thousand inhabitants, and with an aggregate tonnage of six hundred and sixty-one thousand three hundred and sixty-seven tons upon the waters which discharge into it. The foreign commerce of our ports on these waters is open to British competition, and the major part of it is done in British bottoms.

If the American seamen be excluded from this natural avenue to the ocean, the monopoly of the direct commerce of the Lake ports with the Atlantic would be in foreign hands; their vessels on Transatlantic voyages having an access to our Lake ports which would be denied to American vessels on similar voyages. To state such a proposition is to refute its justice.

During the administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams, Mr. Clay unanswerably demonstrated the natural right of the citizens of the United States to the navigation of this river, claiming that the Act of the Congress of Vienna, in opening the Rhine and other rivers to all nations, showed the judgment of European jurists and statesmen that the inhabitants of a country through which a navigable river passes have a natural right to enjoy the navigation of that river to and into the sea, even though passing through the territories of another Power. This right does not exclude the co-equal right of the Sovereign possessing the territory through which the river debouches into the sea to make such regulations relative to the police of the navigation as may be reasonably necessary; but those regulations should be framed in a liberal spirit of comity, and should not impose needless burdens upon the commerce which has the right of transit. It has been found in practice more advantageous to arrange these regulations by mutual agreement. The United States are ready to make any reasonable arrangement, as to the police of the St. Lawrence, which may be suggested by Great Britain.

If the claim made by Mr. Clay was just when the population of States bordering on the shores of the lakes was only three million four hundred thousand, it now derives greater force and equity from the increased population, wealth, production, and tonnage of the States on the Canadian frontier. Since Mr. Clay advanced his argument in behalf of our right the principle for which he contended has been frequently, and by various nations, recognized by law or by Treaty, and has been extended to several other great rivers. By the Treaty concluded at Mayence, in 1831, the Rhine was declared free from the point where it is first navigable into the sea. By the Convention between Spain and Portugal, concluded in 1835, the navigation of the Douro, throughout its whole extent, was made free for the subjects of both Crowns. In 1853 the Argentine Confederation by Treaty threw open the free navigation of the Parana and the Uruguay to the mechant vessels of all nations. In 1856 the Crimean War was closed by a Treaty which provided for the free navigation of the Danube. In 1858 Bolivia, by Treaty, declared that it regarded the rivers Amazon and La Plata, in accordance with fixed principles of national law, as highways or channels. opened by nature, for the commerce of all nations. In 1859 the Paraguay was made free by Treaty, and in December 1866, the Emperor of Brazil, by Imperial decree, declared the Amazon to be open, to the frontier of Brazil, to the merchant ships of all nations. The greatest living British authority on this subject, while

asserting the abstract right of the British claim, says: "It seems difficult to deny that Great Britain may ground her refusal upon strict law, but it is equally difficult to deny, first, that in doing so she exercises harshly an extreme and hard law; secondly, that her conduct with respect to the navigation of the St. Lawrence is in glaring and discreditable inconsistency with her conduct with respect to the navigation of the Mississippi. On the ground that she possessed a small domain, in which the Mississippi took its rise, she insisted on the right to navigate the entire volume of its waters. On the ground that she possesses both banks of the St. Lawrence, where it disembogues itself into the sea, she denies to the United States the right of navigation, though about one-half of the waters of the lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, and Superior, and the whole of Lake Michigan, through which the river flows, are the property of the United States."

243

The whole nation is interested in securing cheap transportation from the agricultural States of the west to the Atlantic seaboard. To the citizens of those States it secures a greater return for their labour; to the inhabitants of the seaboard it affords cheaper food; to the nation, an increase in the annual surplus of wealth. It is hoped that the Government of Great Britain will see the justice of abandoning the narrow and inconsistent claim to which her Canadian Provinces have urged her adherence.

No. 154.-1870, December 27: Report of Committee of the Privy Council of Canada.

(Confidential.)

The Committee of the Privy Council, while engaged in the consideration of a Report from the Minister of Marine and fisheries, on various Despatches on the subject of the regulations for protecting the British fisheries in North America, which were referred to them by your Excellency for their advice, have learned, with considerable surprise, that the conduct of the Canadian Government with regard both to the protection of those fisheries and to the navigation of the River St. Lawrence, has been animadverted on by the President of the United States in his recent Message to Congress.

