[All Rights Reserved.] THE BRITISH EMPIRE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2323, 8 September 1898, Page 22

[All Rights Reserved.] THE BRITISH EMPIRE.

BY THE RIGHT HON. SIR CHARLE 1 W. DILKE, iiart., M.P. Author of " Greater Britain," &c. MB IV.— NE^ FOUNDLAND AND FRANCE. 'We have made in recent years considerabl sacrifices for the sake of good relations wit. the French. We have given up our pei petual most-favoured-nation clause and lo\ duties treaty in Tunis to them ; we hay gone out of our way to expressly recognis their action in Madagascar, which has lei to annexation with similar effect upon on trade ; and, while in Siam we have helpei them to obtain from the Siamese the recog nition of their extension over a large trac of territory which was recently Siamese, ii Africa we have over and over again yieldei before French enterprise. There has all th time been pending between ourselves am France a really dangerous question whicl grows more and more difficult as well as dan gerous every day. If a policy of " gracefu concession" is to be pursued it is in Frenc] concession in Newfoundland that we ough to find our quid pro quo. By the Treaty of Utrecht. 1713, New foundland became a wholly British colony and the subjects of France were forbidden to " erect any buildings there besides stage; made of boards and huts necessary andusm for di-ying of fish, or to resort to the s-m isla,nd beyond the time necessary for fishin; and drying of fish. But it shall be allowe' to the subjects of France to catch fish, ant to dry them on land in that nart onb r .'' etc — namely, on what was call»d " the Frenoi Shore. ' By the Treaty of Paris, of 1763 this provision as to " fishing and drying ' was confirmed, and the islands of St. Piern and Minvielon were ceded to France as ; shelter for the French fishermen — the Frencl engaging to e v ect no buildings upon them ex cept for the convenier.ee of the fishery — i condition wlrch they have violated. By th< Treaty of Versailles, of 1783, the French to " prevent quarrels which have hithertc arisen . . . consent to renounce tta right of fishing in." etc. — i.e.. varying ttt so-called French Shore. The King of Eng land by a declaration promised to prevent hit subjects from interrupting by their competi tion the fishery of the French during the temporary exercise of it, and promised foi this purpose to cause the fixed settlements which might be four-d there to be removed. He also promised that the French should not be incommoded in cutting wood, necessary for the repair of scaffolds, huts, and boats. On the other hand, the method ol carrying on the fishery hitherto in existence -was to be the plan upon which the fishery should contimte to be carried on, the French were to be forbidden to winter in Newfoundland, and were to build only scaffolds, and the British were not to molest the French during the^r fishing, ror to injure their scaffolds in their absence. The islands ceded were to serve ?-s a " real shelter to the French fishermen." Mr A. W. Harvey, one of the Newfoundland delegates who appeared at the bar of the House of Commons, has pointed out in ? memorandum published by our Government, with the approval ,of the Colonial Office, that our trouble lies in the words of our own King's declaration, but if that has to be read strictly against us ye ought to read the French King's declaration strictly, and we have never held the French to its observance. By the Treaty of Paris, of 181* 5 -. the previous enactments were unhmrpilv continued. To judge by the whole of the language employed in the negotiations and declarations no kind of fishery was contemplated except cod fishinjr. a'-rl cocl werp intended by the word " fish." The word " fish " in Newfoundland in the present day means cod. In 1857 (lip Secretary of State for the Colonies promised that the two principles which would continue to guide the Home Government were "that the rights at present enjoyed by the convminity of Newfoundland are not to be ceded or exchanged without their assent : oncl that the constitutional mode of submitins: measures for that akseut is by laying them before the colonial Legislature *' Proposed arrangements with France having been "lefu^ecl by the colony will, of courser fall to the ground. You are authorised (o give srch assurance as you may think proper" that the consent of the community of Newfoundland is regarded by H M.G. as the essential preliminary to any modification of their territorial or maritime rights." Newfoundland is now a self-governing colony possessing responsible institutions, and it is so far as I know the only such colony over which, or any portion of which, any foreign Power claims what lawyers call a servitude. The British Crown is'admittedly sovereign in all parts of Newfoundland, including the so-called " French Shore." The colonial Legislature deals with statute and by its Administration with all portions of the colony, but a foreign Power has rights within the territorial waters, and, during a large portion of the year, on the actual shore of the colony, which, so far as they go, are in derogation of the usual rights of the Sovereign and of the Legislature. Under the King's declaration British naval officers! have exercised singularly arbitrary powers on the coast of Newfoundland, powers which it may be confidently said have ofte.i exceeded their statutory authority, and ' hich if the poor people concerned could have brought them before the courts, British or colonial, would have been severely condemned. As regards prj?>- , ciple, however, there was no conflict between the colonial and the British Governments until the time of the Administration of 18861892. In 1882-3 and '4 certain British subjects had erected lobster factories at spots on tLe so-called French Shore, where there were r.o houses or buildings of any kind, and where ' no fishermen, either French or English, had been in the habit of fishing. In 1886 French fishermen visited the district for the purpose of catching lobsters. In 1887 a Frenrh warship cut the gear of all the British lobster traps and set them adrift, so that they

