DESPATCHES, REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 411 



a proposition not be entertained by the United States, then the Com- 

 mittee of the Privy Council maintain that the opinion of the law 

 officers of tho Crown should be acted on, and that the regulations 

 which were in existence prior to 1854, should be enforced as prom- 

 ised bv the Earl of Clarendon, in his Despatch to Sir F. Bruce, of 

 llth 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 Kim- 

 berley 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 Commis- 

 sion does not afford much ground for anticipating a satisfactory so- 

 lution 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 Im- 

 perial 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. What- 

 ever 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 Govern- 

 ment 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 185^, the 



245 American Government has made pretensions to the right of 



entering British harbours to procure bait and other supplies, 



and to transship their fish. 



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 



