current, 
 they gather together on the coasts of Newfoundland, crush them- 
 selves into huge masses, and form around the island dangerous 
 breakers and rocks, that remain there far into the months of June 
 and July. 
 
 Enormous blocks of ice, known under the name of icebergs, finish 
 the devastating work of the ice-packs. Some of them scatter them- 
 selves at the entrance of the harbours, and. sometimes render them 
 unapproachable, and some remain in sight of the shores, as an ice- 
 bound rampart of defence, or are forced to the windward, by the 
 strong current of winds. 
 
 At the present time, the population of Newfoundland is 200,000, 
 to be found principally upon the western and southern coasts, for 
 with the exception of St. John’s, the seat of Government, the bays 
 and harbours present in reality but a concentration, more or less im- 
 portant, of traders and of fishers. 
 
 Until very recent years, the inhabitants of Newfoundland have 
 known no other means of subsistence and no other industry than the 
 fisheries of the seal in the last days of winter upon the ice-packs ; 
 and during the summer season that of the codfish, the herring, the 
 capelin, and squid, in its adjacent waters. 
 
 In 1859, however, a discovery was made of copper and lead mines, 
 which at one time promised an element of future prosperity for the 
 island, but the difficulties raised by French Treaty rights, have prac- 
 tically blocked the way for their development. 
 
 ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON. 
 
 At the south of the island of Newfoundland, and separated from it 
 by a channel of 21 miles, are the small islands of St. Pierre, and 
 Miquelon, which are the possessions of France. 
 
6 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 These two islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, ceded to France by 
 England more than a century ago, are all that now remains to France 
 of her once valuable possessions on the continent of North America. 
 
 The isle of St. Pierre is in reality but a rock, beaten by all winds, 
 without vegetation, and culture, hidden under the snow during the 
 winter, and lost in the fog during a great part of the summer. 
 
 The greatest width of St. Pierre does not exceed 7 kilometres, or 
 4 y2 miles, and upon the eastern portion of the island it has a natural 
 harbour, safe-guarded from the winds, and in that sheltered position 
 is built the little town of St. Pierre. 
 
 Its population has no other occupation than that of the fisheries ; 
 each one mingles in it, without distinction of age or of sex, and even 
 children who can scarcely walk wield the “turlutte,” the fishing line 
 peculiar to St. Pierre. 
 
 The isle of Miquelon, its neighbour, is larger, and less barren ; but 
 is far from an assured refuge against bad weather, for it is a 
 dangerous rock, where shipwrecks frequently occur ; without light- 
 houses, and fog signals, it is u d bon droit Vepouvante ” for the hapless 
 ships of all nations, and it is therefore called “ le cimetiere des 
 batimens” 
 
 The French colony of St. Pierre and Miquelon consists of about 
 6,000 souls, who live a melancholy life, for the winters are interminable, 
 and the cold rigorous. Great storms follow one another, with tre- 
 mendous violence, shaking the houses, and beating on the countenances 
 of those exposed to the storms, an icy rain, a sort of hoar frost, well- 
 known in the island under the name of “ pundrin” 
 
 In . this inclement season, not a vessel is seen in the bay, all is 
 mournful and silent, so that one may suppose the people are asleep 
 under the snow. 
 
 The communication with the French mother country takes the 
 route by the way of Halifax, but it is slow and often interrupted, and 
 but for the submarine telegraph which unites the island to Newfound- 
 land, the inhabitants would live at St. Pierre and Miquelon during 
 the entire months of the winter in a profound oblivion of the oufler 
 world. 
 
 THE SHOALS. 
 
 To the south of Newfoundland, starting from 5 o° 40 west of the 
 meridian, are a succession of shoals, over and around which the 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 7 
 
 depth of the sea varies from 30 to 100 metres, equal to from 35 to 
 no yards in depth. 
 
 The French Rear-Admiral Cloue is of opinion, that these plateaus 
 in the ocean, are the direct result of the Gulf Stream which flows 
 towards the Northern Atlantic, in the line of an arc of the circle. On 
 arriving at the banks of Newfoundland it turns to the westward and 
 meets the cold current of water which descends from the Baffin Seas 
 and thence takes a course along the shores of Labrador and New- 
 foundland. 
 
 This cold current of water which descends from the north brings 
 in its course, during a greater part of the year, a large number of im- 
 mense mountains of ice, rudely and wildly detached from the Arctic 
 zone, and the contact of these huge icebergs with the hot water of 
 the Gulf Stream dissolves the former, and scatters its heterogeneous 
 masses of stones and solid material, and this “ debris ” mingling with 
 other elements, have from distant ages without ceasing, become over- 
 whelmed in the depths of ocean, and have led steadily during the 
 past centuries to the formation of these numerous shoals. 
 
 Each of these plateaus in the ocean, have a distinct title, and they 
 are very numerous, the principal of which are the Great Shoal, the 
 Green Shoal, the St. Pierre Shoal, and they form a group which 
 appear as if they were linked with the mainland of Newfoundland, 
 whereas they are separated by deep channels of water. 
 
 The Shoals de Misaine, d’Arteinon, le Banquereau, de Sable, du 
 Canseau, and others are more easily approached from the mainland 
 of Nova Scotia. 
 
 On these extensive shoals the codfish finds a rendezvous , and its 
 fecundity is extraordinary, as it is said that millions of eggs are 
 annually deposited upon them. 
 
 TREATY OF UTRECHT, 1713. 
 
 The Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, by which England obtained from 
 France Nova Scotia and the island of Newfoundland, secured to 
 France the right to fish, and dry the fish upon an extent of 200 
 leagues, or 700 miles of coast-line comprised between Cape Bona- 
 vista, on the east coast, and thence passing northward to Point 
 Riche. 
 
 It may be useful to recapitulate the clauses of the Treaty of 
 Utrecht of 1713. 
 
8 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 Article XIII. 
 
 The island called Newfoundland, with the adjacent islands, shall from this time 
 forward belong of right wholly to Great Britain ; and to that end the town and 
 fortress of Placentia, and whatever other places in the said island are in the possession 
 of the French, shall be yielded and given up, within seven months from the exchange 
 of the ratification of this Treaty, or sooner, if possible, by the most Christian King, to 
 those who have a commission from the Queen of Great Britain for that purpose. Nor 
 shall the most Christian King, his heirs and successors, or any of their subjects, at any 
 time hereafter, lay claim to any right to the said island or islands, or to any part of 
 it or them. Moreover, it shall not be lawful for the subjects of France to fortify any 
 place in the said island of Newfoundland, or to erect any buildings there, besides 
 stages made of boards and huts necessary and usual for drying of fish, or to resort to 
 the"said island beyond the time necessary for fishing and drying of fish. But it shall 
 be allowed to the subjects of France to catch fish, and to dry them on land, 
 in that part only, and in no other besides that, of the said island of Newfoundland 
 which stretches from the place called Cape Bonavista to the northern point of the said 
 island, and from thence, running down by the western side, reaches as far as the 
 place called Point Riche. But the island called Cape Breton, as also all others, both 
 in the mouth of the River St. Lawrence and in the gulf of the same name, shall 
 hereafter belong of right to the French, and the most Christian King shall have all 
 manner of liberty to fortify any place or places there. 
 
 It may be remarked, that in 1713 there existed no population upon 
 that portion of the coast of Newfoundland reserved to the French 
 fishermen by this Treaty of Utrecht. The coast was deserted, and 
 therefore concurrent rights were impossible, inasmuch as the exclu- 
 sive rights to fish, and to dry the fish, was “ s'imposait de lui-m&me,” 
 and therefore it was not necessary to specify in the Treaty the 
 concurrent rights of the Newfoundlanders. 
 
 It should be observed also that by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, 
 France came at the same time into possession of Cape Breton and 
 other islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the period which 
 elapsed from 1713 to 1763 was advantageous for the French fisheries, 
 because supported upon the island of Cape Breton, where she built 
 Louisburg, the French fisheries became firmly established in the Gulf 
 of St. Lawrence, and extending to the coast of Newfoundland, where 
 they gave occupation to not less than 16,000 seamen during the 
 period referred to. 
 
 TREATY OF PARIS, 1763. 
 
 The Treaty of Paris of 1763 ruined the bright hopes that had been 
 raised in the breasts of the French people for the extension and de- 
 velopment of the French colonies of North America, for England 
 wrested from France Canada, the Island of Cape Breton, and all the 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 9 
 
 islands on the coasts and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ; but France 
 retained the possession of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, on 
 condition that she did not raise any fortifications upon them. 
 
 The following are the 5th and 6th Articles of the Treaty of Paris of 
 1763 referred to : — 
 
 Article V. 
 
 The subjects of France shall have the liberty of fishing and drying on a part of 
 the coasts of the island of Newfoundland, such as it is specified in the 13th Article of 
 the Treaty of Utrecht, which article is renewed and confirmed by the present Treaty 
 (except what relates to the island of Cape Breton, as well as to the other islands and 
 coasts in the mouth and in the gulf of St. Lawrence) ; and his Britannic Majesty con- 
 sents 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 what relates to the fishery on the coast of the island 
 of Cape Breton out of the said gulf, the subjects of the most Christian King shall 
 not be permitted to exercise the said fishery but at the distance of fifteen leagues 
 from the coast of the island of Cape Breton, and the fishery on the coasts of Nova 
 Scotia or Arcadia, and everywhere else out of the said gulf, shall remain on the foot- 
 ing of former treaties. 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 The King of Great Britain cedes the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon in full 
 right to his most Christian Majesty, to serve as a shelter to the French fisherman ; 
 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. 
 
 There was therefore no modification made by this Treaty with the 
 exercise of the French rights to fish on the coast of Newfoundland ; 
 and it was considered sufficient to restate the provisions of the Treaty 
 of Utrecht of 1713. 
 
 From 1763 to 1783, some disputes arose on the subject of the 
 concurrent rights, and to the claims made by French fishermen 
 upon the Newfoundlanders in regard to the fisheries on the shores at 
 Cape Bonavista. 
 
 The population of Newfoundland had increased, and English 
 families had profited by the confusion arising from the great war be- 
 tween England and France, and the consequent damage to the French 
 fisheries, that the former established themselves upon the coast-line 
 referred to in the Treaty. 
 
 France considered that it was necessary she should demand the 
 expulsion of the English intruders, or adopt the alternative course 
 and renounce the validity of her rights, and the British Government 
 got over the difficulty by proposing that France should surrender her 
 
IO 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 fishing rights on the littoral , from Cape Bonavista to Cape St. John, 
 and receive in exchange an equivalent of coast-line from Cape St. 
 John to Cape Ray, where her rights might be exercised on the basis 
 of the conditions contained in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. 
 
 TREATY OF VERSAILLES, 1783. 
 
 The result of these negotiations between England and France was 
 a declaration in the Treaty of Versailles in 1783, as follows : — 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 His Majesty the King of Great Britain is maintained in his right to the island of 
 Newfoundland, and to the adjacent islands, as the whole were assured to him by the 
 13th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht ; excepting the islands of St. Pierre and 
 Miquelon, which are ceded in full right by the present Treaty to his most Christian 
 Majesty. 
 
 Article V. 
 
 His Majesty the most Christian King, in order to prevent the quarrels which have 
 hitherto arisen between the two nations of England and France, consents to renounce 
 the right of fishing, which belongs to him in virtue of the aforesaid article of the 
 Treaty of Utrecht, from Cape Bonavista to Cape St. John, situated on the eastern 
 coast of Newfoundland, in fifty degrees north latitude ; and his Majesty the King of 
 Great Britain consents, on his part, that the fishery assigned to the subjects of his 
 most Christian Majesty, beginning at the said Cape St. John, passing to the north, 
 and descending by the western coast of the island of Newfoundland, shall extend 
 to the place called Cape Ray, situated in forty-seven degrees fifty minutes latitude. 
 The French fishermen shall enjoy the fishery which is assigned to them by the present 
 article, as they had the right to enjoy that which was assigned to them by the Treaty 
 of Utrecht. 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 With regard to the fishery in the gulf of St. Lawrence, the French shall continue 
 to exercise it, conformably to the 5th Article of the Treaty of Paris. 
 
 Accompanying this Treaty of Versailles of 1783, his Britannic 
 Majesty George III., in consequence of the demands of the French 
 Government, made the following important declaration : — 
 
 Declaration of His Britannic Majesty. 
 
 The King, having entirely agreed with his most Christian Majesty upon the articles 
 of the definite treaty, will seek every means which shall nof only insure the execution 
 thereof, with his accustomed good faith and punctuality, and will besides give, on his 
 part, all possible efficacy to the principles which shall prevent even the least foundation 
 of dispute for the future. 
 
 To this end, and 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 islands of Newfoundland ; but he will, for this purpose, cause 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 II 
 
 the fixed settlements 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 13th 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 only to the repair 
 of their fishing vessels, and not wintering there ; the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, 
 on their part, not molesting in any manner the French fishermen during their fishing, 
 nor injuring their scaffolds during their absence. 
 
 The King of Great Britain, in ceding the islands 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. 
 
 Given at Versailles, the 3rd Sept. , 1783. 
 
 (l.s.) Manchester. 
 
 And this declaration was responded to by a counter declaration of 
 his Majesty the King of France, Louis XVI., as follows : — 
 
 Courtier Declaration of His Most Christian Majesty. 
 
 The principles which have guided the King in the whole course of the negotia- 
 tions which preceded the re-establishment of peace, must have convinced the King of 
 Great Britain that his Majesty has had no other design than to render it solid and 
 lasting by preventing, as much as possible, in the four quarters of the world, every 
 subject of discussion and quarrel. 
 
 The King of Great Britain undoubtedly places too much confidence in the upright- 
 ness of his Majesty’s intentions not to rely upon his constant 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 the 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 the Peace signed this day, and by the 
 declaration likewise delivered to-day by his Britannic Majesty's Ambassador Extra- 
 ordinary and Plenipotentiary ; and his Majesty declares that he is fully satisfied on 
 this head. 
 
 In regard to the fishery between the island of Newfoundland 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 positive orders that the French fishermen 
 shall not go beyond this line. His Majtsty is firmly persuaded that the King of Great 
 Britain will give like orders to the English fishermen. 
 
 Given at Versailles, the 3rd of Sept. , 1783. 
 
 (l.s.) Gravier de Vergennes. 
 
 SUBSEQUENT TREATIES. 
 
 The Treaty of Amiens of 1805 made no alteration of the declara- 
 tion contained in the Treaty of 1783. 
 
12 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 The preliminaries of the “ 9 th Vendemiaire an X ,” 1st January, 
 1792, declared that the fishery rights of France on the Newfound- 
 land coast shall be maintained as they existed before the war, with 
 the exception of some verbal modifications which appeared necessary, 
 but it altered in no important particular the provisions of the 
 Treaty of 1783. 
 
 The Treaties of Paris, 30th May, 1814, and 30th November, 1815, 
 re-established the state of things recognised on the 1st January, 
 1792, and the following are the clauses in the Treaties of 1814 and 
 
 1815 
 
 Treaty of Paris — 1814. 
 
 Article VIII. 
 
 His Britannic Majesty, stipulating for himself and his allies, engages to restore to 
 his most Christian Majesty, within the term which shall be hereafter fixed, the 
 colonies, fisheries, factories, and establishments of every kind which were possessed by 
 France on the 1st January, 1792, in the seas and on the continents of America, Africa, 
 and Asia, with the exception, however, of the islands of Tobago and St. Lucie, and the 
 Isle of France and its dependencies, especially Rodrigues and Les Schelles, which 
 several colonies and possessions his most Christian Majesty cedes in full right and 
 sovereignty to his Britannic Majesty, and also the portion of St. Domingo ceded to 
 France by the Treaty of Basle, and which his most Christian Majesty restores in full 
 right and sovereignty to his Catholic Majesty. 
 
 Article XIII. 
 
 The French right of fishery upon the Great Bank of Newfoundland, upon the 
 coasts of the island of that name, and of the adjacent islands in the gulf of St. 
 Lawrence, shall be replaced upon the footing in which it stood in 1792. 
 
