520 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



and the undersigned respectfully submits that the adoption of instruc- 

 tions, limiting in any way the enforcement of the laws for the pro- 

 tection of the Fisheries is a step against which it is the duty of the 

 Government of Canada most respectfully to protest. 



No. 192. 1886, May W: Letter from the Earl of Roselery (British 

 Foreign Secretary} to Sir L. S. S. West. 



(No. 2lA. Treaty) FOREIGN OFFICE, May 89 1886. 



SIR, The American Minister called on me to-day and read me a 

 telegram from Mr. Bayard, of which I enclose a copy. 



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, 1 was in the unfortunate position, that there 

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

 the 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 

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

 offered to endeavour to procure the prolongation of the temporary 

 arrangement of last year, in order to allow an opportunity for nego- 

 tiating, and that had been refused. A Joint Commission had been 

 refused, and, in fact, as any arrangement, either temporary or per- 

 manent, 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 Lord Kimberley's view, I had had no explanation from 

 him on that point, and of course I entirely concurred with his opinion 

 that the British Government were the interpreters of the British 

 view of Imperial Treaties. As regarded the wish expressed by Mr. 

 Phelps that the present action should be suspended, when possibly 

 an opportunity might arrive for negotiation, I said that that 

 amounted to an absolute concession of the Canadian position with 

 no return whatever, and I feared that the refusal of the United States 

 to negotiate, for so I could not help interpreting Mr. Bayard's silence 

 in answer to my proposition, would produce a bad effect, and certainly 

 would not assist the Imperial Government in their efforts to deal with 

 this question. In the meantime, however, I begged him simply 'to 

 assure Mr. Bayard that I had received his communication, and that 

 we were still awaiting the Canadian case and the details of the other 

 seizures, that when we had received these, for which we had tele- 