| were destroyed. A British officer on th< coast supported the French naval division ;i their action. In 1888 the captain of H.M.S I Emerald compelled the British lobste: j catchers to move. The grourd given up t< 0 | this time was that the lobs'. or trawls an*. . traps interfered with the French fishing— i.e.. presumably the French cod- fishing. Lord iddehleigh in 1886 had protested ii advance against the erection of French lob ster factories in these words addressed to M Waddington :—'"l: — '"I have to express the hope , that the French naval officers will make iei c known to the persons concerned that such ; , course is not allowed by the treaties, anJ 1 must be discontii-iied."' Ie Js a pity thai these words were not stood to by our Gox vernment. In July, 1888, Lord Knutsforc c informed Lord Salisbury that the^ construction n r lobster factories then commenced hy the French, and the asserted claim to grani "■ to French subjects lobster concessions, " arc t clearly contrary to treaty." d It-was in 1888 that some French subjects „ set up a claim that two British subjects— ', Murphy and Andrews — were violating the treaties by taking and canning losters on the 11 so-called French Shore, and that French subd jects and French only had the right to take c and cm lobsters on that shore and to ereci d upon British territory- factories or establishh ments for the purpose of preserving lobsters'. i- Tins subject at once giew ii.to a prominence il which has dwarfed all other developments h of the Newfoundland question. .5 lii September, 18£8. we addressed tc France a note calling attention to the illc- ■- galitv of French lnbs.er-packing factories. ■, The Fre: ; ?h Governmsnt several times staleil 'i that these factories were temporary, and s with regard to some of them tiiey said they .1 had beer, s-ivppressed, biu as a matter of fact 1 they continued to exist ; f>nd a fresh r>ro- ™ test was made by Lord Salisbury at the cml ri of 1888 and beginning of IGS9 against "an :1 assumption of territorial rights in derogation of the ■sovereignty of the British Crowr." ii j'Le Frffnoh Government then for the first , time set up an entirely i:ew contention — that lob^iers were fish, and. apparently, that c their factories were iejsl. Arbitration was ■i first proposed by Lord Salisbury in 13>j"), Ii when the Newfoundland Government abso- :- ,-lutely refused the arbitration suggested. In % May. 1890, the Foreign CTice informed tha c Government of France thac they could net admit the contention that Fiench naval :> (jrficers can have a light to interfere with c British fishermen in the territorial waters s of a British colony ; but, nevertheless, the - French have continued to do so lip to the s present time. " The Newfoundland shore cod fisheries 3 v, hich alone were contemplated by the treaties l- are so unimportant as compared with those 5 of the Great Bank soiith of Newfoundland, . open to all nations, that only seven French I boats fish on the so-called French Shore, as . against the hundreds which fit out either in [ Flanders, Picardv. Normandy, Brittany, or f St. Pierre, and Miquelon, to prosecute the ; fishery on the Bank. The lobster-canning r industry, on the other hand, is a lucrative i one ; and, unfortunately, although in theory . ■« c have always asserted that lobsters are not [ fish under the treaty, that the scaffolding for i drying cod contemplated by the treaties . cannot cover lobster- canning factories, and I that, moreover, in a,v,y case, we have a cozii curient right of fishery with that of France > on the so-called French Shore, yet British t naval officers interfered along with the ; French to cause the removal of establish- - ments erected by British subjects for the . purpose of taking and canning lobster. This j action on the part of the British officers has ; been distinctly held to be illegal by the : courts, both in first instance and on appea l . t It is really monstrous after the direct prohibition by the Treaty of Utrecht of the erection of buildings by the French except those " necessary and usual for the drying of fish " (while all the later documents speak of the fi-shery, assigned by the Treaty of Utrecht onu declare that *he future method of carrying it oi. shall be the primeval method of carrying it on) to then pretend that lobster•ennninq- is included in the words used to cover the drying of cod. Instead of protecting British fishermen in the prosecution of their lawful avocation and resisting the new claim of the French, our Government, aftsr failing to enforce. the claim of the French, • tried to go to arbitration upon it before a court in which the best known personage was to have been M. de Martens, the hereditary librarian of the Russian Foreign Office, whose opinion 'on such points was hardly likely to be impartial. Luckily the French .added a condition the enormity of which was such that the arbitration has never taken place, and it may