 Treaty of Paris — 1815. 
 
 Article XI. 
 
 The Treaty of Paris, of the 13th May, 1814, and the final act of the Congress of 
 Vienna, of the 9th of June, 1815, are confirmed, and shall be maintained in all such 
 enactments which shall not have been modified by the articles of the present Treaty. 
 
 Consequently France takes her stand, as she has previously done, 
 on the Treaties of Utrecht of 1713, of Paris of 1763, of Versailles of 
 1783, of 1st January, 1792, of Amiens of 1805, of Paris of 1814, 
 and 1815. 
 
 Such is the origin of the French right to fish on the shores of 
 Newfoundland, such are the bases upon which it rests ; nothing has 
 happened since that day, to diminish, or to modify them in principle. 
 The text of the Treaties has not ceased, however, to be the object 
 by the Governments of England and France, and of the Legislature 
 of Newfoundland, of interpretations the most diverse. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 13 
 
 FRENCH FISHING INDUSTRY. 
 
 The French fishing industry on the shores of Newfoundland 
 divides itself into three categories : — 
 
 1. The fisheries on the shoals. 
 
 2. The fisheries on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. 
 
 3. The fisheries on the shore line of Newfoundland. 
 
 The fisheries upon the shoals, belong to the open sea, and there- 
 fore are open to all nations, and in this industry France is brought 
 en rapport with England and Newfoundland from a commercial 
 point of view, as its chief customer of the bait, wherewith to prose- 
 cute the cod fishery. 
 
 The fisheries of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon are prose- 
 cuted in the French waters, and therefore they are confined to the 
 French jurisdiction, and in no way concern, except as regards bait, 
 either the Newfoundland or the English interests. 
 
 The French fisheries upon the coast line of Newfoundland, on 
 what is called the littoral Anglais, reserved or guaranteed to France 
 by successive Treaties, previously referred to, present a character that 
 are totally distinct in their exercise from the fisheries on the shoals, 
 and on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. 
 
 These fisheries of France, over the whole ground referred to, 
 employed at one time, it is estimated, 9,000 sailors, and brought 
 upwards of twenty millions of francs to the French commerce, and 
 it is no wonder, therefore, that France considers the Newfoundland 
 fisheries as one of the most valuable nurseries for her commerce, 
 and possibly an important rendezvous for her Navy, and it is for these 
 objects especially that the French nation has made great sacrifices to 
 protect them, and also has paid large subventions to extend and 
 develop them. 
 
 Further, the French Government has for many years in order to 
 encourage the fishing industry, granted premiums to the shipowners 
 engaged in the Newfoundland fishing trade ; for instance, the 
 shipowner who dries the fish upon the strand of St. Pierre, or 
 on the coast of Newfoundland, is held to have the right to the 
 premium of 50 francs per man ; if his vessel has a tonnage, say 
 of 200 tons, or beyond that, she would be manned by not less 
 than 50 men ; if 150 tonnage, say not less than 30 men; and if 100 
 tonnage, say not less than 20 men, so that whether 200 or 150, or 
 100 tonnage, the. owner, on the basis of a premium of 50 francs per 
 man, secures a premium of 2,550, or 1,550, or 1,000 francs respec- 
 tively, as the case may be. 
 
14 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 In some cases the vessels despatched from the various ports of 
 France are equipped with secheries , or drying and salting apparatus 
 on board, and in these cases the shipowners have the right only to 
 a premium of 30 francs per man. It is estimated that during the 
 fishing season, a vessel of 200 tonnage is able to take from 1,000 to 
 1,500 codfish a day ; and in the best seasons, the value of a good 
 day’s haul reaches to, and sometimes exceeds, the sum of 2,000 
 francs a day, and, with such results, a French fisherman, mateldt 
 banequier , can earn, during the fishing season about 1,000 francs, 
 equivalent to ^40. 
 
 Formerly, the French shipowners despatched in the month of 
 April of each year about 60 ships to the fisheries of Newfoundland, 
 manned on an average by 3,000 men, and the greater part of this 
 fleet took up its position in the harbours or the bays of the littoral 
 Anglais , reserved or guaranteed by Treaty with France. 
 
 These harbours and bays, according to their importance, contain 
 one or more fishing grounds, more or less valued on account of the 
 quantity of the fish which is to be found, and in consequence of the 
 frequent quarrels amongst the Frenchmen for possession of these 
 fishing grounds, they are classed in three series, and the French 
 vessels corresponding to these series, and this system is arranged by 
 drawing lots amongst the shipowners. 
 
 As soon as a French vessel arrives at its allotted position, it is 
 partially disarmed of its crew, for some of them are sent to the shoals, 
 some are retained at the bays or harbour, provided their equipments 
 on board will permit of this arrangement The French fishermen 
 thus takes possession of their temporary home on Newfoundland 
 territory, equipped with the fishing gear, the stores, and provisions for 
 the season. 
 
 Around of the hangar , or platform where the codfish is prepared 
 for the purpose of exportation, may be seen the residence of the 
 captain, who is recognised as the arbiter of all disputes, the cabins 
 for the sailors, the small shops or depots, the cajot, or vat, where the 
 liver oil of the codfish is extracted and prepared for sale. 
 
 During the operations of the fishing season nothing is more varied 
 and picturesque than the appearance of these harbours. Some are 
 situated upon the most arid and desolate parts of the coast line, 
 where the waves beat furiously and renders fishing difficult, and there 
 the French fishermen spend dreary days, and at the close of the 
 season they depart for home without regret. 
 
 At other places, sheltered from the storm by surrounding hills, 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY" QUESTION. 
 
 15 
 
 encircled with woods, with their rivers and streams pouring into the 
 bay, the harbours present a picturesque and attractive scene, which 
 adds a charm to the life of the fishermen. 
 
 Twice or thrice a month the occupied harbours are visited by the 
 French men-of-war that are despatched each year by the Navy 
 department for the surveillance of the fisheries, and the duty of the 
 commanding officer is to inspect the fishing grounds, to listen to 
 complaints, to repress acts of undiscipline, and generally to see and 
 report that the state of things around Newfoundland is conformable 
 to the rights secured by Treaty. 
 
 THE POLITICAL SITUATION. 
 
 We will now refer to the nature of the political situation which 
 exists at Newfoundland, and of the difficulties that for many years 
 have perplexed the two Governments of France and England, and 
 that are now the object of their serious attention. 
 
 The question at issue is similar in its character to that which arose 
 in 1783, when the Treaty of Versailles was signed, but it has become 
 infinitely more complex, and for many years the two Nations have 
 endeavoured to secure a settlement ; but all their efforts have been 
 unavailing, as not one step has been made in that direction. France 
 maintains that by the Treaties of Utrecht of 1713, of Paris of 1763, 
 and especially by the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, that she secured, 
 in the first place, the right to fish upon the coast of Newfoundland, 
 from Cape Ray to Cape St. John; in the second place, that this 
 right is exclusive and absolute on the coast line defined by the 
 Treaties aforesaid ; and lastly she denies the concurrent fishing rights 
 over this portion of the littoral Anglais, that are maintained by the 
 Newfoundlanders, and this position assumed by France, she seems 
 determined to safeguard with a zealous eye. 
 
 On the other side of the question, England considers that the Treaties 
 imply not a prohibition to the Colonists, but an obligation imposed 
 upon her not to hinder France from fishing operations ; or, in other 
 words, England demands the right for the Colonists to fish upon all 
 the points of the coast that France has the right by Treaty to prose- 
 cute the fishery, subject to one condition, that no injury is inflicted 
 on the French operations. 
 
 These Treaties, or rather the interpretation of them, have, for 
 upwards of 100 years, been the cause of chronic controversy between 
 
1 6 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 Great Britain and France ; and, further, that for a period of 40 years, 
 from the year 1844 to 1884, no less than eight Commissions have 
 been appointed, and a large number of Special Missions organised, 
 besides a considerable amount of negotiations and correspondence 
 carried on in order to arrive at a settlement of this vexed Newfound- 
 land fishery question. 
 
 All these efforts of diplomacy have proved of no avail, arising on 
 the one hand from the sturdy spirit of independence and patriotism 
 of the Newfoundlanders, and the obstinate determination of the 
 French on the other hand, to maintain their hold on the Waters 
 of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and on the north and west coast 
 line of Newfoundland ; the fragments remaining to France of their 
 once famous Colonial possessions on the North American continent. 
 
 In order that we may be able to form a correct estimate, and a 
 sound judgment on the whole case, we will now briefly refer to these 
 various Commissions and negotiations which have been undertaken, 
 from 1844 to 1884, for the purpose of arriving at a satisfactory basis 
 for settlement. 
 
 In the remarkable and able despatch which the Right Honourable 
 the Earl of Derby, H.M. Colonial Minister in 1884, addressed to the 
 Governor of Newfoundland, Sir John Glover, will be found a com- 
 prehensive statement of the whole question, and the following 
 extracts may be given from this despatch. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS IN 1844. 
 
 In the year 1844 the French Government proposed negotiations to be held in Lon- 
 don, and previous to opening them it was determined to appoint a British and French 
 Commissioner in Newfoundland to report upon the question. 
 
 Captain Fabvre, commander of the French naval station, and Mr. Thomas, Presi- 
 dent of the Chamber of Commerce at Newfoundland, were, in consequence, 
 appointed by their respective Governments. 
 
 On the 30th July 1844 Mr. Thomas made his report to the Governor. In this re- 
 port he suggested, with regard to the French claim of “exclusive rights,” that the 
 respective fishermen of both nations should be kept separate and distinct in their 
 fishing places. He also suggested the extension of the French fishery limits to the 
 Belle Isle North, and made suggestions with regard to the sale of bait to French 
 Fishermen. 
 
 This report resulted in negotiations being held in Paris in the month of March 1846. 
 
 The British Commissioner, Sir A. Perrier, was authorised to offer, in exchange for 
 the French cession of all rights between Cape Ray and Bonne Bay, the following con- 
 cessions : — 
 
 Admission of exclusive right of fishery from Bonne Bay to Cape St. John, going 
 round by the north. 
 
 Exclusive right of French fishery, drying, and curing at Belle Isle North. 
 
 Permission for English fishermen to sell bait at St Pierre. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 7 
 
 At preliminary conferences held in Newfoundland, these measures had nearly been 
 agreed to by Mr. Thomas and Captain Fabvre ; but Captain Fabvre was desirous of 
 retaining for France, in addition to the exclusive rights above mentioned, her right of 
 fishing, curing fish, &c., at Cod Roy, Red Island, Port-a-Port, and Lark Harbour, 
 and to acquire for the French a “ concurrent ” right of fishery on the coast of Lab- 
 rador. 
 
 The instructions, however, to the French Commissioner did not admit of his 
 negotiating on the above-mentioned principles, and as no new propositions were 
 brought forward by the French Government up to the month of May 1847, the nego- 
 tiations fell through. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS IN 1851. 
 
 On the application of the French Government n 1851 negotiations were renewed, 
 Sir A. Perrier being again directed to proceed to Paris to act as British Commissioner, 
 M. de Bon being appointed on the part of France. 
 
 The British Commissioners was instructed to invite proposals from the French 
 Commissioner such as might form a starting-point in the negotiations. 
 
 M. de Bon accordingly proposed, on the part of France, to admit the right of 
 British subjects to inhabit the Bay of St. George, or, in other terms, to give up the 
 exclusive right of fishery in that bay, to which they considered themselves entitled by 
 the Treaty of 1783. In return for this concession he demanded : — 
 
 1. The right to purchase and fish for bait (herring and capelin) on the south 
 
 coast of Newfoundland, without restriction. 
 
 2. The right to fish during two months of the year (without curing or drying on 
 
 shore) on that part of the coast of Labrador situated between the Isles 
 Vertes and the Isles St. Modeste, both included ; and 
 
 3. The right of fishery at Belle Isle North, in the Straits, which the French 
 
 Commissioner asserted was enjoyed by the French up to 1841, without any 
 demur on the part of Great Britain. 
 
 The concessions demanded by the French negotiator were not considered admis- 
 sible, and the British Commissioner, in order to overcome the difficulties arising out of 
 the claim of Great Britain to a concurrent right of fishery, suggested that the ques- 
 tion would be best settled if the rights of the fishermen of the two nations were kept 
 separate and distinct. In order to carry out this suggestion, he proposed that the 
 French rights should be made exclusive as against British subjects from Cape St. John 
 to some point on the western coast, such as Cape Verte (Green Point, to the north of 
 Bonne Bay; ; the French, on the other hand, to renounce their right altogether on the 
 remainder of the coast, which would be that part where the British had been in the 
 habit of carrying on the herring fishery and other fisheries incidental to the require- 
 ments of a fixed population. 
 
 The French negotiator offered no objection to the plan of recognising the French 
 “ exclusive right ” on a diminished extent of coast; but he contended for the reten- 
 tion of a “ concurrent right ” on that portion of the coast on which their exclusive 
 claim might be renounced, and for other advantages as well, such as admission, con- 
 currently with British fishermen, to the fisheries of Labrador and the North Belle Isle, 
 and to the “bait fishery” on the southern coast, all of which, he maintained, were 
 necessary, as an equivalent for admitting British subjects to a free “concurrent 
 right” on the lower portion of the western coast. 
 
 The British Commissioner was disposed to accept the demands of the French so 
 far as to extend the French fishery to North Belle Isle, and also to remove all restric- 
 tions on the purchase of " bait,” on condition that the French should entirely 
 renounce their rights between Cape Verte and Cape Ray; and in June 1855 he for- 
 
 B 
 
i8 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 warded to the Foreign Office the above suggestions in the form of a counter proposal 
 to those which had been made by France. 
 
 Mr. Labouchere, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Colonies, concurred in 
 the adoption of the British negotiator’s project of a “compromise” as the basis of 
 negotiation to be offered to the rench Government. It corresponded, he believed, 
 with the views of the Colonial authorities ; deprived neither nation of any advantage 
 of real value ; and there would only be a reciprocal abandonment of barren rights 
 and useless or nominal restrictions ; and he prepared a draft treaty which might be 
 substituted for the whole of the existing engagements on the Newfoundland Fisheries 
 question. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS IN 1856. 
 
 The negotiations were continued in the year 1856 by Captain Pigeard, who arrived 
 in London in the month cf July of that year, and by Mr. Merivale, the Under Secre- 
 tary of State for the Colonies. The basis of these negotiations was founded upon 
 the counter proposals made by Sir A. Perrier, and also upon the draft of the treaty 
 proposed by Mr. Labouchere. The negotiations finally terminated by the signature 
 of a Convention in London on the 17th January, 1857. 
 
 According to the stipulations of this Convention an exclusive right of fishery and 
 the use of the strand for fishery purposes was conceded to the French from Cape St. 
 John, on the east coast of Newfoundland, to the Quirpon Islands, and from the 
 Quirpon Islands, on the north coast, to Cape Norman, on the west coast, in and upon 
 the following five fishery harbours, namely, Port-au-Choix, Small Harbour, Port-a- 
 Port, Red Island, and Cod Roy Island, to extend, as regarded these five harbours, to 
 a radius of three marine miles in all directions from the centre of each such harbour. 
 
 On other parts of the west coast (the five harbours excepted) British subjects were 
 to enjoy a “concurrent” right of fishing with French subjects, but French subjects 
 were to have the exclusive use of the strand for fishery purposes from Cape Norman 
 to Rock Point, in the Bay of Islands, north of the River Humber, in addition to the 
 strand of the reserved harbours. 
 
 A “ concurrent’’ right of fishing was also granted to French subjects on the coast 
 of Labrador, from Blanc Sablon to Cape Charles, and of North Belle Isle. 
 
