britannien. Nr. 10724. informs me, that, as soon as he has received M. Ribot's reply to the note Gross- which I addressed a week ago to the Ambassador, he will come to me to 8. Juni 1891. explain the views of his Government. || Under these circumstances, I will not at present reply to your Excellency's despatch. || But there is one misconception into which M. Ribot has fallen, and which it is desirable I should correct without delay. He stated to your Excellency, that I had undertaken that Her Majesty's Government would make a Cabinet question of the Bill on the Newfoundland arbitration, which was introduced by Lord Knutsfort into the House of Lords. In this his Excellency is entirely mistaken. The only statement of mine which can have given rise to such a misunderstanding was a remark to M. Waddington, to the effect that we should look upon the approval of Parliament to the Convention which we were about to sign as indispensable to the existence of the Ministry. That approval we have received in the most formal manner. But I never pledged myself to attach that character to the passage of a particular Bill. Salisbury. Nr. 10725. britannien. Nr. 10725. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Auswärtiges Amt an den Botschafter in Paris. Unterredung mit dem französischen Botschafter über die Ausführung des Schiedsspruches. Foreign Office, June 10, 1891. My Lord, || The French Ambassador called upon me to receive my answer Gross- to the letter of which a copy has been forwarded to your Excellency. || I stated 10. Juni 1891. to him, that it appeared to me at first sight that M. Ribot had entered upon the discussion of matters which were not properly the subject of international controversy at all. England had undertaken to execute the Award of the Arbitrators. To that undertaking, in any circumstances, and under any Government, she was bound, and France had the fullest right to require from her a performance of her pledge. But France had no right to investigate the municipal arrangements by which the performance of that international duty was secured. It was for us to make what arrangements we pleased, and in discussing those arrangements the members of our Legislature were at liberty to use what language they pleased. The machinery we employed, the political principles we followed, the doctrines we defended or attacked among ourselves, were purely a question for our own discretion, with which no other nation had any right to interfere. One right, and one right only, France had acquired by the Convention, and that was a right to the substantial and honest performance of the Award. | M. Waddington answered me, that it was impossible France could omit to take notice of the unusual procedure which had been followed in England, of the statements which had been made in both Houses of Parliament, and especially the language that had been employed by the Opposition. They could not help deducing from it an intention on our part not to execute the Treaty or the Award ourselves, but to dele Gross gate the performance of it to a colonial Tribunal; and then when, as would Nr. 10725. certainly happen, colonial prejudice was allowed to interfere with the full per- britannien. formance of the Treaty, we should take refuge behind a Tribunal, and plead 10. Juni 1891. our Constitutional inability to influence its decisions. He insisted, that France had to do with no Colony or Tribunal, but with us alone, and that, before they went on further with the arbitration, he had the right to receive an assurance that we concurred in that opinion. || I pointed out to his Excellency, that, waiving for the moment our right to treat as unauthorized any foreign criticism upon the conduct of our own procedure in the framing of our own laws, his reasoning was open to the objection that is confounded together two very different considerations. I could understand, without in any way justifying it, the objection which France entertained to the decision upon these claims being left to any colonial authority. I thought, that an Imperial authority would be more satisfactory. But his Excellency's words went much further than this objection. He did not merely demur to a colonial Tribunal, but to the intervention of any Tribunal at all. He appeared to require, that the somewhat rough and ready procedure which our naval officers had hitherto been instructed to pursue was the one which France was entitled permanently to insist upon. We fully admitted, that France had a right to require from us that we should fulfil the clause of the Convention engaging us to execute the Award. But we objected to the claim of the French Government to read the words, "by military law", into that engagement. What France, in fact, was requiring of us was that, for the purpose of insuring the rights of her subjects, we should maintain a permanent state of siege upon the Treaty Shore. This was a privilege which we gave to no rights of any persons in any parts of the world, and there was nothing in the Convention which justified France in claiming it. Salisbury. Nr. 10726. GROSSBRITANNIEN. - Auswärtiges Amt an den Botschafter in Paris. Frankreich zweifelt, dass England seine Verpflichtungen erfüllen kann. (Extract.) Foreign Office, July 15, 1891. Gross I asked M. Waddington, how the Newfoundland arbitration Nr. 10726. stood. He replied, that France had never thrown the slightest doubt upon the britannien. good faith of the British Government, but had only doubted its power to 15. Juli 1891. fulfil its engagements; and he asked me for some particulars with respect to the Bill which was being discussed with the Newfoundland Government upon the subject of the appointment of Tribunals for the Treaty Shore, I replied that it was very doubtful whether any Bill would be agreed upon between Her Majesty's Government and that of Newfoundland, and that in 1893 I thought it would probably be necessary for the Government of the day to pass an Imperial Act to carry out the engagements with France. But I entirely Gross britannien. Nr. 10728. demurred to the right of the French Government to look behind the engagement of Her Majesty. We had the will and we had the power to execute our 15. Juli 1891. engagements; but the mode in which we did so was not a matter concerning which we could enter into explanations. At the same time, I pointed out to him again, as I had already observed in my letter to him, that the action of the House of Commons was in truth in fuller satisfaction of our engagements under the Convention of March than any Bill could have been. An Act when passed is always liable to be repealed; and there is nothing in its passage which makes that repeal dishonourable or unusual. But a Resolution such as that passed by the House of Commons is an honourable pledge, and from a pledge of that kind the House of Commons bas never been known in its history to recede. The security to the French Government is therefore greater than if we bad passed the Bill which we carried through the House of Lords. Nr. 10727. Gross 19. März1892. Nr. 10727. