consider favourably any recommendations made in connection with these matters by Her Majesty's Government.

Owing to the absence from Ottawa of some of my Ministers, it is not probable that I shall be able to obtain a final expression of their views for two or three days. I may, however, in the meantime refer briefly to some of the points which will undoubtedly be raised before the proposal, even in its amended shape, can be entertained.

1. It would appear from the words of the Article, that a jurisdiction in all cases of seizure is to be given to the naval officers in command of the two "national vessels " detailed for this service. One of these officers will presumably belong to the American and the other to the British naval service. My Government will, I have no doubt, object to empowering a tribunal thus constituted, in which no Canadian representative will have a place, to deal with offences committed within Canadian territory, and against Canadian law.

2. Such a tribunal would not be competent to deal in a manner which would inspire public confidence, with intricate questions affecting international rights, such as those which have been raised in connection with the Fisheries dispute.

3. A floating tribunal, such as that which would be constituted under the Article, would have the greatest difficulty in obtaining evidence as to matters of fact. The offences for which vessels have been, or are likely to be seized, are as a rule committed in close proximity to the shore, and the bulk of the evidence relating to the offence is obtained from persons resident on shore, and could not be obtained by an examination merely of the masters and crews of the seized vessel, or of the vessel by which the seizure was made. This would be the case more especially in regard to such violations of the Convention, as might be involved by the purchase of bait or of supplies. In the same way evidence in regard to the precise position of a vessel alleged to have been fishing within the proscribed limits could often not be obtained, except by investigation conducted on shore. Such evidence could, it is submitted, be obtained with greater ease and rapidity by the local authorities, or by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to which all cases of seizure are at once reported by telegram, and which has great facilities for conducting local enquiries upon the spot, through its officers. In a large number of cases, such evidence has been obtained by the department within a few hours of the seizure, and you will see, on reference to the reports which I have from time to time sent you, that where the facts thus elicited did not appear to point to a deliberate or serious contravention of the law, instructions for the release of the vessel were at once sent from Ottawa by telegram.

4. The most formidable of the objections which are likely to be urged against Mr. Bayard's proposal is, however, that which will be founded upon the belief that it would be impossible for the four national vessels selected as cruisers to cover the whole of the lengthy coast line along which acts of trespass by American fishing vessels are to be anticipated. Two of these vessels would, I apprehend, become responsible for the coast from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to Cape Breton, and two others for the whole of the coast from Cape Breton to the Bay of Fundy. These vessels would, I presume, be instructed to navigate in couples. If this were not done it would be impossible to obtain an examination, such as that contemplated un

der the wording of the Article, by "the officer in command of one of the said national vessels in conjunction with the officer in command of another of said vessels of the different nationality." The assumption that both vessels will always be available simultaneously when a case of seizure has been reported, supposes a complete agreement between the two Governments as to the instructions under which their respective vessels would act, and also between the two commanding officers as to the directions in which they would cruise. Even, however, if it were to be assumed that the two vessels would be inseparable, it is, I think, obvious that it would repeatedly happen that many days would elapse before the officer of the Canadian police vessel by which the seizure had been made was able to report his seizure to one of the "national vessels," or to obtain a hearing of the case by the officers of both those vessels. The seizure might have taken place shortly after the "national vessels" had passed the spot at which it was made on their way round the coast. It might be impossible to obtain a hearing of the case or even to report it until the trip of the two vessels had been completed. It might again happen that, while the hearing and examination of the case was proceeding in one locality, other seizures might be simultaneously made at different and distant points. In all such cases the vessel by which the seizure had been made would be compelled to detain her prize for an indefinite time thereby occasioning prolonged delay and much hardship and inconvenience to the owners and crew of the seized vessel. În almost every case of seizure or detention which has hitherto occurred the facts have, as I have already pointed out, been reported immediately by telegram to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which has been able often within the course of a few hours, to deal expeditiously with the matter. The new arrangement suggested by Mr. Bayard would beyond all doubt, in many cases operate to the disadvantage of those whom it is designed to protect, while it is not improbable that in cases where a vessel had been detained under circumstances such as those which I have described, and where the charge was subsequently not sustained, heavy claims for damages would be preferred against the Canadian Government. The force of the above objections becomes more apparent when it is taken into consideration that the length of the coast line along which the "national vessels" would be

required to operate, extends to about 3,000 miles, while the 413 police vessels by which the seizures are made, being, with two exceptions, sailing schooners, would be liable to prolonged detention by adverse weather, and would frequently find the utmost difficulty in placing themselves in communication with the "national cruisers." The same difficulty would be experienced in an even greater degree whenever the seizure of the vessel had taken place in port by an officer on shore.