 With regard to the question of fixed establishments, the Convention of 1857 stipu- 
 lated that no British buildings or inclosures should be erected or maintained on the 
 strand reserved for French exclusive use. It was provided, however, that buildings 
 which had stood for five successive seasons previous to the date of the Convention, 
 without objection on the part of the French Government, should not be liable to 
 removal without equitable compensation to the owners from the French Government. 
 By the Convention a limited right of jurisdiction was conceded to the French, and 
 French naval officers were to have the power to enforce the French exclusive rights of 
 fishing by the expulsion of vessels or boats attempting concurrent fishing, in the case 
 of there being no British cruising vessel in sight or made known to be present within a 
 distance of five marine miles. French naval officers were likewise entitled to take 
 such measures as occasion might require to put French fishermen in possession of any 
 portion of the strand of which their exclusive use for fishery purposes was recognised 
 by the Convention, 
 
 It will thus be seen that, according to the terms of the Convention of 1857, France 
 would have obtained an exclusive right of fishery on the northern extremity and 
 north-eastern coast of Newfoundland, and also on five points on the western coast of 
 the island. 
 
 The ratifications had been exchanged in London, 23rd January, 
 1857, and the two Governments seemed to be in agreement. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 !9 
 
 When, however, information reached St. John’s, in Newfoundland, 
 of the details of the preliminaries, seditious cries were raised against 
 the Queen of England, the English flag was fastened to the tail of a 
 horse, and marched through the streets, and the Governor of New- 
 foundland was insulted by the people at his residence. The local 
 Parliament was indignant, and at one of its sittings positively refused 
 to adhere to the Convention. 
 
 The Government of Her Majesty, in presence of this manifesta- 
 tion, informed the French Commissioners that the proposed Con- 
 vention would have to be abandoned, as the sanction of the Parlia- 
 ment of St. John’s was indispensable to the negotiations, and that 
 England could not go against the opinion manifested by the Parlia- 
 ment of Newfoundland. 
 
 The French Government naturally complained of this decision, 
 for she considered that the review of a Treaty whose signatures were 
 England and France, ought not to be submitted to the ratification of 
 the Legislature of a British colony, and, moreover, that the decision 
 or action of the Parliament at Newfoundland cannot release the 
 mother country from its engagements. 
 
 This attempt by England and France to arrive at a satisfactory 
 settlement by conciliation and negotiation, unfortunately had no 
 other result than to demonstrate the hostile sentiments of the Legis- 
 lature of Newfoundland with regard to the French fisheries, and the 
 preponderating influence of Colonial opinion upon the policy of 
 England. 
 
 During the fishing campaign of 1858 the fishermen of Newfound- 
 land were warned by the French captains that any exercise of fishing 
 on the coast line, permitted to France by Treaty, will be formally for- 
 bidden the following year by the French naval authorities, and in 
 consequence of this action the English Government were alarmed, 
 and fearing the result from such a retaliatory measure, they put .for- 
 ward a proposition for a Parliamentary enquiry at Newfoundland, 
 and this proposition was agreed to by the French Government. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS IN 1859. 
 
 This enquiry was confided to a mixed Commission, that assem- 
 bled in Newfoundland on the 1st May, 1859. 
 
 France was represented by M. le Montaignac de Chauvance, 
 Commander of the French naval division at Newfoundland, and 
 
20 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 by M. de Gobineau, first secretary of the French Ambassador ; and 
 the delegates of England were Mr. Kent, the Colonial Secretary of 
 Newfoundland, and Captain Dunlop, Commander of the British man- 
 of-war, Tartar. 
 
 The Commissioners of the two nations inspected together the 
 harbours of the coast, interrogated the fishermen, in English or 
 in French, according to their nationality, and they met alternately 
 on board the French gunboat, Le Gassendi, and the British man-of- 
 war, The Tartar ; and at each meeting a prods-verbal was drawn up 
 in the two languages, and when the Commission had examined the 
 contents and approved the translations they signed the document. 
 
 The labours of this enquiry terminated 29th August, 1859, on 
 board the French gunboat, Le Gassendi, and its result was, that 
 a profound study of the texts of the Treaties of Utrecht, Paris, 
 and Versailles, and an examination of the diverse interpretations which 
 England and France had placed upon them, confirmed the French 
 delegates in the opinion that the rights of France were exclusive 
 and absolute, and that they secured a wider application than was 
 generally believed. 
 
 Therefore the French Government were induced to believe that 
 their rights were unassailable, that they were easy to maintain, and 
 that there was no occasion, in order to secure a respect for those 
 rights, to enter on a course of concessions with England that would 
 in the least imperil them. 
 
 M.M de Montaignac de Chauvance and Gobineau estimated the 
 population established upon the coast line for fishing, by Treaty 
 with France, at 3,000 souls, and that during a period of the past 20 
 years it had doubled. 
 
 This mixed Commission drew up as its conclusions the following 
 propositions : — 
 
 1, An organisation in common with a local police should be appointed to regu- 
 
 late the differences between the English and the French fishermen. 
 
 2. Complete liberty for the fishermen of the two nations to buy and sell bait, 
 
 with this restriction, that from the 20th October to the 1st April following, 
 it will be considered a close time for the herring. 
 
 In the month of March, i860, the report of the Commission was 
 placed before their respective Governments, and was considered as 
 suitable to serve the basis of an amicable arrangement ; but again 
 difficulties were raised by a movement of hostility displayed at St. 
 John’s. 
 
 Thus the inquiry of 1859 had no other result than to maintain 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 2 1 
 
 the status quo ; but the records it has left Of its investigations are 
 clear upon the state of things in Newfoundland, that it seemed 
 hopeless to be able to conciliate the French interests with those of 
 the population of Newfoundland, who seemed intent on resisting 
 every step for arriving at a settlement. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS IN 1866 . 
 
 In 1866 the English Government, dissatisfied with a state of things 
 so contrary to the interests of the colony of Newfoundland, resolved 
 to leave it to the Parliament of St. John’s to furnish bases for 
 negotiations, and afterwards to submit the conclusions arrived at 
 to the British Government, and also a copy to be placed in the 
 hands of the Commandant of the French station at Newfoundland, 
 M. Lapelin, for submission to the French Government. 
 
 The Parliament of St. John’s accepted these proposals, and in its 
 Session of 1867 adopted five propositions which are important on 
 two grounds ; first, that they were the unanimous conclusions arrived at 
 by Newfoundland, and secondly that they were intended to serve as a 
 basis for negotiations between the two Governments of England and 
 France. 
 
 The propositions were as follows : — 
 
 1. — Nomination of a mixed Commission, composed of representatives of Newfound- 
 
 land, England, and France, having a thorough knowledge of all the affairs 
 relating to the fisheries of Newfoundland. 
 
 2. — The fishing establishments are recognised to exist at St. George’s Bay, at Cape 
 
 Ray, at the Isles Bay, at Bonne Bay, and at the Bay Blanche, and are to be 
 protected. 
 
 3. — The mixed Commission must not suppress or injure the interests of the French 
 
 fishermen on the littoral granted to them by Treaty ; permission to be given 
 under certain conditions for the erection of French fishing establishments ; any 
 fishing establishment removed, an indemnity shall be paid, provided they have 
 been built over a period of five years, but no indemnity shall be claimed for 
 the suppression of the buildings which shall have been built without the 
 consent of the mixed Commission. 
 
 4. — The mixed Commission shall fix the period of time within which the French 
 
 shall be obliged to build their fishing establishments. 
 
 The Colonists shall have the exclusive right to the salmon and other fish of the 
 rivers, wherever found. 
 
 5. — The “ littoral " zone allotted by Treaties to the French fishermen shall be clearly 
 
 defined, and the construction of establishments shall be determined, and the 
 mineral interests of the Newfoundlanders of the littoral zone protected. 
 
 Judging by these propositions it would appear that the Parliament 
 of Newfoundland declared in 1867, in clear and emphatic terms, the 
 
22 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 right to construct fishing establishments upon the reserved French 
 ground, and to utilise the shore line for their railway and mineral 
 interests, and claimed the right to grant railway or mining concessions 
 upon any portion of the littoral zone reserved to France, provided 
 that no injury was inflicted on the French Fisheries. 
 
 Under no circumstances were the French to be permitted to fish 
 either at Belle Isle, or on the coast of Labrador ; and the only con- 
 cession which was made to the French, was the right to purchase 
 freely the bait upon the Newfoundland coast at the period when the 
 fishing of the capelin and of the herring is permitted, viz., from 
 April to October. 
 
 Generally, the resolutions declared that the rights of the Newfound- 
 landers for fishing upon the reserved French ground were not to be 
 opposed by France, and that they should not be hindered or disturbed 
 in their fishing upon any part of the coast where the French have no 
 concurrent fishing rights. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS IN 1874. 
 
 In 1874, negotiations were again renewed with the French Govern- 
 ment, England appointing Admiral Miller, and France appointing 
 Captain de Boissoudy, and these negotiations were continued with 
 various interruptions for three years, 1874, ’75, and ’7 6. 
 
 The Premier of Newfoundland, Sir Francis Carter, came to Europe 
 to assist in the negotiations, and the five propositions drawn up as a 
 basis of settlement were in this instance submitted to the House of 
 Assembly, and Legislative Council of Newfoundland ; but the French 
 Government opposed the conclusions arrived at, and the negotiations 
 terminated with no good result. 
 
 The arrangement originally contemplated on this occasion was 
 founded on resolutions, dated the 23rd April, 1874, adopted by 
 the Newfoundland House of Assembly, and concurred in by the 
 Legislative Council, and it embraced the following stipulations : — 
 
 1. — The establishment of a Joint Naval Commission to take cognizance only of such 
 
 matters as related to the fisheries ; and in case of disagreement, reference to be 
 made to the respective Governments, all other questions to be dealt with by com- 
 petent authorities. 
 
 2. — That the existing British Settlements in St. George’s Bay, Cod Roy, and Bay of 
 
 Islands, Bonne Bay, and White Bay should remain undisturbed, and no 
 interruption to be made by the French to fishing by the British in those bays, 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 23 
 
 nor interference with their buildings and enclosures there, nor with any 
 erections or buildings on any part of the coast where the French enjoy a 
 temporary right of fishery which did not actually interfere with the fishery 
 privileges of the French, as should be determined by the Commissioners ; nor 
 were British subjects to be molested in fishing on any part where they did not 
 actually interrupt the French by their competition. 
 
 3. — That no building or enclosure which had been erected for five years should be 
 
 removed as interfering with the French fishery privileges without compensation 
 to be determined on by the Commissioners ; but no compensation to be 
 payable for any such building or enclosure hereafter erected without the consent 
 of the Commissioners. 
 
 4. — That the Commissioners should determine the limit or boundary line to which 
 
 the French might prosecute their fishery, the British having the exclusive right 
 of salmon and all other fishing in rivers. 
 
 5. — That the breadth of strand of which the French should have the right of 
 
 temporary use for fishery purposes should be defined ; thus removing objections 
 to grants of land for all purposes beyond the boundary so to be defined, and 
 within the same for mining purposes ; right being reserved to the British 
 Government to erect on such strand works of a military or other public 
 character, and to the British subjects for wharves and buildings necessary for 
 mining, trading, and other purposes apart from the fishery in places selected 
 with permission of Commissioners. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS IN 1881 
 
 After an interval of five years, fresh negotiations were entered 
 upon by means of a Joint Commission, which was appointed in 1881, 
 Admiral Pierre representing France, Admiral Miller, England, and 
 Sir William Whiteway, the Premier of Newfoundland, representing 
 that Colony. 
 
 The basis of arrangement arrived at, which was drawn up by the 
 British Commissioner, and approved by the Government of New- 
 foundland, and which it was hoped would have offered to the French 
 Government a satisfactory solution, consented in the appointment of 
 a Demarcation Commission, and a Fishery Commission ; the former 
 to define the coast line for the exercise by the French of the rights 
 conceded to them by Treaty, to deal with the harbours, and bays at 
 the service of the French, the erection of wharves, and buildings ; 
 and the latter to supervise the operations under the agreement of the 
 English and French fishermen with power to punish offenders. The 
 French Government opposing the joint occupation by British and 
 French of the harbours, and the joint operations on the fishing ground, 
 re jected the Convention. 
 
24 the NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS IN 1884 . 
 
 The eighth, and last Commission was appointed by the Govern- 
 ments of England and France in December, 1883, and the Com- 
 missioners for England were Mr. Francis Clare Ford (now H.M. 
 Ambassador at Madrid) and Mr. Edmund Burke Pennell ; and for 
 France, M. Jagerschmidt and Captain Bigrel. 
 
 This Joint Commission met in Paris on January 23rd, 1884, and 
 on the 26th April concluded their labours, when the Convention was 
 signed by the British and French Commissioners, subject to the 
 approval of their respective Governments, and also subject to the 
 ratification of the Colonial Government and Legislature of New- 
 foundland. 
 
 At this date, 1883, the Right Hon. the Earl of Derby was 
 H.M. Minister of the Colonies, and his lordship is deserving of the 
 highest praise for the broad and generous policy he displayed in those 
 intricate negotiations, and especially for the comprehensive Despatch of 
 June 12 th, 1884, addressed to the Governor of Newfoundland, Sir 
 John Glover, on the subject ; a document of great value, and which 
 should be carefully studied by French and Englishmen alike, in 
 order to obtain a right appreciation of the whole controversy. 
 
 This Convention contained 19 articles or clauses, and may be 
 summed up as follows : — 
 
 1. — The claim of France to an exclusive right of fishing, not recognised, but on the 
 
 contrary, the recognition of the concurrent rights of England to the coast line, 
 of the French limit of the “ littoral Anglais,” from Cape St. John to Cape Ray, 
 under conditions of not interfering with or molesting the French in the exercise 
 of their fishing industry. 
 
 2. — That the claim of France to the right of fishing in rivers except at the 
 
 “ embouchures” not recognised, and the practice of barring rivers prohibited. 
 
 3. That the settlements of French fishing establishments on the French limit o 
 
 coast line, is not permissable under any existing Treaties, but whilst making 
 this declaration, a concession was made herein to France of an ex post facto 
 character that all fixed settlements, fishing or otherwise at present existing 
 within the limits of the coast line over which the French have Treaty rights shall 
 not be disturbed. 
 
 The British Government, before approving of this Convention, 
 submitted it to the consideration of the Newfoundland Government 
 and Legislative Council, and the British Commissioners, Messrs. 
 Ford and Pennell, proceeded to Newfoundland on the 17th June, 
 1884, for the purpose of presenting it to the Government at St. John’s. 
 
 In the interval, the Government of Mr. Gladstone had been suc- 
 ceeded by the Government of the Marquis of Salisbury, and upon his 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 2 5 
 
 lordship and colleagues devolved the duty of considering the modi- 
 fications proposed in the Convention by the Government of New- 
 foundland. 
 
 On the 14th November, 1885, the Convention containing the 
 modifications proposed by the Newfoundland Government was 
 approved by the joint Commission, and signed by the Commissioners, 
 and was submitted to the respective Governments of Great Britain 
 and France for their ratification. 
 
 The Marquis of Salisbury, H.M. Secretary of State for Foreign 
 Affairs, on the 12th December, 1885, addressed a Despatch to the 
 British Commissioners, Sir Clare Ford and Mr. Pennell, on the 
 subject of the amended Convention signed by them at S. John’s, and 
 the following extract from that Despatch may be given, as it conveys 
 in brief terms the views of H.M. Government prior to the rejection 
 of the Convention by the Legislature of Newfoundland : — 
 
 The controversy between Great Britain and France concerning the Newfoundland 
 fisheries has been carried on for more than 100 years. It may be said, indeed, to 
 date back to a period considerably anterior to the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, by 
 which it was hoped that a lasting solution of the question would have been effected. 
 Differences of opinion arose, however, almost immediately afterwards, with regard to 
 the proper construction of the new Treaty stipulations dealing with the French 
 rights of fishery, and, as time went on, the question became still further complicated 
 by the increase of the fixed population on that part of the shore where these privileges 
 were exercised. The matter was first brought before the Foreign Office by a 
 Despatch from Count Sebastiani to Lord Palmerston in 1836 ; but formal nego- 
 tiations were not opened till ten years later, in 1846 ; which resulted, eleven years 
 later, in 1857, in the signing of a Convention between England and France, by 
 which it was hoped that all difficulties would be adjusted. But it fell to the ground 
 through the opposition of the Newfoundland Legislature, and attempts of a similar 
 character which were made in 1859-60, 1868, 1874, and 1881, have, for various 
 reasons, proved equally abortive. 
 