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Auswärtiges Amt an den Bot schafter in Paris. Will die französische Regierung den modus vivendi erneuern? Foreign Office, March 19, 1892. Sir, You are aware that the arrangement for referring to arbitration britannien the questions in dispute respecting the catching and preservation of lobsters on the Treaty Shore of Newfoundland has received in principle the approval of the British Parliament. It has also received the sanction of the French Senate, but it has not yet been brought before the Chamber of Deputies. I understand, that the French Government are deferring any steps for the latter purpose until they have been able to satisfy themselves that adequate legal provision has been made by the Newfoundlaud or Imperial Legislature for carrying into effect the Arbitral award. || A measure for this purpose is about to be laid before the Newfoundland Chambers; but, in the meanwhile, the fishing season is rapidly approaching, and some provisional arrangements will again be requisite before the arbitration can be brought to an issue. I should wish you to draw M. Ribot's attention to the matter, and to inquire whether the French Government desire that the modus vivendi of last year should be renewed for the ensuing fishing season, in which case it would be desirable that the renewal should be speedily settled and made public. Salisbury. Nr. 10728. Nr. 10728. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Kolonialamt an das Auswärtige Amt. Ablehnung des Vertragsentwurfs durch die Legislatur in Neufundland. Downing Street, May 17, 1892. Sir, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the inbritannien, formation of the Marquis of Salisbury, copies of two telegrams from the 17. Mai 1892. Governor of Newfoundland respecting the proceedings in the Legislative The Nr. 10728. Gross-" Assembly on the motion for the second reading of the Treaties Bill. Anlage. Gouverneur von Neufundland an das Kolonialamt. May 14, 1892. (Telegraphic.) Treaties Bill rejected last night by 23 to 8. Nr. 10729. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Die Gouverneur von Neufundland an den Staatssekretår der Kolonien. Gesetzgebung von Neufundland beschliesst die Verlängerung des Provisoriums. Received May 17, 1892. Gross (Telegraphic.) || 17th May 1892. Am requested by Adress from House of Nr. 10729. Assembly to forward following for information of Her Majesty's Government:--| britannien.j Whereas the Legislature of this Colony did, on the 24th day of March 1891, 17. Mai 1892. appoint five of its members as a delegation to proceed to England to lay before the British Parliament and people the reasons of this Colony for opposing the legislation brought forward by the Imperial Government in reference to the French Treaties question; and whereas it was resolved by this Legislature that when a majority of the said Delegates should agree to any basis of arrangement and settlement the said Delegation should recommend it to the Legislature, and that each member of the Delegation should be bound by the decision of a majority; and whereas a difference of opinion has arisen between the said Delegates, and the Legislature has had a majority and minority Report presented for its consideration; and whereas the Bill now before the House does not provide for the payment by Great Britain of compensation due to persons who may suffer by the enforcement of the Treaties, the modus vivendi, and the arbitration award, provision for which compensation was insisted upon by the Marquis of Salisbury when speaking in the House of Lords on the 29th day of May 1891, to be a condition precedent to the enactment of any permanent Act by this Legislature; and whereas the Bill now before the House is not acceptable to this House in other respects; and whereas the Legislature did, on the 30th day of May last, pass a temporary Bill to enable Her Majesty's Government to carry into effect engagements with France respecting fisheries in Newfoundland during the period of negotiations for the settlement of difficulties concerning the Treaty Shore; and whereas it is provided, that the said Act shall continue in force only until the end of 1893 and no longer; and whereas the said negotiations may occupy a longer period that at first anticipated: Be it resolved, that this House undertakes to extend Gross Nr. 10729. the operations of the Act entitled "An Act for the purpose of carrying into britannien effect engagements with France respecting Fisheries in Newfoundland" for a 17. Mai 1892. further period of two years from the expiration thereof, so as to afford time for further negotiations: Be it also resolved, that the further consideration of the French Treaties question be referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses with a view to aiding Her Majesty's Government in procuring a satisfactory solution of all existing difficulties. Nr. 10730. GROSSBRITANNIEN. — Auswärtiges Amt an den BotUnterredung mit dem französi Nr. 10730. schen Botschafter über die Ausführung des Schiedsgerichts. Foreign Office, May 24, 1892. My Lord, M. Waddington called my attention to the rejection by the britannien, Newfoundland Legislature of the Bill for establishing a jurisdiction upon the 24. Mai 1892. "Treaty Shore" for the execution of the Treaties between France and England, and he urged that as the effort to obtain the requisite legislation from the Newfoundland Assembly had failed, we were bound to fall back now upon Imperial legislation. || I replied, that I could not admit that anything in the Arbitration Agreement of last year gave to the French Government the right to ask for any fresh legislation in respect to the Tribunals by which the Treaty rights would be carried out. They were entitled to demand that we should carry into execution whatever the Arbitrators should determine to be the sense of the Treaties between the two countries; but they had no right to inquire into the machinery, legislative or forensic, by which this obligation was to be fulfilled. At the same time, I fully admitted that some such proposal as that which we had made last year was a matter of high expediency; and I much regretted that the House of Commons had not been disposed to carry through the legislation which we proposed. I feared, that the state of public business was such as to make it exceedingly problematical whether any such legislation could be possible during the present Session. The Act, however, of the Newfoundland Legislature which was passed last year had provided for the execution of the modus vivendi up to the end of 1893, and therefore it would be possible next year to deal with the question of Imperial legislation, and no serious injury would be the consequence of deferring Parliamentary action to that time. || His Excellency was nevertheless very earnest that if it were possible we should make an effort to pass the required Bill during the present Session, and I promised to ascertain from my colleagues in the House of Commonn whether there was any likelihood that such an effort would be successful. Salisbury. |