be hoped how never will. While British officers were backed up by the Government in most arbitrary action on behalf of the French and against the colo- j ni.sts, the theory continued to be that the , French pretensions were disputed by us. At tin. and of 1889 the Home Government sent for the Prime Minister of Newfoundland who came to England in 1890. A modus vivendi was agreed to, preserving such British lobster factories as existed. and the French Government agreeing that they would undertake to grant no new lob-ster-fishing concessions " on fishing grounds occupied by British subjects-, "' whatever that might mean. But the limitation was afterwards explained away, and the modus vivendi stated to mean the status quo. The colonial Government strongly protested against the modus vivendi, as a virtuol admission of a concurrent right of lobster fish- ! ing prejudicial to the position of Newfoundland in future negotiations) ; and there can be no doubt that the adoption of the modus vivendi by the British Government without previous reference to the colony, and against its wish, was a violation of the principle laid down by the then Mr Labouchere, when Secretary of State in 1857, and by Lord Pahnerston. Our Government deny | this, because they expressly reserved all questions of principle and right in the agreement with the French ; and that is so, of course : but there can be no doubt about the effect of what they did. By jin answer given by an Under-secre-tary of State in the House of Commons the views of the Newfoundland Government were misrepresented, it being stated that they " were consulted as to the terms of the modus vivendi which was modified to some extent to meet their views, although concluded without reference to them in its final shape " ; but the Newfoundland Government insisted that the terms of the modus

c ' vivendi had not been modified in accordi! ance with their views as they had protested . against the whole arrangement. The Home r Government quibbled and said that the a answer showed that the Newfoundland Go1 vernment were not responsible for the modus - vivendi as settled. Plain people, however, must continue to be as indignant as the 1 colonists are at the misrepresentation and - breach of Mr Laboucherc's principle. ■ . The terms of tae modus vivendi accord to 2 unfounded pretensions the standing of ,rea2 sonable claims, jukl confer upon the French j the actual possession and enjoyment of the * rights to which these claims relate. Mr fc Baird refused to comply with the modus " vivendi. Sir Baldwin Walker, command1 ing on the coast, landed a party of blue- " jackets in 1891 and took the law into his r own hands against Mr Baird : was sued for damages, and twice lost his case. There 3 bad been an Imperial act under which Sir Baldwin Walker might have been pro- ' tected, but it had been repealed, when self-government was granted to Newfound- | land. In the same yenr of 1891 a New5 foundland act was parsed under heavy pre&- | sure from the Home Government compelling j; colonial subjects to observe the instructions 6 of the naval officers to the extent of at once quitting the Ficnch shore -if directed, and ; the act was to be in force till the end of \ 1893. The Home Government had passed 5 a bill through the House of Lords, brought it to the House of Commons, and dropped ' it, before it received the royal assent, only after the Prime of Newfoundland ; had been heard <nt the Bar of both Houses I and had promised colonial legislation. The French Government have insisted that ;i British act should be parsed ; and Lord ' Salisbury, while declaring that there ought j to be a permanent colonial act, has always refused to promise a British act. To my ' mind the Newfound hnd people went too ! far in giving up their freedom in passing the act which I have named, an act to which, had I been a member of the Newfoundland Leg'shlure, nothing would have , induced me to consent ; and my sympathies are entirely with the Newfoundlanders in their refusal to part with their freedom for all time by making so monstrous a statute \ permanent. i The French maintain, to use the words of the French Minister of Marine of 1888, writing to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, i that the rights of France on the so-called i French shore are " nothing else than a part of her ancient sovereignty over the island Avhich she retained while ceding the soil i to England — rights which she has .never i alienated." The island is about the oldest of British colonies with about the oldest of British colonial' representative institutions. France never possessed the sovereignty of which her Minister of Marine has spoken. But the Newfoundland act reads like a consecration of this pretended sovereignty, and it makes British naval officers the policemen, and more than the police- ■ men — the autocratic o^ Russian policemen — of the French. j There has been nothing to choose between the action of the two parties in the Newfoundland question, and the policy of the Colonial Office has been marked by an unpleasant continuity. When Lord Ripon became Secretary of State in 1892, he began to press the Colonial Ministry for permanent legislation, just as it is said that the Colonial Office is pressing them at the present time. In pressing for permanent coercive legislation the Colonial Office threatens Imperial legislation, which would receive in the House of Lords the consent of both parties, but which it is certain that, in the interest of our colonial Empire, Government ought not to be allowed to carry through the House of Commons. 