 The actual negotiations in which you have recently been engaged have extended 
 over a period of nearly two years, and your labours in connection with this important 
 question having now come to a close, I avail myself of the opportunity to express to 
 you my entire approval of the manner in which you have performed the duties 
 intrusted to you, and my high appreciation of the tact and ability you have displayed 
 in the conduct of these long and delicate negotiations. 
 
 I trust that the new “Arrangement ” which you have concluded, will be found to 
 afford a practical solution of the many difficulties surrounding the question of the 
 Newfoundland fisheries, and that it will provide a satisfactory means of settlement 
 the constantly recurring disagreements between British and French subjects 
 in Newfoundland, which have for so many years formed the subject of corres- 
 pondence between the two Governments concerned, whilst at the same time I 
 believe that it will satisfy the legitimate needs of the inhabitants of the coast of 
 Newfoundland, and allow of the development of the agricultural and mineral 
 resources of the Colony. 
 
 If these anticipations should be realised the object sought by the two countries will 
 have been attained. 
 
26 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 The rejection of the Convention by the Legislature of Newfound- 
 land was mainly in consequence of Article xvii. of the Treaty, which 
 was as follows : 
 
 French fishermen shall have the right to purchase bait, both herring and capelin, 
 on shore or at sea, on the shores of Newfoundland, free from all duty or restrictions, 
 subsequent to the 5th of April in each year, and up to the close of the fishing 
 season. 
 
 And also objection was taken to Article ix., on the ground that 
 considerable power was given to the French Naval authorities 
 stationed at Newfoundland, in the absence of British cruisers, against 
 British subjects, whom the French fishermen might consider were 
 infringing on their fishing rights. 
 
 The Article on this subject was as follows : 
 
 On a complaint being made by French fishermen or on a demand being made by 
 them with a view to their being enabled to exercise their right of fishing, the com- 
 manders of the English cruisers shall oppose, and, in case of no English cruiser being 
 in sight , the commanders of the French cruisers may oppose every fishing operation of 
 British subjects which may interrupt the industry of such French fishermen ; they shall 
 remove the boats or ships causing the obstruction to such industry. 
 
 The action of the Legislature and Government of Newfoundland 
 in refusing to ratify this Convention was disappointing, considering 
 that in the first Convention signed by the English and French 
 Commissioners at Paris, 26th April, 1884, they raised no objection 
 so far as we know, to either Articles ix. or xvii., neither were the 
 British Commissioners, Messrs. Ford and Pennell, who were in 
 personal communication with the Government of St. John’s, 
 informed of any difficulty that would be raised against either of 
 these Articles in the Convention. 
 
 In a Despatch addressed by the Governor of Newfoundland, 
 Sir J. H. Glover, to the Earl of Derby, H.M. Minister of the 
 Colonies, dated July 16th, 1884, he stated that : 
 
 Your Lordship will observe that my Ministers desire two modifications in the 
 proposed scheme, namely : — facilities for the export of minerals from harbours not 
 tinted red on the map, and that the French Guardians should be limited to one family 
 in each harbour. 
 
 His Excellency enclosed a copy of the resolutions on the subject, 
 adopted by the Government of Newfoundland, which contains the 
 following important declaration : 
 
 The Council are convinced that the Legislature, as well as the Executive, in 
 entering upon this important question, wifi be animated by a desire to meet 
 as far as possible the views of her Majesty’s Government regarding a satisfactory 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 2 7 
 
 settlement, and they believe that the acceptance of the modifications above sug- 
 gested would tend materially to commend the arrangement to the favourable 
 consideration of both Houses. 
 
 In consequence, therefore, of the request made by the Government 
 of Newfoundland, for a modification of the Convention, signed 26th 
 April, 1884, an exchange of diplomatic notes took place between 
 the Governments of England and France, and after considerable 
 efforts on both sides had been made to arrive at a satisfactory 
 arrangement on these two subjects, the result was that the de- 
 mands of the Government of Newfoundland were substantially 
 conceded. 
 
 The Commissioners for England and France assembled for a 
 second time at Paris for the purpose of considering the proposed 
 modifications in the Convention, and the result of their deliberations 
 was, that on the 14th November, 1885, they were instructed by their 
 respective Governments to sign the second Convention containing 
 several new Clauses, having reference to the only two subjects raised 
 by the Newfoundland Government, first with regard to mining 
 operation, wharves, and railway buildings, and secondly in regard to 
 the number of French Officials in the harbours for the guardianship 
 of the French fishing establishments. 
 
 In the Despatch of H.M. Minister of the Colonies the Right Hon. 
 F. A. Stanley, M.P. (who had succeeded, on the change of 
 the Administration, the Right Hon. the Earl of Derby), addressed 
 to the Governor of Newfoundland, after reviewing in a lucid manner 
 the course and character of the negotiations, he observes in con- 
 clusion : 
 
 Her Majesty’s Government trust that the efforts which have been made in the 
 course of the recent negotiations to arrive at such a settlement of the fishery question 
 as would admit of the development of the resources of the Colony of Newfoundland 
 on those parts of the coast where the French have fishery rights, whilst at the same 
 time in no way curtailing the existing fishery rights of either British or French subjects 
 on those coasts, will be duly appreciated by the Government and Legislature of 
 Newfoundland. 
 
 This amended Convention entered into by the Governments of 
 Great Britain and France, on its receipt by the Newfoundland 
 Government, was duly presented to the Legislative Council, and 
 House of Assembly, and a Joint Select Committee was appointed by 
 the two latter bodies to examine and report thereupon, and in 
 March, 1887, it presented the following resolutions for the consider- 
 ation of the Legislature : — 
 
28 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 1. Whereas her Majesty’s Government have recognised in the most solemn manner 
 the jurisdiction of the Government of this Colony over the coastal fisheries and territory 
 of Newfoundland and its dependencies, and have acknowledged that the said fisheries 
 and territory cannot be alienated except with the consent of the Local Legislature, 
 and have, by the despatch accompanying the arrangement of 1885, made between 
 France and Great Britain concerning that part of our coast whereon the French have 
 certain fishery privileges, further recognised as essential to the validity of the said 
 arrangement its ratification by our Local Legislature. 
 
 2. Whereas the arrangement would place the French in possession of the principal 
 harbours between Cape Ray and Cape John, to the practical exclusion of British fish- 
 ermen from any of the fishing privileges of that coast. 
 
 3. Whereas the same arrangement gives jurisdiction to commanders of French 
 cruisers in matters criminal as well as civil, to the disregarding of those principles 
 and procedures to which as British subjects we are accustomed and entitled in tribunals 
 of justice. 
 
 4. Whereas the French fisheries on our coasts are sustained and stimulated by an 
 enormous bounty from the French Government to the French fishermen, and our 
 people are in consequence unduly burdened in their competition in foreign markets, 
 to 'the almost complete exclusion of their fish products from the said markets. 
 
 5. Whereas the proposed arrangement seeks to assert, perpetuate, and legalise 
 a claim to the purchasing of bait by the French in all the ports of this Colony without 
 any reservation of power on the part of the Colony to restrict them by local legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 6. Whereas the great decline of late years of the inshore fishery of this Colony has 
 necessitated the turning of our attention to the Bank fishery, and the economising of 
 the supply of bait fishes, in which ample proof of a marked decadence has been shown 
 within the past few years. 
 
 7. Whereas the power of restricting the supply of bait on our coasts to nations 
 competing with our people in an industry which is the staple support of the Colony is 
 vital to the commercial existence of this country, which relies principally on its fisheries 
 for the maintenance of its population. 
 
 8. Whereas no acceptable equivalent is ceded to this Colony for those large and 
 important concessions proposed to be made by us to the French by this arrange- 
 ment. 
 
 Be it therefore Resolved, — That for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, and by virtue 
 of that constitutional right which has been so often and so clearly admitted by her 
 Majesty’s Government to exist in the Legislature of this Colony, 
 
 We do consider it our bounden duty, in the interests of her Majesty’s loyal subjects 
 in Newfoundland and elsewhere, to respectfully decline to assent to the arrangement 
 now proposed for our ratification. . 
 
 (Here follow the Signatures.) 
 
 The operating cause of the refusal by the Parliament of Newfound- 
 land to acceptor approve of the Anglo-French Convention of 1885, 
 appears to have been, that in the interval of its signature at Paris on 
 the 14th November, 1885, to the arrival of the Commissioners with 
 the Convention at St. John’s, a General Election had taken place in 
 Newfoundland, and the result was, that it showed a strong opposition 
 to the Convention, and the Government that had practically nego- 
 tiated and accepted it, were swept out of place and power ; and the 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 2 9 
 
 new Administration, of which Mr. Thorburn was Premier, not being 
 responsible for the action of its predecessors, felt themselves justified 
 and compelled, for the reasons stated in the resolutions aforesaid, in 
 rejecting the Convention. 
 
 The French Government were naturally surprised and displeased 
 at the bold and hostile attitude assumed by the Government and 
 Legislature of Newfoundland towards “ this solemn agreement,” 
 agreed upon after so much effort and sacrifice by England and 
 France, and therefore they conveyed to the English Government in 
 an important Despatch, dated June 21st, 1886, their intentions in 
 somewhat vigorous terms. M. De Freycinet declared : 
 
 That in these circumstances he could not prolong the tolerant attitude we 
 have hitherto observed, and that the facts now brought to our knowledge compel us 
 to look exclusively to the assertion of our Rights within the limits prescribed by the 
 Treaties. 
 
 Accordingly the Legislature of Newfoundland became alarmed, 
 and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the subject of the 
 capture and sale of bait, and on May 17th, 1886, they reported that 
 as the possession of fresh bait was essential to the prosecution of the 
 cod-fishery, and that as the French bounties to their fishermen 
 practically destroyed the Foreign trade of the Colony, an Act should 
 be passed to prohibit the sale and exportation of bait to the French, 
 except under special licence, and on 18th May, the Act, containing 
 eight clauses, was passed by the House of Assembly, and also by the 
 Legislative Council, to come into operation on the 31st December 
 following. 
 
 The Governor of Newfoundland, Sir G. William Des Voeux, 
 having refused to give assent to this Bill, the Colonial Government 
 appointed a Commissioner, Sir Ambrose Shea, to proceed to England 
 for the purpose of urging upon H.M. Government the vital impor- 
 tance of the measure for the interests of the Colony ; and on January 
 14th, 1887, the Governor addressed an important Despatch to the 
 Colonial Minister in which he urged at considerable length reasons 
 in favour of its approval and signature by her Majesty the Queen, 
 but notwithstanding this urgent recommendation of the Governor, 
 the petition of the Legislature, together with the representations of 
 the Commissioner, Sir Ambrose Shea, the British Cabinet were unable 
 to advise its confirmation by her Majesty, and the Minister of the 
 Colonies, Sir Henry Holland (now Lord Knutsford), in a Despatch 
 of 3rd February, 1887, set forth the reasons for that refusal. 
 
3 ° 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 The Colonial Legislature, undaunted by this refusal, at the com- 
 mencement of the Session of 1887 passed unanimously by both 
 Houses the rejected Measure of the, previous year, and appointed two 
 Commissioners, the Premier of Newfoundland and Sir Ambrose 
 Shea, to proceed to England in order to make urgent representations 
 to H.M. Government in its favour, and an address, signed by the 
 Speaker of the House of Assembly, was forwarded to H.M. Secretary 
 of State for the Colonies, which set forth the following, amongst 
 other reasons, in favour of its receiving the Royal assent : 
 
 Within the last three years, the great increase in the French fisheries has gone far 
 beyond the requirements of their home markets ; and we find them meeting us in 
 Spain, Italy, and other European countries, and with the bounty equal to 60 per cent, 
 of the value of the fish, they are fast supplanting us ; the reduced value of our staple 
 industry from this cause already representing a fairly estimated sum of ,£250,000 per 
 annum, under conditions that menace us with a still more serious decline. In these 
 facts, our change of view of the bait traffic is but too well warranted, and we have 
 abundant reason for the application of the remedy provided in the Bait Act. In 
 furnishing our rivals with bait, we promote the evils we have to contend with, and our 
 only course is to terminate this suicidal traffic. 
 
 # 
 
 In consequence of these active measures taken by the Government 
 of Newfoundland, and the representations of its Commissioners, the 
 British Government advised her Majesty to sanction the Act, and on 
 the 19th July, 1887, an Order in Council was sent to the Governor 
 of Newfoundland, for bringing the Act into force after the close of 
 the fishing season of that year. 
 
 THE LOBSTER DIFFICULTY. 
 
 . French Protest against British Factories. 
 
 Following up the vigorous Despatch of the French Government of 
 June 2 1 st, 1886, for the securing of the Treaty rights of France, M. 
 Waddington, the French Ambassador, addressed a Despatch to the 
 British Government on 25th August, requesting the removal of 
 English lobster factories at Port-a-Port- situated on the reserved 
 French shore line, and on the 20th September, Count D’Aubigny 
 informed the British Government that seven more lobster factories 
 had been erected on the French shore line, and that he was instructed 
 by the Prime Minister De Freycrinet to renew the protest of the 25th 
 August last, against the continued infraction of the rights conferred 
 on France by Treaties. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 3 1 
 
 For twelve months, or thereabouts, these protests of the French 
 Government were several times repeated, not only as regards lobster 
 factories, but also on account of the cod traps that the fishermen of 
 the Colony had set in various bays and harbours, and all efforts on 
 the part of the Colonial Minister to induce the Newfoundland 
 Government to meet the urgent demands of France seemed to have 
 been unavailing. The Colonial Minister, before taking further action, 
 instructed the Admiralty on July 28th, 1887, in consequence of the 
 demands of the French Government, to obtain in a separate tabular 
 form the full particulars of the British lobster factories from Cape 
 St. John to Cape Ray, and on August 30th this return was received 
 at the Colonial Office, and showed that there were in all twelve 
 British lobster factories established on that portion of the coast 
 line referred to, at the two largest of which it was estimated that the 
 average catch per day of lobsters amounted in one case to 7,000, and 
 in the other 3,000, and that the industry found employment on an 
 average from 40 to 50 men at each factory, independent of the tin- 
 ning of lobsters by women and children. 
 
 On October 6th, 1887, M. Flourens, the French Minister for 
 Foreign Affairs, instructed the French Ambassador to inform the 
 British Government that further lobster factories at Bonne Bay had 
 been erected, and demanded their removal ; and again on the 2nd 
 September, 1888, a long Despatch was addressed by M. Waddington 
 to the Marquis of Salisbury in consequence of the establishment by 
 Mr. Shearer, a native of Nova Scotia, of a lobster factory near Point 
 Riche on the French shore line, and requesting that it be closed. 
 
 In reply to this and other French Despatches on the subject, the 
 Marquis of Salisbury stated that H.M. Government were unable to 
 assent to the position taken up by the French Government, and that 
 this position was much complicated by the erection of the French 
 lobster factories, which his Lordship considered were in “ violation of 
 the expressed provisions of the Treaty, and of the Sovereign rights of 
 the British Crown.” 
 
 The French Government answered the Despatch of Lord Salisbury 
 on the 15th December, and entered into an examination of the prin- 
 cipal Articles of the Treaties relating to French rights in Newfound- 
 land, and contended that “ Fish applies to all the products of the 
 sea, and, therefore, that France has not only the right for the fish- 
 ing of lobsters, but also that of preparing them on the spot for sale,” 
 and on these grounds they insisted on the closing of Mr. Shearer’s 
 factory. 
 
32 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 The protest and demand of the French Government was renewed 
 on March 15th, 1889, and they pressed the British Cabinet to give a 
 decision ; and accordingly the Marquis of Salisbury on March 28th 
 replied, that as regards the “ question whether Crustacea are fish 
 within the provisions and intentions of the Treaties affecting the- 
 French rights of fishery on the Coast of Newfoundland, is one upon 
 which the two Governments are divided in opinion ; ” and if it were 
 admitted that French fishermen are entitled to fish for lobsters in 
 Newfoundland waters, yet to establish French lobster factories 
 on the shore is contrary to the terms of the Treaties, and finally that 
 as regards Shearer’s lobster factory, H.M. Government adhered 
 to their former declarations. 
 