5. In the event of Article III being adopted in any shape it would be necessary in line 2, after the date, "1818," to insert the words " and the laws in force for giving effect to the same." If such words were not to be inserted it is probable that the Government of the United States would refuse, as it has already, to admit the validity of the Acts of Parliament which have at different times been passed both in the United Kingdom and in Canada for the purpose of enforcing the Convention.

6. I observe that under the Article it is laid down that where it is decided that a vessel shall be subjected to a judicial examination she shall be sent for trial before the Vice-Admiralty Court at Halifax. As to this I have to observe that there are Vice-Admiralty Courts at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and St. John, New Brunswick, and at Quebec, and that there appears to be no reason for invoking exclusively the jurisdiction of the Court at Halifax which is possessed in an equal degree by the other Vice-Admiralty Courts mentioned.

7. As it is expressly stated that the Article under consideration is for the purpose of executing Article I of the Convention of 1818 I presume that it is not intended to interfere in any way with the operation of the Customs Law of the Dominion, which, as you are aware, has been repeatedly put in force against fishing vessels neglecting to comply with its requirements. Care should be taken in any arrangement which may be come to with the United States that there should be no misapprehension in regard to this point.

8. I may in conclusion observe that, although it may no doubt be the case, as stated by Mr. Bayard in his letter of November 15th, 1886, that arrangements resembling in some respects that which he has advocated in the draft Article III, have been adopted by European Governments, including that of Her Majesty, for the settlement of fisheries disputes, it is open to question whether the local and political circumstances were in these cases identical with those present in the case of the Canadian fisheries. I would suggest that it would be worth while to enquire in reference to such cases whether the extent of coast line to be protected is as great, whether the points in dispute involve the construction of treaties and the right of resorting to legislation for their enforcement, or whether they are not rather limited to the more trivial disputes which arise wherever fishermen of different nationalities frequent the same fishing grounds.

9. I shall take the earliest opportunity of laying before you a fuller statement of the views of my Government. I have, however, thought it advisable to lose no time in making you aware of the general character of the objections which, in spite of its earnest desire to be guided by your recommendations in regard to these matters, it will probably urge against the adoption in any shape of the Article under consideration.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

The Right Hon. Sir HENRY HOLLAND,

&c., &c., &c.

LANSDOWNE.

No. 237.-1887, March 24: Letter from the Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. White (United States Minister at London) enclosing Draft Protocol communicated by Mr. Adams to the Earl of Clarendon in

1866.

FOREIGN OFFICE, 24th March, 1887.

SIR,-In a note of the 3rd December last, addressed to my predecessor, Mr. Phelps was good enough to transmit a copy of a despatch from Mr. Bayard, dated the 15th of the preceding month, together with an outline of a proposed ad interim arrangement "for the settlement of all questions in dispute in relation to the fisheries on the north-eastern coast of British North America."

Her Majesty's Government have given their most careful consideration to that communication, and it has also received the fullest examination at the hands of the Canadian Government, who entirely share the satisfaction felt by Her Majesty's Government at any indication on the part of that of the United States of a disposition to make arrangements which might tend to put the affairs of the two countries on a basis more free from controversy and misunderstanding than unfortunately exists at present. The Canadian Government, however, deprecate several passages in Mr. Bayard's despatch which attribute unfriendly motives to their proceedings, and in which the character and scope of the measures they have taken to enforce the terms of the Convention of 1818 are, as they believe, entirely misapprehended.