It is, in the opinion of the Committee of the Privy Council, a significant fact that the President of the United States has in his late Message adopted the unusual course of animadverting on the proceedings of Canada, which is styled, "this semi-independent Dominion," instead of remonstrating through the usual diplomatic channels against any acts committed by Canadian authorities in violation of the Treaty of 1818, under which the United States renounced all right on the part of their citizens to fish in British waters, with certain exceptions, which have not led to controversy.

Such a course is obviously calculated to produce uneasiness in the minds of Her Majesty's subjects in Great Britain, who-having comparatively little interest in the British American fisheries, and a very deep interest in maintaining friendly relations with the United States must have experienced considerable anxiety on learning,

from such high authority as the President, that Canada had acted in an unfriendly way to the citizens of the United States.

It is, in the opinion of the Committee of the Privy Council, a circumstance that ought to be adverted to in connection with this most important subject, that in the same Message the President had previously stated it as his opinion, that " the time is not probably far distant when, in the natural course of events, the European political connection with this continent will cease," and had, when referring to the contemplated acquisition of San Domingo by the United States, given as one reason for such acquisition, "it is to promote honest means of paying our honest debts, without over-taxing the people." Her Majesty's Government cannot be unaware that the acquisition of Canada, and the consequent annihilation of British power and influence on this continent, is held by many influential American statesmen to be the "manifest destiny" of their country, and to be an object, the accomplishment of which they think themselves justified in promoting by every kind of pressure that they can bring to bear on Her Majesty's Canadian subjects. Under such circumstances, and with a distinct recommendation from the President of the United States to the Senate and House of Representatives, that they should confer upon the Executive the power to suspend the operation of the laws authorizing the transit of goods, wares, and merchandise, in bond, across the territory of the United States to Canada, and also to suspend the operation of any laws whereby Canadian vessels are permitted to enter the waters of the United States, the Committee of the Privy Council feel it their duty to request your Excellency to transmit to Her Majesty's Government their views on the subjects adverted to in the Message of the President of the United States, in which Canada is interested.

The Committee of the Privy Council readily acknowledge that the execution of the President's threat of abolishing the bonding system, and of excluding Canadian vessels from American waters, would inflict serious inconvenience and loss on Her Majesty's Canadian subjects; but they feel assured that such inconvenience and loss would be borne with fortitude by the people of the Dominion, and they entertain little doubt that such a policy as that which has been recommended by the President, avowedly in retaliation of the measures adopted by the Imperial and Canadian Governments for the protection of the British fisheries during last season, would ere long lead to a reaction in the United States, many of whose citizens would be as deeply injured as Her Majesty's Canadian subjects by a policy of non-intercourse.

The Committee of the Privy Council trust that Her Majesty's Government will not be influenced in the slightest degree by the threats of the President. They feel assured that Her Majesty's Government will believe that it is the earnest desire of the Government and people of Canada to maintain the most friendly relations with the citizens of the United States. They venture to hope that in the various discussions which have taken place between the Imperial and Canadian Governments, on the points in controversy between Great Britain and the United States, your Excellency's advisers have shown themselves ready and willing to regulate their policy by that of the Imperial Government.

244

Under present circumstances, it is more than ever important that there should be an entire concurrence of action, and, if possible, of opinion, between the two Governments, and the Committee of the Privy Council are convinced that this will best be secured by a full and frank expression of their views.

The recent message of the President of the United States affords, in the opinion of the Committee of the Privy Council, conclusive proof that the conciliatory policy regarding the fisheries which has prevailed since the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty has not been appreciated by the United States. Had the vigorous policy, announced in Secretary Sir John Pakington's dispatch of 27th May, 1852 and which, though it caused great irritation, and led to many threats, secured, nevertheless, the ratification of the Reciprocity Treaty been resumed immediately on the abrogation of that treaty, the irritation which will never cease to exist so long as a single privilege is withheld from the American fishermen, would have been directed against the Government which had abrogated the treaty, and not against that of Canada. In the hope that conciliation would lead to important concessions to Canada, a temporizing policy has been pursued for years, and the result is that when very moderate restrictions are enforced the Chief Magistrate of the United States charges Canada with having acted in an unfriendly spirit.