 England protests against French Lobster Factories . 
 
 Simultaneously with the protest of the French Government in 1886 
 and 1887, against the erection of British lobster factories from 
 Cape St. John to Cape Ray, the British Government also protested 
 against the erection of French lobster factories over the same ground. 
 As early as August 2nd, 1886, the Governor of Newfoundland, Sir 
 G. Des Voeux informed the Colonial Minister, Lord Granville, that a 
 factory for canning lobsters had been established by the French at 
 Port-au-Choix, on the north-west coast of Newfoundland, and he 
 forwarded a petition from the Chamber of Commerce at St. John’s 
 for its removal, on the ground that it was a breach of Treaty stipula- 
 tion, and on November 24th, in consequence of additional French 
 lobster factories having been erected at Harbour Island, the Colonial 
 Minister, the Earl of Iddesleigh, made representations to the French 
 Government and urged their removal. 
 
 In July, x888, the Governor of Newfoundland informed Lord 
 Knutsford that a French war-ship had arrived in Blanche Bay, and 
 ordered the removal of an English lobster factory, and in its place 
 the erection of a French factory, on the ground that the French 
 Government had conferred an exclusive right to the latter to fish for 
 lobsters in that locality for five years ; and on the 7th July the 
 Marquis of Salisbury instructed the French Ambassador at Paris to 
 ask the French Government to put a stop to such proceedings. 
 On the 30th October the French Government, through M. Goblet, 
 replied by admitting that the facts were correctly stated, and further 
 added that the lobster establishments erected in Blanche Bay were 
 in accordance with Treaty rights ; to which the Marquis of Salisbury 
 replied that the grant by the French Government to a French Com- 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 3 
 
 pany of an exclusive licence to fish for lobsters in the locality for the 
 term of five years, is in the opinion of H.M. Government “an 
 assumption of territorial rights in derogation of the Sovereignty of the 
 British Crown , and unwarranted by the Treaty 
 
 The French Government, on the 16th of February, acknowledged 
 the Marquis of Salisbury’s Despatch by maintaining the French 
 position “ as an unrestricted right of fishing , as well as the use of the 
 coast for the preparation of the produce of such fishing ,” an opinion 
 which Lord Knutsford, on March 14th, informed the Marquis of 
 Salisbury, that in the judgment of the Legal Advisers of the Crown 
 could not be sustained. 
 
 A NEW DEPARTURE. 
 
 An important departure in policy by the British Government 
 appears to have taken place at this date, for on the 28th March, 1889, 
 the Minister for the Colonies, Lord Knutsford, informed the 
 Governor of Newfoundland, Sir Terence O’Brien, that H.M. Govern- 
 ment were of opinion that the best solution of the difficulty in regard 
 to the establishments of British and French lobster factories on the 
 coasts of Newfoundland to which the French Treaty rights extend, 
 would be to come to an arrangement with the French Government 
 that the factories of both countries should be allowed in places and 
 under conditions jointly approved by the British and French Naval 
 Commanders on the Station. 
 
 The Marquis of Salisbury, in a Despatch to the Colonial Office on 
 May 10th, 1889, was of opinion that there were three different con- 
 tentions in regard to the fishery disputes 
 
 The Marquis of Salisbury was therefore of opinion that in con- 
 sequence of the conflicting views held by France, Newfoundland, and 
 England, as to the exact verbal construction of the Treaties, and as 
 to the intentions of the Statesmen who, more than a century ago, 
 negotiated them, that the best and only course would be to obtain a 
 decision by an impartial Arbitration, and he therefore proposed to 
 Lord Knutsford a settlement of the question by that procedure, con- 
 fined to the following two subjects : 
 
 1. Whether the taking and preserving of lobsters can be properly considered as 
 included in the terms of the Treaties which give to the French the liberty of fishing 
 and drying fish on certain specified parts of the coast. 
 
 2. Whether the lobster-traps set by British subjects along the coast can be said to 
 interfere with French fishing operations in such a manner and to such extent as to 
 constitute an infraction of the Treaties. 
 
 C 
 
34 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 There may be said to be three different contentions in regarcj to this matter. 
 
 The French Government hold that the Treaties secure to them the fullest rights of 
 fishery and preserving of fish along this portion of the coast, including the catching 
 and canning of lobsters, to the exclusion of British fishermen, whose operations, if 
 permitted at all, are to cease at once upon notice from the French. They equally 
 contend that British subjects are debarred from erecting factories or settlements of any 
 kind along the shore, and the only limitation which they admit of their own rights, as 
 above stated, is that the establishments erected by French citizens for preserving of fish 
 shall not be permanent buildings. 
 
 Her Majesty’s Government have not attempted to claim that under the terms of the 
 Declaration of Versailles of 1783, British subjects have the right of erecting lobster- 
 canning factories immediately on the Treaty Shore, but they contend that the French 
 themselves have no right to erect such establishments, nor do they admit that the 
 catching of lobsters is included within the fishery rights secured to the French by 
 Treaty. They maintain, moreover, that British subjects have the right both of catch- 
 ing lobsters and of other fishery along and off the Treaty Shore, except in cases where 
 it can be proved that their operations actually interfere with French fishing. 
 
 Finally, the Colonial Legislature and the inhabitants on the coast not only claim the 
 rights of fishery for themselves and the limitation of French rights as contended for 
 by Her Majesty’s Government and set forth above, but they regard it as an intolerable 
 grievance, and as contrary to the intention of the Treaties, that any restriction should 
 be placed upon the establishment of factories on the shore, except the sole condition 
 that they are not actively to interfere with the fisheries and temporary fish-curing 
 establishments of the French. They point to the fact that these lobster fisheries and 
 lobster-canning establishments have existed up to 1886 without remonstrance on the 
 part of the French as conclusive proof that they do not constitute such an interference. 
 
 The Colonial Minister, Lord Knutsford, concurred generally in the 
 views and proposals of the Prime Minister, and suggested that in the 
 first place it would be advisable to consult the French Government, 
 and accordingly the Prime Minister addressed a Despatch to the 
 British Ambassador at Paris, Lord Lytton, stating that in conversation 
 with the French Ambassador, M. Waddington, the French Govern- 
 ment were willing to accept a reference of the lobster fisheries dis- 
 pute to Arbitration, provided that the Government of Newfoundland 
 would give an assurance to abide by the decision. 
 
 As already stated, a proposition was made on the 28th March, by 
 the Colonial Minister, to the Government of Newfoundland, to which 
 a reply was anxiously looked for, and on the 30th October Sir Terence 
 O’Brien, the Governor of the Colony, informed Lord Knutsford that 
 his proposals had been rejected, and in consequence thereof H.M. 
 Government decided that the proposal of Arbitration should not be 
 formally made to the French Government, until they had had an op- 
 portunity of discussing the whole fishery question with the Prime 
 Minister of Newfoundland, especially as his arrival in England was 
 expected in the course of the following year. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 35 
 
 THE MODUS VIVENDI. 
 
 In consequence of the action of the Colonial Government refus- 
 ing the proposals of H.M. Government contained in the Despatch of 
 the 28th March, 1889 ; and also the postponement of the reference 
 to Arbitration of the lobster question, (for the proposition had actually 
 been made to France), and especially owing to the serious difficulties 
 that had arisen in Newfoundland on the subject of the English and 
 French Lobster Factories, erected at various points of the reserved 
 Coast Line, the French Government addressed a communication 
 to the Marquis of Salisbury in favour of a “Modus Vivendi,” 
 which should be temporary in its character, pending the settlement 
 of the difficulty, and for special application during the coming fishing 
 season, and the following were the bases of the proposed plan : 
 
 * ‘ Without France demanding at once a new examination of the legality of the 
 installation of British Lobster Factories on the 1 French Shore,’ it shall be understood 
 that there shall be no modification in the positions occupied by these establishments 
 on the 1st July, 1889.” 
 
 On the other hand, no new concessions of fishery of lobsters shall be accorded this 
 year by the French Government on the fishing grounds occupied by British subjects 
 previously to 1st July, 1889. 
 
 Whenever any case of competition may arise in respect of Lobster Fishery between 
 the French and British fishermen, the Commanders of the two naval stations shall 
 proceed on the spot to a provisional delimitation of the Lobster Fishery Grounds, 
 having regard to the situations acquired by the two parties. 
 
 This proposition of France and the details of the arrangement 
 were communicated by telegraph on 28th January, 1890 to the 
 Governor of Newfoundland, and after an interchange of messages, 
 the Colonial Government whilst strongly contesting the French 
 claims to lobster fishing, accepted the proposal for a “ Modus 
 Vivendi,” for the fishing season of 1890 only, but on this condition, 
 that the French fishermen do not establish any further lobster 
 factories on the coast, and provided also that the retrospective effect 
 of the proposals should be to the 1st January, 1890, instead of 1st 
 July, 1889. 
 
 However favourable H.M. Government may have been, as they 
 acknowledged they were, to the modifications of the plan, as desired 
 by Newfoundland, yet they could not guarantee their acceptance by 
 France, and unfortunately when the amended “ Modus Vivendi ” 
 was submitted for approval to the French Government, they were 
 unable to accept it in the amended form, but to meet the objections 
 
36 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 raised by the Newfoundland Government, the following clause was 
 added with the approval of the French Government : 
 
 “ No Lobster Fisheries which were not in operation on the 1st July, 1889, shall be 
 permitted, unless by the joint consent of the British and French Senior Naval Officers 
 on the station. In consideration of each new Lobster Fishery so permitted, it shall 
 be open to the fishermen of the other country to establish a new Lobster Fishery on 
 some spot to be similarly settled by joint agreement between the Naval Commanders.” 
 
 When, however, this modified “ Modus Vivendi,” was communi- 
 cated by Lord Knutsford, on March 1 2 th, to the Colonial Govern- 
 ment, within three days of its receipt, the Parliament of Newfound- 
 land unanimously condemned the arrangement, and on the 14th 
 inst. the Governor of the Colony telegraphed as follows to H.M. 
 Colonial Minister : 
 
 ‘ ‘ My Ministers strongly protest against what would in modus vivendi appear to be 
 admission of concurrent rights of Lobster Fishing, and are of opinion that this 
 arrangement would be prejudicial to position of Newfoundland in future negociations. 
 They further contend that Imperial Government should bear expense of losses of those 
 who have established factories since date 1st July. They consider that as this modus 
 vivendi has been concluded without their concurrence it is not for them to advise as to 
 giving notice to those whom it may affect.” 
 
 The following day the Governor also forwarded by telegraph the 
 following message : 
 
 ‘ ‘ Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament last night in identic terms 
 emphatically protesting against modus vivendi as being prejudicial to British fishing 
 and territorial rights, and being contrary to assurances of Her Majesty’s Government 
 that right of fishing should not be interfered with without consent of Colonial Legisla- 
 ture ; further, that this arrangement is objectionable as indicating admission of non- 
 existent concurrent rights on the coast.” 
 
 The rejection by the Legislature of Newfoundland, of the “ Modus 
 Vivendi ” for the fishing season of 1890, on the ground that it re- 
 cognised the concurrent rights of France to lobster fishing in the 
 Bays and Harbours of Newfoundland, which they considered goes 
 far beyond their Treaty Rights, and they feared that this recognition, 
 even for the brief interval of one fishing season, might be pre- 
 judicial in any future negotiations to the fishing interests of the 
 Colony. 
 
 This result was disappointing, and as unexpected to H.M. Govern- 
 ment, as it was to the Government of France, especially when it is 
 borne in mind the concessions made by the French Government, at 
 the request of England, to meet the objections raised by the Legisla- 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 37 
 
 ture of Newfoundland to the original scheme proposed under the 
 “ Modus Vivendi.” It will be remembered that the basis of that 
 scheme was amended by the insertion of a clause in order to meet 
 the views of the Government of Newfoundland, and the effect of 
 this clause was to prevent the erection of any further French Lobster 
 Factories on the Coast of Newfoundland. 
 
 In a Despatch from the Governor of Newfoundland, received at 
 the Colonial Office on April 17th, 1890, the Joint Committee of the 
 Legislature agreed to accept the modus vivendi \ on the terms pro- 
 posed in Lord Knutsford’s Despatch of the 8th February, to the 
 effect that equal right would be granted to both France and England, 
 and that lobster factories, if closed at one position on the coast, 
 could, with the sanction of the joint Naval Commanders, be removed 
 to another position. With this proviso , the Government of New- 
 foundland were willing to meet the wishes of H.M. Government, and 
 the Marquis of Salisbury concurred in this arrangement ; but unfor- 
 tunately, the French Government were unable to agree to any modi- 
 fication of the modus vivendi, on the ground that it had been 
 proclaimed at all the French ports of departure, and this decision 
 was telegraphed to the Governor of Newfoundland on May 2nd, and 
 consequently the terms of the modus vivendi, as finally adopted 
 between England and France, had to be enforced by her Majesty’s 
 Government. 
 
 The state of affairs in Newfoundland had now become critical. 
 Indignation meetings had been held, at which resolutions of a 
 revolutionary character had been adopted ; lobster factories at St. 
 George’s Bay were seized by the British Commander, Sir Baldwin 
 Walker, and closed ; collisions of English and French fishermen 
 took place at Port-k-Port, which resulted in the destruction of the 
 fishing nets of the Colonists; and an address from both Houses 
 of the Colonial Legislature had been adopted to H.M. the Queen, 
 in which occurs the following important passage : 
 
 “The Secretary of State for the Colonies asks if we are prepared to submit the 
 question of the lobster fishery to Arbitration ? After a careful perusal of the Treaties 
 bearing on this matter, we find that there is certainly no question for arbitration. A 
 similar proposition applied to Great Britain would be for the French to claim a right 
 to take salmon in the Tees or the Tay, and for your Majesty to submit such claim to 
 Arbitration. 
 
 With respect to the lobster industry, this colony will be satisfied with nothing short 
 of the immediate removal of every French lobster factory from the shores of 
 Newfoundland ; and all our efforts will be directed to the accomplishment of this 
 object. ’ 
 
38 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 ARBITRATION PROPOSALS. 
 
 This critical state of affairs induced the Government of New- 
 foundland to consider the desirability of proposing a reference of the 
 difficulties to some system of Arbitration, and accordingly, on 21st 
 July, 1890, the Prime Minister, Sir William Whiteway, addressed a 
 Despatch to Lord Knutsford to the following effect : 
 
 That all matters in difference as regards the construction and true meaning of the 
 Treaties, and what breaches thereof have been committed by the people of either 
 nation, and all matters in difference in relation thereto, be submitted to the Arbitra- 
 ment of five Arbitrators, one to be named by her Majesty's Government, one by the 
 
 Newfoundland Government, two by the French Government, and one by . 
 
 The award of a majority to be binding ; that upon the true position being clearly 
 ascertained, and the full rights of each nation defined, the same Arbitrators proceed 
 to a valuation of the rights of the French as regards the fisheries, and upon the coast 
 between Cape Raye and Cape St. John, and determine the compensation to be made 
 to the French for a surrender of those rights, which surrender upon the one hand, and 
 compensation upon the other, be carried out. That the same Arbitrators determine 
 as regards the abrogation or reduction of the bounties by the French, and the conces- 
 sion of the privilege of purchasing bait fishes on the coast of Newfoundland on an 
 equitable basis, with a view to the prosecution of the fisheries, without injury or 
 prejudice to the people of either nation. 
 
 This approach by the Colonial Government, for the first time 
 during these complications, towards an amicable reference, encouraged 
 the Marquis of Salisbury to address, on 24th September, an impor- 
 tant Despatch to Lord Lytton, for communication to the French 
 Government, in which he declared that : 
 
 “ Arbitration appears now to be the only method to which resort 
 can be had, if a plain and authoritative definition is required 
 of the extent and nature of the rights secured to France by 
 the Treaties ; and with respect, at least, to some of these, we 
 have ^ received the assurance that the French Government is 
 not unwilling to have recourse to this method of ad- 
 justment.” 
 
