p. 2198
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.” And by Article XIII. of the said last-named Treaty, that “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.” And by Article XI. of the Treaty of Paris, 1815, that the Treaty of Paris of the 30th May, 1814, and the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna of the 9th June, 1815, are confirmed, and shall be maintained in all such of their enactments which shall not have been modified by the Articles of the present Treaty.”
Under the provisions of these Treaties the French have hitherto maintained that they enjoy—
1. An exclusive right of fishery on that portion of the coast of Newfoundland between Cape St. John and Cape Ray, passing round by the north of the island.
2. That all British fixed settlements, of whatever nature, on that portion of the coast are contrary to Treaty.
The British Government, on the other hand, have maintained—
1. That British subjects have a right to fish concurrently with he French, so long as they do not interrupt the latter.
2. That the undertaking in the Declaration of 1783, to cause the removal of fixed settlements, referred only to fixed fishing settlements, and that fixed settlements of any other kind are not contrary to the Declaration.
French fishermen have, moreover, been in the habit of fishing the rivers, and of barring them with nets or weirs, interrupting the free circulation of salmon, and thereby causing great injury to the salmon fishery.
The British Government, however, have always maintained that the French have no right to the fisheries in rivers.
The Government of France each year during the fishing season employ ships of war to superintend the fishery exercised by their countrymen, and in consequence of the divergent views entertained by the two Governments respectively as to the interpretation to be placed upon the Treaties, questions of jurisdiction, which might at any moment have become serious, have repeatedly arisen.
Such being the provisions of the Treaties, and the construction placed upon them by the Governments and subjects of the two countries, practical difficulties have naturally occurred, and it has become of urgent importance that they should be removed.
The colonists have for some years past been desirous of developing the resources of their country as regards mines, agriculture, and other industries, but have constantly been met with the objections of the French Government to their doing so, and the development of the Colony on that part of the coast of Newfoundland where the French enjoy Treaty rights has been practically at a standstill, although rich mines are known to exist there, and the agricultural capabilities of the Colony are undoubtedly most valuable.
p. 2199
Your Government are aware that the present Commission is the eighth which has been appointed since the year 1846 for a settlement of the Newfoundland Fishery question, and it may be useful here to recapitulate briefly the various terms which have been proposed in the previous negotiations as a basis of settlement, in order to show distinctly how much more favourable to the Colony is the present arrangement as compared with the terms proposed on any previous occasion.
In the year 1844 the French Government proposed negotiations to be held in London, 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, President 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 Report 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 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 authorized to offer, in exchange for the French cession of all rights between Cape Ray and Bonne Bay, the following concessions
:—
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.
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 rights of fishing, curing fish, &c., at Cod Roy, Red Island, Port-à-Port, and Lark Harbour, and to acquire for the French a “concurrent” right of fishery on the coast of Labrador.
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 negotiations fell through.
On the application of the French Government in 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 Commissioner 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
p. 2200
themselves entitled by the Treaty of 1783. In return for this concession he demanded—
1. The right of 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 admissible, 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 question 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 requirements of a fixed population.
The French negotiator offered no objection to the plan of recognizing the French “exclusive right” on a diminished extent of coast ; but he contended for the retention 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, concurrently with British fishermen, to the fisheries of Labrador and 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 restrictions 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 forwarded 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 French 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.
The negotiations were continued in the year 1856 by Captain Pigeard,
p. 2201
who arrived in London in the month of July of that year, and by Mr. Merivale the Under-Secretary 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 14th January, 1857.
According to the stipulations of this Convention,1 a printed copy of which is annexed, 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-à-Port, Red Island, and Cod Roy Island, to extend, as regarded these five harbours, to a radius of 3 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 stipulated 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 cruizing vessel in sight or made known to be present within a distance of 5 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 recognized 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.
This Convention did not come into force owing to the objections raised by the Government of Newfoundland.
In the year 1859 a Mixed Commission, composed, on the part of Great
1 Convention of 1857.
p. 2202
Britain, of Captain Dunlop and Mr. Kent (Colonial Secretary in Newfoundland), and, on the part of France, of M. de Montaignac de Chauvance and M. de Gobineau, was appointed to verify facts connected with the infraction of the Treaties ; and at the close of that year the Commissioners furnished their Report, accompanied by recommendations which led to the reopening of negotiations in 1860.
The Terms of a Convention, and of Joint Instructions to be given to the British and French naval officers on the Newfoundland Station, were then agreed on, and are inclosed (Inclosure 31), but the negotiations fell through, mainly in consequence of the wording of Articles 4 and 15 of the Joint Instructions.
The 4th Article related to the punishment of offenders in fishery disputes, and the 15th Article had reference to the removal of such buildings on the French Shore as might interfere with the French fishery, with regard to which it was found impossible to reconcile the conflicting views.
It may be useful to quote in extenso the latter Article, as the use of one word in it contributed more than anything else to the failure of the negotiations.
It was to the following effect in the French version:—
“Toute construction qui sera élevée à l'avenir sans le consentement de la Commission de Pêcheries sera enlevée par l'ordre du Commissaire Britannique et sans indemnité, dans un délai de six mois de la notification qui en sera faite, si la place occupée par la dite construction est requise pour les besoins de la pêche Française.”
It was proposed to substitute the words: "faite par la Commission que la place occupée par la dite construction est nécessaire pour les besoins de la pêche Française."
This alteration was proposed by the British Government in order to make the erections removable, not on a requisition from the French Government or its officer, but on notice from a Commission of which a British officer was a member. To this alteration the French Government objected on grounds with which it was difficult to deal, because they proceeded from an acknowledged difference of view between the two Governments. The British Government would, however, have been willing subsequently to waive their objections with regard to wording of the 4th and 15th Articles of the stipulations which were framed in 1860, and to accept the arrangement with some trifling modifications but on the matter being referred to the French Government the proposal was rejected, nor did the French Government give any reasons for their refusal to accept it.
In the month of OCtober 1874 negotiations were again renewed with the French Government, Captain (afterwards Admiral) Miller being appointed on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and Captain de Boissoudy on that of France, and were continued, with various interruptions, during the course of the years 1875 and 1876, and, as you are aware, were not productive of any settlement.
1 Proposed Convention of 1860, with Joint Instructions.
[1927lab]
|