The Committee of the Privy Council think it far from improbable that if the regulations, which were in existence prior to 1854, for protecting the British fisheries, had been enforced with equal vigour after the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, that treaty would long ere this have been renewed in a form that would have been acceptable to Canada.

The recent message of the President is, in their opinion, far from discouraging. It proves how severely the American fishermen have felt the very moderate restrictions imposed on them last season, and how strong will be the pressure which they will bring to bear on their own Government to secure for them in some way the privilege of fishing in British waters. The President, no doubt, hopes that he will accomplish that object by threats, but should these prove unavailing he will probably resort to negociation.

The Committee of the Privy Council are persuaded that concessions to the United States will invariably be followed by fresh demands.

So soon as Great Britain evinced a disposition to take a liberal view of the Headland question, a claim was set up that had never been previously thought of, that fishing vessels should be permitted to trade in Canadian ports, although the practical effect of such a concession would be to facilitate very greatly the illegal traffic of the American fishermen. But were this further concession made, the trespasses within the three mile limit would be stimulated, and if all other Canadian fishing rights were abandoned, the next demand would, probably, be for considerable cessions of territory. In the opinion of the Committee of the Privy Council it is advisable to adhere to the provisions of the Treaty of 1818. If the interpretation of that Treaty by the law officers of the Crown in England be disputed, a reference should be made to a friendly power, or to learned jurists impartially selected, to settle its true interpretation according to the principles of general and international law; but should such

a proposition not be entertained by the United States, then the Committee of the Privy Council maintain that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown should be acted on, and that the regulations which were in existence prior to 1854, should be enforced as promised by the Earl of Clarendon, in his Despatch to Sir F. Bruce, of 11th May, 1867.

The Committee of the Privy Council do not doubt that they will receive the support of Her Majesty's Government in enforcing the old regulations, and they were gratified to find that the Earl of Kimberley admitted, during Mr. Campbell's interview with his Lordship in July last, that the Canadians might reasonably expect that the state of things anterior to the Reciprocity Treaty should be reverted to.

Although your Excellency's advisers have been hitherto unwilling to object to refer the question relating to headlands, which has been so long in controversy between Great Britain and the United States, to a mixed Commission, in accordance with the proposal made by Mr. Adams, the United States Minister, at the Court of St. James', and conditionally assented to by the late Earl of Clarendon, they feel it their duty to point out that unless there should be some provision for umpirage, such a reference would be of no practical utility, and would be less likely to lead to a successful result than the mode already suggested.

The result of the proceedings of the St. Juan Boundary Commission does not afford much ground for anticipating a satisfactory solution of the question in controversy by a mixed Commission.

The Committee of the Privy Council must further observe, that unless there is a full concurrence of opinion between the Imperial and Canadian Governments, a joint commission on which both would be represented, might lead to misunderstanding.

The Committee of the Privy Council have no fear that the Imperial Government will abandon any of the rights of Canada without her consent; but they admit that Great Britain must decide on its own responsibility as to the extent of the support which it will give to Canada in enforcing its rights under the Treaty of 1818. Whatever may be the extent of that support, it seems highly desirable that before making any proposition to the United States, with a view to the constitution of a mixed Commission, there should be a clear understanding between the two Governments as to the subject of reference. It has never been imagined by the Canadian Government that any question was to be referred to the mixed Commission, except the definition of the waters in which American vessels could fish in accordance with the Treaty of 1818.

Since the correspondence between the Earl of Clarendon and Mr. Adams took place, an entirely new question has been raised by the United States which cannot properly be made a subject of reference to a mixed Commission. In direct contravention to the text of the Treaty of 1818, and to the uniform practice prior to 1854, the American Government has made pretensions to the right of entering British harbours to procure bait and other supplies, and to transship their fish.

245

Most conclusive proof of the correctness of the practice which was. in force prior to 1854, will be found in the fact that it appears by the protocols which were interchanged between the negotiators of the Treaty of 1818, that the United States proposed that trade in