 The British Ambassador at Paris informed Lord Salisbury, on the 
 26th September, that he had submitted to M. Ribot the proposals, 
 and that he regretted to say that the French Minister was of opinion 
 that they could not be regarded as acceptable, although he considered 
 that a permanent settlement of the Newfoundland Fishery Question 
 by means of Arbitration, under conditions less restricted than those 
 indicated by the Marquis of Salisbury, were worthy of consideration, 
 and he promised to communicate further the views of the French 
 Government. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 39 
 
 Accordingly, on the 29th October, the French Minister for Foreign 
 Affairs expressed a willingness to come to some agreement with her 
 Majesty’s Government, either by Arbitration, or on the basis of the 
 terms of settlement proposed in the rejected Convention of 1885, 
 and the following is an extract from his Excellency’s Despatch : 
 
 In view of these various considerations, and notwithstanding the sincere desire of 
 the French Government to prevent, difficulties, always regrettable in themselves, they 
 do not feel justified in acceding to the proposals made to them to exchange their 
 rights either for a money payment or for certain facilities with regard to the purchase 
 of bait. The Government of the Republic are, however, quite prepared to consider 
 such other conditions of an agreement as may be submitted to them, whether they 
 approximate to the bases of the scheme drawn up in 1885, or whether they contem- 
 plate an eventual resort to Arbitration, in conformity with the preliminary opinions 
 already exchanged on the subject between the two Governments. 
 
 On the 17th November the Marquis of Salisbury, having had an 
 opportunity of consultation with the Delegates from Newfoundland, 
 again approached the French Government with the following 
 propositions : 
 
 That in consideration of q. good Bait Bill, and a sum of money to be afterwards 
 agreed upon, the French Government should abandon all their special rights on the 
 shores or in the territorial waters of Newfoundland, and should also discontinue the 
 practice of giving a bounty on fish not consumed in French territory. 
 
 And on the 29th November, the French Ambassador in London 
 replied that these proposals were not favourably received by the 
 French Government, and Lord Knutsford addressed the Governor of 
 Newfoundland the following Despatch on the subject : 
 
 “ In pursuance of the wish of the Delegates from Newfoundland who were lately in 
 England, he* Majesty’s Government have proposed to the French Government to 
 accept a pecuniary indemnity and a statutory permission to purchase bait as a con- 
 sideration for renouncing their alleged rights upon the coast and territorial waters of 
 Newfoundland, and abolishing the bounty upon all fish not consumed in French 
 dominions. These proposals have not been accepted. The Government of France 
 intimate that for the settlement of the question they are willing to proceed either by 
 agreement on the lines of the Convention of 1885, or by Arbitration. Her Majesty's 
 Government are willing to take whichever of these courses may be preferred by the 
 colony. But either course will probably occupy a considerable time. An agreement 
 requires lengthened negotiation, and unless a very large discretion indeed is given to 
 the Arbitrator, the preparations for submission to Arbitration must be lengthy. A 
 renewal of the modus vivendi so as to give time for further action is therefore indis- 
 pensable. But after what has taken place, to renew it would he useless, unless 
 statutory force is given to its provisions. I very earnestly press upon your Govern- 
 ment to procure the necessary legislation ; the power of her Majesty’s Government 
 to bring this controversy to a satisfactory conclusion will be seriously diminished by 
 a refusal.” 
 
40 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 To this Despatch, Sir Terence O’Brien replied as follows : 
 
 “Ministers desire to call the attention of her Majesty’s Government to the re- 
 rejection by the colony of the arrangement of 1885 as constituting a reply to the 
 second proposal of the French Government for a settlement based upon that arrange- 
 ment. With respect to the proposal for a settlement by Arbitration, if it is upon the 
 basis proposed by delegates in July last, my Ministers assent ; if otherwise, they wish 
 for information as to the meaning of the phrase ' ‘ settlement by Arbitration. ” My 
 Government cannot assent to any Arbitration which does not include withdrawal of 
 the French from the coast ; that the granting of facilities for procuring bait be con- 
 sidered Yrnly with the modification of bounties. Whilst my Ministers recognise the 
 necessity for sufficient time being allowed for complete negotiations after they take 
 definite form, they beg to remind her Majesty’s Government of the emphatic protests 
 made by them, the Legislature, and the public, as well as by the delegates, against 
 the modus vivendi, as being most hostile to interests of colony, and they are not, 
 therefore, prepared to give legislative sanction to the modus vivendi." 
 
 H.M. Government were now placed in an embarrassing position, 
 for on the one hand the Government of Newfoundland had refused 
 to recognise the modus vivendi agreed upon between England 
 and France for the temporary fishing operations during 1890, and on 
 the other hand, they had practically refused a reference to Arbitra- 
 tion of any portion of the fishery dispute, unless that reference em- 
 braced the wider question, viz., the withdrawal of the French from 
 the coast-line of Newfoundland, and, therefore, it is not to be 
 wondered at that in view of this persistent policy of resistance 
 adopted by the Government and Parliament of Newfoundland, H.M. 
 Government have been compelled to appeal to the intervention of 
 the Imperial Parliament to enable them to carry out a policy towards 
 Newfoundland of conciliatiqn and of justice, in accordance with 
 what they consider to be the obligations of Great Britain with the 
 Government of France. The following extract from a Despatch, 
 from the Marquis of Salisbury, addressed to Lord Knutsford, 19th 
 January, 1891, a copy of which was sent to the Governor of New- 
 foundland, cbnveys the views and intentions of H.M. Government : 
 
 The existence of some French rights, whatever their exact interpretation may be, 
 is a matter of absolute certainty. The signature of England has been pledged again 
 and again to their acknowledgment. They cannot be repudiated so long as the bind- 
 ing force of any Treaty obligations made in the past is admitted. The honour of 
 England is committed to the acceptance of them, and the nation certainly would never 
 consent to a breach with France incurred in the support of what would be a plain 
 infraction of Treaty right. 
 
 It is quite conceivable that the Colonial Ministers should dislike to incur any 
 responsibility in support of Treaty rights which they have no interest in upholding, and 
 the cogency of which may be imperfectly understood by the population of Newfound- 
 and. But their refusal to give us their co-operation in the matter does not relieve this 
 country from the obligations which it has incurred. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 41 
 
 L ord Salisbury considers that her Majesty’s Government must take the shortest and 
 plainest method of ascertaining what our international engagements in this matter are, 
 and of carrying those engagements into effect. It appears to him that no time should 
 now be lost in making proposals to the French Government which may lead to Arbitra- 
 tion upon, at all events, the most urgent of the matters which are in contest between 
 them. It is hardly to be hoped that this process can be complete before the ensuing 
 fishing season commences. It may be therefore necessary to conclude some inter- 
 mediate arrangement, which probably would follow the lines of the arrangement made 
 last year, omitting those portions of it which have become inapplicable through the 
 lapse of time. It will be necessary to apply to Parliament to obtain the powers for 
 giving effect to any such arrangement ; as it appears from the course of legal proceed- 
 ings that there is at least doubt whether our officers, in taking steps for that purpose, 
 would be adequately protected against an action at law. The statute of the fifth year 
 of George IV. ’s reign, which unfortunately was allowed to lapse, will probably furnish 
 the best model for legislation upon this point, as it only aims at securing the perform- 
 ance of international obligations, and does not interfere with the internal affairs of the 
 island. ” 
 
 In accordance with this Despatch, on the 19th March, 1891, Lord 
 Knutsford introduced into the House of Lords, a Bill to revive cer- 
 tain powers, which were vested in the Crown, by the Act of 28 George 
 III., for securing the performance of Treaties which Great Britian 
 has contracted with Foreign Powers. This Act lapsed in 1834, and 
 it is proposed to re-introduce it, and thus enable H.M. Government 
 to give such orders and instructions to the Governor of Newfound- 
 land or to the Naval Commander on the coast, for the purpose of en- 
 forcing the provisions of the Treaties of Utrecht, Paris, and Vers- 
 ailles, which reserved certain Fishing rights of France along the coast 
 of Newfoundland ; in other words to enforce the provisions of the 
 modus vivendi agreed upon between England and France during 
 the Fishing season of 1891. 
 
 In the meantime the reference to Arbitration of the Lobster 
 Fishery Question will be prosecuted by England and France, for on 
 the nth March, an agreement was signed at London, on the one 
 part for England by the Marquis of Salisbury, and on the other part 
 for France by M. Waddington, and the following are the provisions 
 of this Anglo-French Agreement. 
 
 1. — The Commission of Arbitration shall judge and decide all the questions of 
 principle which shall be submitted to it by either Government, or by their Delegates, 
 concerning the catching and preparation of lobsters on the above-mentioned portion of 
 the coasts of Newfoundland. 
 
 2. — The two Governments engage, in so far as each may be concerned, to execute 
 the decisions of the Commission of Arbitration. 
 
 3. — The modus vivendi of 1890 relative to the catching and preparation of lobsters 
 is renewed purely and simply for the fishery season of 1891. 
 
 4. — As soon as the questions relative to the catching and preparation of lobsters 
 shall have been decided by the Commission, it may take cognisance of other sub- 
 
42 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 sidiary questions relative to the fisheries on the above-mentioned portion of the coasts 
 of Newfoundland, and upon the text of which the two Governments shall have pre- 
 viously come to an agreement. 
 
 5. — The Commission of Arbitration shall be composed : 
 
 (1. ) — Of three Specialists or Jurisconsults designated by common consent by the 
 two Governments. 
 
 (2.) — Of two Delegates of each country, who shall be the authorised channels 
 of communication between the two Governments and the other Arbitrators. 
 
 6. — The Commission of Arbitration thus formed of seven members shall decide by 
 majority of votes and without appeal. 
 
 7. — It shall meet as soon as possible. 
 
 The last published Despatch is addressed by the Marquis of Salis- 
 bury to M. Waddington, which declares that H.M. Government and 
 the Government of the French Republic have designated by common 
 consent the following three Arbitrators — 
 
 1. — M. de Martens, Professor of International Law, at the Univer- 
 sity of St. Petersburg. 
 
 2. — M. Rivier, Consul General of Switzerland at Brussels, President 
 of the Institute of International Law. 
 
 3. — M. Gram, formerly member of the Supreme Court of Norway. 
 
 For the best interests of the Colony, and the maintenance of the 
 
 friendly relations of England and France, we cordially desire a satis- 
 factory issue of the labours of this Arbitration, and especially that it 
 may lead up to the settlement of all the differences between France 
 and Newfoundland, by a similar reference to Arbitration. 
 
 GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 In this review of the hitherto unfruitful negotiations that have 
 been so persistently prosecuted, from 1844 to 1891, by the Govern- 
 ments of France and England, to arrive, if possible, at a satisfactory 
 settlement of the intricate questions in dispute between Newfound- 
 land and France, there are two facts which stand out prominently ; 
 firstly, the resolute efforts, backed by a sincere desire on the part of 
 successive Governments of Great Britain to secure, by diplomatic 
 means, an amicable and solid settlement with France of this New- 
 foundland fishery question ; and on the other hand, the opposition, 
 we will not say unjustifiable opposition, but at any rate the persis- 
 tent opposition, with which the people and Parliament of Newfound- 
 land, have on nearly every occasion met the laudable and, so far as 
 we are able to judge, the favourable proposals, recommended by H.M. 
 Government. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 43 
 
 This, pri?na facie , appears to be one of the most extraordinary 
 episodes in the history of the relations of a mighty Empire, such 
 as Great Britain, with the smallest, and the weakest, of her 
 Colonial dependencies. This episode is memorable and unique in 
 history for this reason, that it is not, and has not been, a struggle 
 by the Newfoundlanders through insurrection or war, (such as the 
 pages of history too often record, of an heroic people struggling by 
 force of arms against the despotism of its Suzerain), but it is, and 
 has been, a firm and uncompromising resistance by Newfoundland 
 against the encroachments of France, against the attempts of a 
 powerful European State, to weaken and to strangle its industrial 
 and commercial life, and what is far more serious, to destroy the 
 territorial and maritime Sovereignty of Great Britain over the Colony 
 of Newfoundland. 
 
 If this action of Newfoundland for the past forty-five years, has 
 been extraordinary in resisting the negotiations, and in rejecting the 
 various Conventions, promoted and agreed upon by Great Britain 
 and France for the settlement of this territorial question, (for we must 
 look upon it as a territorial rather than as a commercial question in 
 dispute), yet, on the other hand, it has been constitutional, and in 
 accordance with its Treaty rights, and as proof thereof, we will cite 
 the charter granted by the Government of England to Newfoundland, 
 26th March, 1857, and it is as follows : 
 
 “ That the rights enjoyed by the Community of Newfoundland are not to be ceded 
 or exchanged without their consent, and that the constitutional mode of submitting 
 measures for that consent, is by laying them before the Colonial Legislature.” 
 
 And further : 
 
 “That the consent of the community of Newfoundland is regarded by her Majesty’s 
 Government as the essential preliminary to any modification of these territorial or 
 maritime rights.” 
 
 And in the exercise of that constitutional right, the Legislature of 
 Newfoundland, immediately on being informed by a telegraphic 
 message that a temporary modus vivendi , for a period of twelve 
 months had been concluded on the 14th March, 1890, between Great 
 Britain and France, relative to the questions in dispute, they adopted 
 the following resolution : 
 
 “ That the commencement, continuation, and conclusion of the negotiations for 
 the ‘ modus vivendi ’ without the knowledge and consent of the community or Legis- 
 lature were in direct violation of our constitutional rights, and of the particular en- 
 gagement with the people of Newfoundland which her Majesty’s Government volun- 
 tarily made ; against which violation we record our most earnest protest, and to which 
 we as a free people will never consent.” 
 
44 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 And again, as previously referred to, when the renewal of the 
 Modus Vivendi of March 12th, 1891, for another period of twelve 
 months, became necessary and was pressed for the acceptance of the 
 Government of Newfoundland ; the Colonial Parliament, following 
 the precedent of last year, and supported by the Charter of its Con- 
 stitutional rights, again refused to sanction any legislation in its 
 favour, and therefore, H.M. Government, in order to enable the 
 Naval authorities to carry out the modus vivendi of 1891, without 
 being liable for an action at law in the Colony, have applied to 
 Parliament for the necessary powers for its enforcement. 
 
 The questions at issue between Newfoundland and France, 
 and therefore between Great Britain and France, are of supreme 
 importance, because they not only involve the future prosperity 
 of the Colony, but what, perhaps, is of more momentous im- 
 portance, they jeopardise, so long as the questions in dispute are 
 unsettled, the friendly relations which it is so necessary to maintain 
 between Great Britain and France. 
 
 These questions at issue strike at the very foundation of the 
 territorial and maritime rights of the inhabitants of the Colony of 
 Newfoundland; in a territorial sense extending inland from the 
 coast, it may be one, two, or even three miles, just as the French 
 authorities and the French fishermen may consider favourable 
 to their fishing interests ; and in a maritime sense, extending 
 over the immense area of 700 miles, more than one half of the 
 littoral of Newfoundland. 
 
 Consider for a moment the last incident recently enacted in St. 
 George’s Bay on the west coast of Newfoundland, as it is a forcible 
 illustration of the overt action by France, by its Naval power 
 for the enforcement of its so-called Treaty rights. 
 
 What are .the facts of the case ? The Newfoundlanders, peace- 
 fully exercising their fishing industry, and firmly relying on their own 
 Sovereign and independent rights, were suddenly called upon, by a 
 French vessel of war, the Andre, at anchor in St. George’s Bay, to 
 take up their nets, and to cease from their fishing operations ; and 
 subsequently a French officer in naval uniform is despatched from 
 the Andre to the mainland, and gives peremptory instructions 
 forbidding in the future any interruption to the French fishing 
 operations, and ordered the fishing establishments of the Colonists 
 to be taken down. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 45 
 
 The British man-o’-war, the Emerald, commanded by Sir Baldwin 
 Walker, was present in the Bay when this extraordinary incident 
 took place, and when the people, assembled in public meeting to 
 protest against this overt act, and appealed for protection from the 
 English man-o’-war, the officer in command Sir Baldwin Walker, 
 refused to interfere, or if he did interfere it was in support of the 
 action of the French officer. 
 
