126 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



tomary rights and privilges as were accorded to trading- vessels; but 

 the claim was based on considerations of friendliness and courtesy 

 rather than on legal right. (App.. p. 298.) 



On the 24th May, Mr. Phelps, the United States Minister in Lon- 

 don, called on Lord Rosebery, then Her Majesty's Secretary of State 

 for Foreign Affairs, and the conversation between them is recorded 

 by Lord Rosebery in a letter of the same date to Sir L. S. S. West 

 (App., p. 304) :- 



Mr. Phelps went on to argue the construction of the treaty of 1818. 

 and said that though, at a first glance, its provisions might seem to 

 justify the Canadian authorities in the course which they had taken, 

 a general view of its whole scope contradicted that assumption, 

 which, in any case, was inconsistent with .the cordial relations existing 

 between the two countries. In reply, I reminded Mr. Phelps that that 

 treaty was concluded at a time when, after a war and a period of 

 great bitterness, the relations between Great Britain and the United 

 States were not so cordial as they are now. 



As regarded the construction of the treaty, I could not presume to 

 argue with so eminent a lawyer as himself; I could not, however, 

 refrain from expressing the opinion that the plain English of the 

 clause seemed to me entirely to support the Canadian view. 



On the 29th May (1886) another interview took place between 

 the same parties, and is recorded in a letter to Sir L. S. S. West (App.. 

 p. 310) : 



The American Minister called on me to-day. . . . 



He again discussed at some length the provisions of the treaty of 

 1818, and said that the newspapers which had reached him from 

 America treated the matter as of little moment, because the British 

 Government were sure not to support the action of the Canadian 

 administration. He also alluded to a correspondence with Lord 

 Kimberley in 1871, in which Lord Kimberley stated that the Imperial 

 Government was the sole interpreter of the British view of Imperial 

 treaties, and that they were not able to support the Canadian view 

 of the bait clause. Mr. Phelps finally urged that the action of the 

 Canadian Government should be suspended, which would then con- 

 duce to a friendly state of matters, which might enable negotiations 

 to be resumed. 



I replied to Mr. Phelps that, as regards the strict interpretation of 

 the treaty of 1818, I was in the unfortunate position that there were 

 not two opinions in this country on the matter, and that the 

 140 Canadian view was held by all authorities to be legally correct. 

 If we are now under the provisions of the treaty of 1818. it 

 was by the action, not of Her Majesty's Government, or of the Cana- 

 dian Government, but by the wish of the United States. I had offered 

 to endeavour to procure the prolongation of the temporary arrange- 

 ment of last year, in order to allow an opportunity for negotiating, 

 and that had been refused. A joint commission had been refused, 

 and, in fact, as any arrangement, either temporary or permanent, had 

 been rejected by the United States, it was not a matter of option but 

 a matter of course that we returned to the existing treaty. As to 