They insist that nothing has been done on the part of the Canadian authorities since the termination of the Treaty of Washington in any such spirit as that which Mr. Bayard condemns, and that all that has been done with a view to the protection of the Canadian fisheries, has been simply for the purpose of guarding the rights guaranteed to the people of Canada by the Convention of 1818, and of enforcing the Statutes of Great Britain and of Canada in relation to the fisheries. They maintain that such Statutes are clearly within the powers of the respective Parliaments by which they were passed,

and are in conformity with the Convention of 1818, especially 414 in view of the passage of the Convention which provides that

the American fishermen shall be under such restrictions as shall be necessary to prevent them from abusing the privileges thereby reserved to them.

There is a passage in Mr. Bayard's despatch to which they have particularly called the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is the following:

The numerous seizures made have been of vessels quietly at anchor in established ports of entry under charges which up to this day have not been particularised sufficiently to allow of intelligent defence; not one has been condemned after trial and hearing, but many have been fined, without hearing or judgment, for technical violation of alleged commercial regulations, although all commercial privileges have been simultaneously denied to them.

In relation to this paragraph the Canadian Government observe that the seizures of which Mr. Bayard complains have been made upon grounds which have been distinctly and unequivocably stated in every case; that, although the nature of the charges has been invariably specified and duly announced, those charges have not in any case been answered; that ample opportunity has in every case been afforded for a defence to be submitted to the Executive authorities, but that no defence has been offered beyond the mere denial of the right of the Canadian Government; that the Courts of the various provinces have been open to the parties said to been [have been] aggrieved, but that not one of them has resorted to those Courts for redress. To this it is added that the illegal acts which are characterised by Mr. Bayard as "technical violations of alleged commercial regulations," involved breaches in most of the cases not denied by the persons who had committed them, of established commercial regulations which, far from being specially directed or enforced against citizens of the United States, are obligatory upon all vessels (includ

ing those of Canada herself) which resort to the harbours of the British North American coast.

I have thought it right, in justice to the Canadian Government, to embody in this note almost in their own terms their refutation of the charges brought against them by Mr. Bayard; but I would prefer not to dwell on this part of the controversy, but to proceed at once to the consideration of the six Articles of Mr. Bayard's Memorandum in which the proposals of your Government are embodied.

Mr. Bayard states that he is "encouraged in the expectation that the propositions embodied in the Memorandum will be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, because in the month of April, 1866, Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, sent forward to Mr. Adams, at that time United States' Minister in London, the draft of a Protocol which, in substance, coincides with the 1st Article of the proposal now submitted."

Article 1 of the Memorandum, no doubt to some extent resembles the draft Protocol submitted in 1866, by Mr. Adams to Lord Clarendon (of which I enclose a copy for convenience of reference), but it contains some important departures from its terms.

Nevertheless, the Article comprises the elements of a possible accord, and if it stood alone I have little doubt that it might be so modelled, with the concurrence of your Government, as to present an acceptable basis of negotiation to both parties. But, unfortunately, it is followed by other Articles, which, in the view of Her Majesty's Government and that of Canada, would give rise to endless and unprofitable discussion, and which if retained, would be fatal to the prospect of any satisfactory arrangement, inasmuch as they appear, as a whole, to be based on the assumption that upon the most important points in the controversy, the views entertained by Her Majesty's Government and that of Canada are wrong, and those of the United States' Government are right, and to imply an admission by Her Majesty's Government and that of Canada that such assumption is well founded.

I should extend the present note to an undue length were I to attempt to discuss in it each of the Articles of Mr. Bayard's Memorandum, and to explain the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government feel compelled to take exception to them. I have, therefore, thought it more convenient to do so in the form of a counter-Memorandum which I have the honour to enclose, and in which will be found in parallel columns, the Articles of Mr. Bayard's Memorandum and the observations of Her Majesty's Government thereon.

Although as you will perceive on a perusal of those observations, the proposal of your Government as it now stands is not one which could be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, still Her Majesty's Government are glad to think that the fact of such a proposal having been made affords an opportunity which, up to the present time, had not been offered for an amicable comparison of the views entertained by the respective Governments.

The main principle of that proposal is that a Mixed Commission should be appointed for the purpose of determining the limits of those territorial waters within which, subject to the stipulations of the Convention of 1818, the exclusive right of fishing belongs to Great Britain.