 This incident is but a succession of similar incidents, equally 
 deplorable, enacted by the Naval Power of France over the 
 littoral permitted for French fishing operations ; for on repeated 
 occasions, when Newfoundland vessels have been engaged in the 
 various harbours and bays on the West Coast of Newfoundland, or ’ 
 have been suspected by the French Naval Authorities to have been 
 engaged in fishing operations, they have been commanded to cease 
 operations, to weigh anchor, and leave the harbours or bays, and it is 
 not to be wondered at that such commands, given under the cover 
 of the guns of a French man-o’-war should be vigorously pro- 
 tested against by the Colonists. 
 
 Under such circumstances as these there can be no security of title, 
 no right of occupation or possession for the Newfoundlanders of any 
 kind whatsoever on the territory within which the French have fishing 
 rights; and the practical effect of the open vindication of these 
 claims raised by France must be an insuperable obstacle to the 
 development of the resources of Newfoundland, for the result has 
 inevitably been the locking up of what is believed to be rich resources 
 in agriculture, in mineral, and in forest wealth, over the most valuable 
 part of Newfoundland. 
 
 It is a well-known fact that English and Americans have been wil- 
 ling to invest capital for the development of the mineral resources 
 in Newfoundland, but the action of France in regard to her Treaty 
 rights have been always an insuperable obstacle, and these valuable 
 enterprises have been put aside to the great injury of the Colony. 
 
 To such an extent have the English rights of Sovereignty been 
 challenged by France, that the Government of Newfoundland and the 
 Imperial Government at home, have been prevented to carry out a 
 project for the building of a railway across Newfoundland, because the 
 terminus at St. George’s Bay on the west coast would have been 
 within the limits of what are called the French Treaty rights. 
 
4 6 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 MISSION OF THE DELEGATES FROM 
 NEWFOUNDLAND IN 1890. 
 
 Now we are tolerably aware of the position taken up by Great 
 Britain and France on this Newfoundland Fishery Question, but 
 what is the position taken by the people and Legislature of New- 
 foundland, and what are the reasons that have led them successively 
 and successfully to resist the various Anglo-French Conventions for 
 the settlement of the difficulty ? 
 
 Last year a Special Delegation, sent, not from the responsible 
 * Government, but from the people and Parliament of Newfoundland, 
 enabled us to obtain some valuable information, and to form an 
 impartial judgment on the whole question from a Newfoundland 
 point of view, the point of view that England should endeavour to 
 approach the controversy. 
 
 The people of Newfoundland, through the delegates, declare they 
 are weary of waiting, and weary of the repeated failures of all diplomatic 
 efforts, and therefore they determined to bring before the people of 
 England, by this delegation, their grievances, or, to use their own 
 words, the cruel hardships which Britain's most ancient Colony has 
 suffered long, convinced that no Government will be able to grapple 
 with the difficulty by the only way that it should be grappled with, 
 unless the public conscience of England is roused to a sense of the 
 injuries inflicted on a loyal portion of the British Empire, and the 
 public judgment convinced that the claims made by Newfoundland 
 are wholly right and just. 
 
 The first question that we asked the Newfoundland Delegation, and 
 the question that will naturally occur to every unbiassed mind, 
 how is it that every attempt at negotiation, and every Anglo-French 
 Convention based upon them from 1844 to 1885, have signally failed 
 to secure a basis of settlement ? And how is it that each and all of 
 these Anglo-French Conventions have been rejected by the people, 
 the Parliament, and the Government of Newfoundland, when finally 
 submitted to them for their approval ? 
 
 Their reply was this : These various Commissions, in the first 
 place, were purely Anglo-French Commissions, determined upon 
 and appointed, ab initio , without the knowledge or co-operation 
 of the responsible authorities in Newfoundland, and often in face 
 of their protestations; and that, with the exception of the last Com- 
 mission of 1884-5, they were practically unacquainted with the whole 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 47 
 
 controversy, and out of touch with the opinions of the Newfound- 
 landers, on the question ; Commissions composed, in most instances, 
 if not always, by military and naval men, who often brought to the 
 discussion of the question those Imperial considerations represented 
 by the words, Civis Romanus Sum. 
 
 And, on the other hand, the results of the labours of the Com- 
 missions, and the terms of the Articles and Protocols of the Conven- 
 tions left untouched, or at the most dealt inadequately with the more 
 serious matters in dispute, those vital questions for the Colony, of 
 its territorial Sovereignty, that placed it in imminent peril. 
 
 By the rigid enforcement of the assumed French rights over the 
 territory of Newfoundland, which France maintains has been 
 guaranteed to her for fishing operations by Treaties, the Colonists 
 declare that they are prohibited thereby from constructing any 
 building whatsoever, or of making any road or thoroughfare ; and 
 further, that they are prevented from purchasing or entering upon the 
 occupation of a single rood of land within the three miles area of the 
 coast line ; in fact, according to the interpretation by France of the 
 Treaties, the territory is French, and not English, and the subjects 
 of England in Newfoundland must be amenable to the law of France, 
 and to any action which she may take to enforce her assumed rights. 
 
 The position, therefore, taken up by the Newfoundlanders, in regard 
 to the interpretation and application of the Treaties is this, that the so- 
 called French rights, either for the use of the waters, or for the 
 occupation of the territory, are strictly limited to the actual fishery 
 rights under the Treaties. That is to say, that there should be in 
 the first place no exclusive “ French rights,” but concurrent rights 
 by the Newfoundlanders, with no limitation to its exercise by the 
 English colonists, but an absolute right of fishing upon the waters or 
 in the harbours, surrounding the territory of Newfoundland. 
 
 On the contrary, the French fisherman considers, and this view is 
 supported by the Government of France, that he has an absolute 
 right to fish wherever he pleases, that the 700 miles of coast line of 
 Newfoundland, and of its shores, rippled by the waters, is always open 
 to him to carry on his fishing operations, and that there is no limit 
 whatsoever to his right of selection, nor of action. 
 
 The Frenchmen, backed up by the naval power of France on the 
 spot, which in its action is supported by the authority of the 
 Ministers of the French Government, boldly declares against any 
 permanent occupation by British subjects of any part of the reserved 
 ground, for any purpose whatever, because it would be an interrup- 
 
48 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 tion to him in the exercise of his fishing rights under Treaty 
 engagements. 
 
 Again, and in a special manner, contended for by the colonists of 
 Newfoundland there is no legal tribunal, no Court of Appeal, for the 
 determination of the whole question, and the worst part of the 
 judicial business is this, that neither France nor England have been 
 willing, for a period of 2 7 7 years, to accept each other’s interpretation 
 of the Treaties. 
 
 It is somewhat remarkable that in this age of constitutional 
 freedom, and passion for judicial legislation everywhere, especially in 
 England, that the arbitrament of these interminable and vexatious 
 disputes between France and Newfoundland should be decided, 
 not by legal and judicial tribunals in Newfoundland, not by the 
 Privy Council, not by the Colonial Office, or the Secretary of State 
 for the Colonies, but by the arbitrament of a Naval Tribunal, composed 
 of British and French officers alone, ignorant of International Law, it 
 may be hostile to the aspirations of the people, and to the honourable 
 traditions of France and England, in favour of a just and generous 
 policy to subject races. 
 
 Finally the people and Parliament of Newfoundland declare that any 
 solution of the present difficulties, whether by Arbitration, Joint Com- 
 missions, or other international arrangements, by which the spirit or 
 letter of the Treaties from 1713 to 1815 are maintained, will in their 
 opinion be an absolute failure ; that the obligations under these 
 Treaties will keep alive disputes at every point, increasing in number, 
 and intensify ng in bitterness ; that the hardships inflicted thereby upon 
 the people of Newfoundland have become intolerable, that the utmost 
 bounds of endurance on their part have been reached; and that' 
 there is but one way of escape, one solution, that as these Treaties 
 cannot be mended, they must be ended, and a termination put to 
 these so-called French Treaty Rights, out of which all these suffer- 
 ings, losses, and troubles have arisen. 
 
 And in terminating these French Treaty Rights, they do not for a 
 moment propose that they should be terminated or repudiated with- 
 out fair and reasonable compensation to France, for they admit that 
 France has certain rights under them ; and that to terminate them 
 will require concessions and compensation on the part of England. 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 49 
 
 THE DELEGATION OF 1891. 
 
 This year another Delegation from Newfoundland, appointed, in 
 response to an invitation from H.M. Government, by the Colonial 
 Parliament, arrived in London on the 20 th inst., consisting of the 
 following gentlemen : — Sir William Whiteway, Premier ; the Hon. 
 G. H. Emerson, Speaker of the House of Assembly; the Hon. 
 A. W. Harvey and James Stuart Pitts, Members of the Legislative 
 Council ; and A. Morine, Member of the House of Assembly. 
 
 They have been appointed for the purpose of submitting the views 
 of the Colonial Government, to the Parliament of England, prior to 
 the special Legislation proposed in regard to the renewal of the 
 modus vivendi , being adopted by the two Houses of Parliament, 
 which has been recommended by H.M. Government. 
 
 This Delegation being more influential and official than that 
 of last year, its action and declarations, therefore, are more weighty, 
 and deserve, as they will obtain, more serious attention from the 
 Parliament and Government of England. 
 
 Whether by pre-arrangement or by accident, we will not stop to 
 enquire, the Address from the Parliament and Joint Legislatures 
 of Newfoundland, entrusted to the Delegates for presentation to 
 the Imperial Parliament, was telegraphed from New York on the 
 17 th inst., and it appeared in the columns of the Times on the 
 following day, and as this Address represents the calm and deliberate 
 judgment of the Executive of the Colony, we submit its full text, 
 which is as follows : — 
 
 “ We the legislative Council of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland beg leave 
 to approach your honourable Parliament and to appeal for your protection and sup- 
 port under circumstances which have filled the minds of all classes of this country with 
 profound anxiety and dismay. 
 
 “ Your honourable House may be aware that the old-time difficulties, consequent 
 upon the Treaties of Great Britain and France on the subject of the Newfoundland 
 fisheries, have of late years assumed an unaccustomed gravity producing a painful and 
 ceaseless agitation among our people. 
 
 ' ‘ Two delegates have proceeded from this country during the last year to represent 
 to Her Majesty’s Goverment the exorbitant claims of the French under the alleged 
 sanction of the treaties referred to, and, further, to point out the injustice wrought 
 upon the natives of Newfoundland. Their efforts for redress have been so far unsuc- 
 cessful, and we are now confronted with a new evil essentially more intolerable than 
 any of those with which experience has rendered us so familiar. We refer to the pro- 
 posal of Her Majesty’s Government, by the Bill now before your honourable Parlia- 
 ment, to re-enact the Act George IV., cap. 51, for the better conduct of treaties 
 between Great Britain and France respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries, which Act 
 expired in 1834. 
 
 D 
 
5o 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 ‘ ‘ This Act embodied provisions of an arbitrary and oppressive character, wholly 
 repugnant to those principles of liberty and justice which are held to be the basis of 
 modern British legislation. They conferred upon the officers of Her Majesty’s ships 
 the, duties of a protective service and intrusted them with the settlement of treaty 
 disputes, with powers of summary adjudication independent of all those restrictions 
 and safeguards which British law has devised for the defence of the inherent rights of 
 the British subjects. These powers extended to the most severe penal inflictions and 
 were beyond all appeal, and when it is remembered that they were exercised by 
 persons unacquainted with legal procedure, whose peculiar training and habits of 
 thought and action were dictated by an unquestioning submission to decrees, it must 
 be manifest that extreme hardship and injustice were the frequent inevitable results. 
 
 ‘ ‘ It may be alleged that while the Act in question was yet upon the Statute-book it 
 had been allowed to lapse into comparative desuetude, so incompatible with modern 
 civilisation would have been the application of this barbarous law. Unhappily the 
 record of the years 1877, 1888, and 1889 gives instances of its enforcement, under 
 assumed authority, with disastrous consequences to the property and industry of some 
 of Her Majesty’s subjects engaged in the fisheries of Newfoundland. We submit that 
 this law cannot possibly be rendered applicable to the circumstances which it is 
 designed to meet. All the social and general conditions of Newfoundland, particu- 
 larly those parts of the coasts affected by international treaties, have undergone a 
 radical and complete change in the many years that have elapsed since the law was 
 under consideration. There was then no resident population in those localities, which 
 have been long since settled in considerable numbers ; while trade from various 
 sources of employment has become developed and yields its contributions to the 
 Customs revenue. 
 
 ‘ * Several years ago her Majesty’s Government confirmed the occupation of the 
 coast by acceding to the desire of the residents for representation in the House of 
 Assembly and for the appointment of magistrates and police. They are periodically 
 visited by the Supreme Court of Circuit ; they have regular communication with the 
 rest of the country and with Canada by mail and passenger steamers. In a word, 
 they have all the ordinary institutions of civil life. The permanence of their position 
 being thus conclusively assured and recognised, it can hardly be necessary to point 
 out with what cruel severity and with what destructive effect the proposed law will 
 operate upon the trade and industries and upon every other appreciable interest cf 
 this section 
 
 ‘ ‘ The loyal inhabitants of this whole dependency of the British Crown would, 
 therefore, 'most earnestly implore your honourable House, by all its honoured and 
 revered traditions, to desist from inflicting upon the people of this country the 
 calamity of such an enactment as that now under contemplation. 
 
 “ We would remind your honourable House that her Majesty’s Government and 
 France lately agreed upon arbitration respecting the Newfoundland fisheries, such 
 tribunal proposing to deal with one question only — the recent question of the lobster 
 fishery. This partial proceeding has been decided upon, not only without reference 
 to the Newfoundland Government, but against their emphatic protest. We, on the 
 part of the colony, beg to present an equally emphatic protest against the course 
 adopted in direct violation of the principles of that constitutional form of government 
 which it is our privilege to possess. 
 
 “We would, in conclusion, respectfully invoke the aid of your honourable House for 
 protection of the treaty rights of Newfoundland against the demand of the French for 
 exclusive fishery, including lobster fishing, on those portions of the coast where they 
 hold acknowledged privileges. The rights of British subjects have on several occa- 
 sions been declared and the pretensions of the French disallowed by some of the 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 5 1 
 
 ablest statesmen of Great Britain, notably Lord Palmerston, and only last year by the 
 Marquis of Salisbury. We feel that your honourable House will recognise the justice 
 of our prayer, and that the definitions of those high authorities shall not continue to 
 be mere theoretic pronouncements which France is permitted to contravene ; but that 
 they shall be carried out in their true significance to their full practical effect. 
 
 On the 23rd April, the House of Lords was the scene of unusual 
 interest, as their Lordships had consented to receive at the Bar of 
 that august Assembly the Delegates from Newfoundland, and, in view 
 of the earnest desire on the part of the Colonial Parliament, to hear 
 objections which they entertain against the Bill proposed by H.M. 
 Government for the enforcement of the modus vivendi for 1891. 
 
 The Petition, or Address above referred to, having been presented 
 and read by Lord Dunraven, who from the first has evinced con- 
 siderable interest in the mission of the Delegation, his Lordship 
 moved that Sir William Whiteway, Prime Minister and Attorney 
 General of the Colony, be heard in propria persona in support of 
 the Petition, and this proposition having been seconded by H.M. 
 Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Knutsford, it was agreed 
 to ne?nine contradicente. The Delegates having advanced to the 
 Bar, their spokesman, Sir William Whiteway, delivered an exhaustive 
 speech to their Lordships, which set forth the objections, and the 
 reasons for them, held by Newfoundland, not only to the special 
 legislation for the enforcement of the modus vivendi , but also to 
 the reference by Arbitration decided upon for the settlement of the 
 lobster difficulty, and moreover, against the whole policy, from first 
 to last adopted by the Imperial Government towards Newfound- 
 land. 
 