1 The Newfoundland Government has pointed out that the permanent legislation asked for is desired in part for the enforcement of an ultimate award of a proposed arbitration relative to the lobster question agreed on between the Foreign Office and the Government of France, but from the outset opposed by the colon}-, the agreement having been made not only without its consent, but in despite of its frequently expressed opposition. Ultimately, however, "In view !' of the probable opposition to an Imperial bill inthe House of Commons," Lord Ripon ' proposed to invite the colonial Legislatuie to renew the temporary act for two years. The Newfoundland Government then agreed to re-enact the temporary bill for one year without prejudice to their position. This proposal was lefu&cd by Lord Ripon, and the Colonial Government then gave way. '• The temporary act has since been again and again renewed. , I It is pretended that the British squadron ! on the coast of Newfoundland protects British subjects, in the exercise of their ' rights, against unlawful acts on the ' pait of the French. But judging by the actions of the British officers', their instructions, which are secret, must be in absolute antagonism to the declarations of our statesmen in I their despatches. Where a Frenchman j commits an act of violence against a British i subject by destroying hi,s boat or fishing gear, the British subject can find in practice no remedy, as the case is reported by . the officer in command of the British ship ! ■ on Hie station to the admiral, by the admiral , ' to the Admiralty, by the Admiralty to the < Foreign Office, by the Foreign Office to the • Ambassador in Paris with instructions to } submit the matter to the French Government. The French Government then re- ' fuses redress, and the matter comes back ', again through the same channel. Where J the case uvUess upon 1-md the British j ] subject complains to the Governor, the i 1 Governor to the Colonial Office, the Colonial ', Office to the Foreign Office, and the Foreign j ' Office to the Admiralty for it to be referred , < to the naval officer on the station for re- ' I port ; the officer on the station returns it ! * through the admiral to the Admiralty, the ] Admiralty to the Foreign Office, the Foreign \ < Office to the British Ambassador in Paris, i J and then back as before, in the invariable i form: '" H.M.G. regret that they are un- M able to obtain from the French authorities j < a recognition of the claim." The preten- j 1 sions of the French officers on the so-called ! 5 French Shore are unbounded, extending to | f the point of actually ordering British vessels ' < out of British waters, where they are merely ! ] using the harbour and coast — the absolute ; possession of which by Grent Britain ia ac- l

knowledged by the Treaty*of Utrecht. Seven hundred miles of coast of a British colony become a no-man's-Lind, with no security of any sort against arbitrary rule by foreign ' naval officers, and mines are undeveloped, on account of the dog-in-the-manger policy pursued, not becpuse the fishery is of the slightest value in itself or really exercised, but because we happen to have other diiß- ' culties with France — in Africa, for example ' —for which the Newfoundland colonists are certainly not responsible. The French Government actually grant concessions to French subjects to engage in industry upon portions of British soil, nominally governed by British magistrates and represented by members of the colonial Legislature. The French insist that their right of fishing on the so-called French shore is absolute and not concurrent ;yet we granted similar rights at one time to the United States in similar words, and this right was always held in practice to be concurrent and not exclusive. The French have gone so far, in the words of M. Flourcns when Foreign Minister, as to assert that the so-called French shore " ought to have remained uninhabited." We may agree with the French so far as this : that under any other circumstances than the coast of this British colony being desert, the Newfoundland contention is a true one — that the French rights are " anomalous and intolerable." The temporary act which ire have bullied the colony into passing is a shameful act, without precedent or parallel in the British Empire. In ibe woi'ds of one of the leading statesmen of Newfoundland, it is one " by which the liberties and property of our people wore made subject to the will of naval ofticer.s . . . acting under instructions from the British Government. "' Under it Briti&h Mibjecls can be arrested and deported from tiic soil of a self-governing colony to another part of the colony before trial and without appeal. The whole story is one of abdication of rights in consequence o'i threats. No Midi state of things would be tolerated iii the case of any other selfgoverning colony ; and we have only to ask ourselves what we should do if the Newfoundlanders had the spirit; of the Australians m order to convince ourselves of this foct. ! Newfoundland, which is poor and backward as compared with, the other selfgoverning colonies, has frequently been solicited to come into Canadian federation, for it is the only portion of British North America not included within the Dominion. It has hitherto declined, but will probably end by agreeing, and anything which can widen its interests, and which may thus improve its politics, will be a boon to Newfoundland. I Charles W. Dilkb.