 This speech of the Prime Minister of Newfoundland must be con- 
 sidered as the last contribution, may we not say the ultimatum , from 
 the Government of the Colony to H.M. Government, and therefore, 
 it demands, as it no doubt will receive, the close and serious atten- 
 tion of the people and Parliament of England, and on this account, 
 if for no other reason, we are bound to examine carefully its scope 
 and character. 
 
 At the outset, Sir William Whiteway referred to the Treaty of 
 Paris, 1763, and the Treaty of Versailles, 1783, and recom- 
 mended attention to Article VI. of the former Treaty, and 
 Article IV. of the latter Treaty, which restored to France the fishing 
 rights under the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, and, as will be seen at 
 page 8, Article XIII. of that Treaty, conferred on France the right 
 to fish and dry the fish on land from Cape Bonavista to Cape Riche, 
 
5 2 
 
 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 and this right by Article V. of the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, was 
 renewed, from Cape St. John to Cape Ray. 
 
 The legislation by the Imperial Parliament, five years subsequently 
 in 1788, and which was especially emphasized by Sir William White- 
 way, is of great importance, because it not only was the first Act 
 passed by the Imperial Government to define more clearly the Treaty 
 obligations of England of 1713, 1763, and 1783, (when their in- 
 terpretations were more clearly understood than at the present time), 
 but it also proves unmistakably, that the rights conferred on France 
 by these Treaties, and subsequently confirmed by the successive 
 Treaties of 1792, 1802, and 1814-1815, were absolute and exclusive, 
 and that the concurrent rights of British subjects were not recognised, 
 but, on the contrary excluded, as is clearly set forth in the Act of 
 1788, which was as follows : — 
 
 Section /. 
 
 “ It shall and may be lawful for His Majesty, his heirs and successors, by advice of 
 Council, from time to time, to give such orders and instructions to the Governor of 
 Newfoundland, or to any officer or officers on that station, as he or they shall deem 
 proper or necessary to fulfil the purposes of the definitive treaty and declaration afore- 
 said ; and, if it shall be necessary to that end, to give orders and instructions to the 
 Governor, or other officer or officers aforesaid, to. remove or cause to be removed any 
 stages, flakes, train vats, or other works whatever, for the purpose of carrying on 
 fishery, erected by His Majesty’s subjects on that part of the coast of Newfoundland 
 which lies between Cape St. John passing to the north, and descending by the western 
 coast of the said island to the place called Cape Rage, and also all ships, vessels, and 
 boats belonging to His Majesty’s subjects which shall be found within the limits 
 aforesaid ; and also, in case of refusal to depart from within the limits aforesaid, to 
 compel any of His Majesty’s subjects to depart from thence, any law, custom, or 
 usage to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 * Section II. 
 
 * ‘ And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if any person or persons 
 shall refuse, upon requisition made by the Governor, or any officer or officers acting 
 under him, in pursuance of His Majesty's orders or instructions as aforesaid, to depart 
 from within the limits aforesaid, or otherwise to conform to such requisition and 
 directions as such Governor or other officer as aforesaid shall make or give for the 
 purposes aforesaid, every such person or persons so refusing, or otherwise offending 
 against the same, sliall forfeit the sum of jQ 200 , to be recovered in the Court of Session 
 or Court of Vice-Admiralty in the said island of Newfoundland, or by bill, plaint, or 
 information in any of His Majesty’s Courts of Record at Westminster ; one moiety of 
 such penalty to belong to His Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the other moiety 
 to such person or persons as shall sue or prosecute for the same ; provided always that 
 every such suit or prosecution, if the same is commenced in Newfoundland, shall be 
 commenced within three months, and if commenced in any of His Majesty’s Courts of 
 Record at Westminster, within 12 months, from the time of the commission of such 
 offence. " 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 53 
 
 Sir William Whiteway referred to the above sections of the Act of 
 1788, and admitted that the rights of France for fishing operations 
 were exclusive at that time, and for some time afterwards ; but he is 
 of opinion that no subsequent legislation renewed this Act of 1788, 
 and that, therefore, its operation ceased by the lapse of time. That 
 opinion is, however, not held by France, and she brings forward in 
 support of her position, several important declarations of Statesmen, 
 and Jurisconsults, which, in justice to her, should not be altogether 
 ignored. 
 
 We find that in 1802, Admiral Gambier, the Governor of New- 
 foundland, declared that all the fishing establishments ought to be 
 destroyed without distinction, and that all British subjects are com- 
 pelled to remove them; and 22 years later, in 1824, the Imperial 
 Parliament prolonged for a period of five years the powers conferred 
 upon the Crown, by the afore-mentioned Act, of 1788. 
 
 In 1835, the Law Advisers of the Crown were consulted by H.M. 
 Government, whether, by the terms of the Treaties, British subjects 
 were permitted to share with the French the right to fish upon the 
 reserved coast-line; and they declared, that in their opinion, the 
 French have the exclusive right to fish on that part of the coast of 
 Newfoundland, from Cape St. John to Cape Ray. 
 
 In 1837, H.M. Government again invited the attention of the 
 Attorney-General to give, de nouveau , an opinion on the same subject, 
 and the following was his declaration : — 
 
 “ If there really existed within the limits of the districts in question, a space entirely 
 sufficient so that the fishermen of both nations might fish therein without coming in 
 contact with each other, we are inclined to think that this country is not bound to pre- 
 vent its subjects from fishing there. It seems, however, from the report of Admiral 
 Halkett, that this is difficult to carry out, and we think that, according to the real 
 bearing or extent of the Treaty and to the declaration, British subjects are excluded 
 from the right of fishing there, if they cannot do it without interfering with French 
 fishing. 
 
 It would appear, therefore, that from 1713 to 1838, France has 
 claimed, under these Treaties, the exclusive right, and has exercised 
 it, of fishing operations over her reserved ground, and that right has 
 been recognised by the Imperial Parliament on more than one 
 occasion ; and also that H.M. Government, acting on the legal 
 opinions of the Law Advisers of the Crown, have so interpreted 
 and applied the Act of 1788. It is since 1838, that from some 
 cause which is not apparent, this exclusive right contended for by 
 France, has been allowed gradually to be considered by the Colonists 
 
54 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 as one of sufferance only, or rather as a right concurrent for French, 
 and British subjects. 
 
 The next subject dealt with by Sir William Whiteway, referred 
 to the objections raised by the Colony against the proposed 
 Legislation for the enforcement of the modus vivendi of 1891, 
 and herein he observes, that these objections are on the ground 
 that it was introduced into the Imperial Parliament, before the 
 Government or the Legislature of Newfoundland had an op- 
 portunity to consider it ; and he further adds, that neither this pro- 
 posed Act, nor any other Act, has ever been submitted to the 
 Colonial Government for their approval, as he considers it ought to 
 have been, in accordance with the Constitution granted to Newfound- 
 land by Charter. Now this objection cannot be sustained, for last 
 year the modus vivendi proposed by France to England, was sub- 
 mitted to the Colonial Government, on the 28th, January, 1890, and 
 they promised to accept it temporarily, provided certain amendments 
 were accepted, and on the 1 2th March, when these amendments were 
 accepted by France and England it was submitted for a second 
 time to the Colonial Legislature for their final approval, when it was 
 rejected. 
 
 It would appear, judging by the objections brought forward by Sir 
 William Whiteway, at considerable length, that the Colonial Govern- 
 ment overlook the fact, that the niodus vivendi for 1891, for which 
 special legislation is necessary, is in the first place but temporary ; and 
 secondly, that it is forced on H.M. Government in consequence of 
 the serious difficulties that have arisen on the subject of Lobster 
 fishing and lobster establishments, difficulties, mainly, if not entirely 
 created by the Bait Act, passed by the Colonial Legislature. 
 
 The position taken up by Newfoundland on this subject of the 
 modus vivendi , and of the necessary special legislation to give it the 
 authority of law, as well as of the scheme of Arbitration proposed 
 by H.M. Government, and accepted by France, for the settlement of 
 this Lobster difficulty, is undoubtedly an untenable one ; and the 
 alleged reasons in support of this position prove, the more they are 
 carefully examined, that England has a very hard nut to crack in this 
 Newfoundland embroglio , which unless speedily and effectually dis- 
 posed of, may prove perilous to the peace and prosperity of the 
 Colony. 
 
 The opposition of the Colony to the Arbitration Commission 
 which has been appointed, is regrettable, and the reasons alleged for 
 this opposition by Sir William Whiteway are unreasonable, for he de- 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 55 
 
 dares that a " piecemeal settlement ” by Arbitration is strongly to be 
 deprecated, and that no Arbitration will be acceptable to the Colony 
 that does not include all the questions arising under the Treaties. 
 
 Whilst we sympathise with the Prime Minister of Newfound- 
 land in his desire to have all the questions in dispute between 
 Newfoundland and France referred for settlement to Arbitration, yet 
 we cannot agree with him in the opinion that because England and 
 France have agreed to refer the Lobster difficulty, which really is the 
 crux of the complications, to Arbitration, therefore it is desirable to 
 have no Arbitration whatever. 
 
 The Government of Newfoundland surely are aware, that H.M. 
 Government have endeavoured strenuously and most praiseworthily, 
 as the Despatches testify, to influence the Government of France to 
 accept the wider proposals of a reference to Arbitration of all the 
 questions in dispute, as referred to in the Despatch of ist July, 1890, 
 addressed by Sir William Whiteway to H.M. Government, and having 
 failed in that direction, they took another step, referred to in the 
 Despatch of the Marquis of Salisbury, of the 17th November, 1890, 
 which was as follows : — 
 
 “ That in consideration of a good Bait Bill, and a sum of money to be afterwards 
 agreed upon, the French Government should abandon all their special rights on the 
 shores or in the territorial waters of Newfoundland, and should also discontinue the 
 practice of giving a bounty on fish not consumed in French territory. 
 
 For a second time H.M. Government failed to secure the approval 
 of France, and undaunted by these refusals, they again approached 
 the French Government, and the result was the acceptance by 
 France of a reference to Arbitration of the Lobster difficulty, in the 
 first instance, and by Clause IV. in the Anglo-French Agreement, 
 signed in London on the nth March, it is more than probable, that 
 the other remaining questions of difference will be considered. That 
 Clause we quote again and it is as follows : — 
 
 ‘ ‘ As soon as the question relative to the catching and preparation of lobsters shall 
 have been decided by the Commission, it may take cognisance of other subsidiary 
 questions relative to the fisheries on the above mentioned portion or the coasts of New- 
 foundland, and upon the text of which the two Governments shall have previously 
 come to an agreement.” 
 
 The acceptance by the French Government of the proposal of 
 H.M. Government, for a reference of the one vexed question of the 
 Lobster difficulty to a Court of Arbitration, composed of eminent 
 Jurisconsults, such as Frederick de Martens, of St. Petersburg, 
 M. Rivier, of Switzerland, and M. Gram, of Holland, so eminently 
 
56 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 impartial and judicial in their character, should be looked upon and 
 accepted by the Government of Newfoundland, as a great concession 
 from France, considering the resolute position which she has taken up 
 and maintained, for a period of at least two centuries ; and further as a 
 great moral victory achieved by H.M. Government on behalf of the 
 Colony. 
 
 Moreover, it could hardly be expected that the Statesmen and Par- 
 liament of the Republic of France could give their consent, without 
 grave consideration, and hesitation, to the sweeping proposals 
 of the Government of Newfoundland for a reference, en bloc , 
 of the many numerous and perplexing questions, that have for 
 so lengthened a period agitated, may we not say convulsed to its 
 very centre, the Colony ; for these questions in dispute affect 
 keenly the ancient traditions of France, reaching as far back as 
 the 15th and 16th centuries, and especially the honourable fulfillment 
 of the celebrated Treaties, negotiated after great and sanguinary 
 wars between Great Britain and France, that resulted in tremendous 
 territorial sacrifices by France on the North American Continent, of 
 which Newfoundland was not the least important. 
 
 It must also be borne in mind, that the principle and practice of 
 Arbitration for the pacific settlement of international disputes, is a pro- 
 cedure of modern origin, and is looked upon as of a, novel and 
 innovating character by a Nation such as France, whose career and 
 history for many centuries, has been bound up, and associated with a 
 policy of force majeure for the arbitrament of her national differences, 
 and for the enforcement of her international rights ■ and therefore, 
 the Statesmen of France of to-day, consider that they are entering 
 on newly-trodden ground, that they are accepting a policy that 
 hitherto has not found its way into the conscience and mind of the 
 French people, neither received a willing ear in the Courts and 
 Councils of the Republic. 
 
 Under these circumstances, and on these grounds, it seems reason- 
 able, nay imperative, that H.M. Government have appreciated the 
 advances made by France towards a pacific settlement, and that they 
 have been willing to accept in good faith this proposal, as one of a 
 tentative character, as a move in the right direction, in the belief and 
 hope that it may prove a stepping-stone for the ultimate adjudication 
 of all the other conflicting subjects, that have so long barred the road 
 to the peace, progress, and prosperity of Newfoundland. 
 
 The Colonial Government do not appear to have realised the 
 nature or extent of the difficulties of Her Majesty’s Government, in 
 
THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 
 
 57 
 
 thier negociations with France, for the settlement of the various ques- 
 tions in dispute ; or, if they have realised them, they evidently have 
 not fully appreciated the ceaseless efforts of the present, and past 
 Administrations of the Mother Country, to unravel the tangled skein 
 of Anglo-French relations with Newfoundland, extending over the 
 lengthened period of one hundred and seventy-eight years, and even 
 to a still more remote period. 
 
 The various and complex questions that at the present time claim 
 anxious attention in regard to Newfoundland, the Statesmen of 
 France and England are not in any way responsible for, as they are 
 the legacies bequeathed from the deplorable wars, waged by the two 
 Nations from 1689 to 1815 ; wars, fomented by jealousy, and fanned 
 by an insatiable thirst for territorial aggrandisement ; wars, that the 
 Treaties of Ryswick, Utrecht, Paris, and Versailles mark, not only in 
 a conspicuous manner the conquests that were achieved, but also 
 display the blundering statesmanship of a Castlereagh and a Boling- 
 broke, who were responsible for the Articles, and Protocols of 
 these Treaties, and these blunders and laches , England and France 
 are to-day called upon to remedy, and, if possible, for ever to re- 
 move. 
 
 Under such circumstances we would venture to urge the Parlia- 
 ment and Government of Newfoundland, now that they are within 
 measurable distance of an honourable and enduring settlement of 
 the vexed questions in dispute with France, to exercise patience, 
 moderation, and wisdom, and especially, to rely with an unshaken 
 trust, and an undiminished loyalty on the courage and patriotism of 
 the Parliament and Statesmen of England, to arrive at a modus 
 vivendi with the Republic of France, which shall satisfy the reason- 
 able anticipations of the Colony, for a freer and wider industrial and 
 commercial life, and at the same time to secure for her the fruition 
 of those higher aspirations for territorial and maritime freedom, 
 under the cegis of the Sovereignty of England. 
 
PRINTED BY 
 
 THE HANSARD PUBLISHING UNION, LIMITED, LONDON 
 AND REDHILL. 
 
' 
 
TENT 
 
 larly History of Newfoundland. 
 
 ' 
 
 Its General Characteristics, 
 slands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. 
 
 
 li 
 
 The Shoals around Newfoundland. 
 
 History of the Treaties 1713, 1703, 1 
 1792, 1818. 
 
 he French Fishing Industry. 
 
 Political Situation. 
 
 History of the Negotiations from 1844 t<: 
 
 The Cause of the Failure of Negotiations 
 The Lobster Difficulty. 
 
 The “ Modus Vivendi ” and its Results. 
 The Arbitration Proposals. 
 
 The Delegation from Newfoundland. 
 Reply to Speech of Sir William Whitewaj 
 General Review of the Questio 
 
 — 
 
 >0N 
 
 ISH AND FOREIGN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION 
 
 Palace Chambers, 9, Bridge Street, Westminster, 8.W.