361 



ci's.iion of tlio inshore fishevies, nnil it wmiUl miirwivor liave prevuiileil any laeiabur of tlie Cnnadinn 

 (lovt'iiimoiil t'ldiu aetiiii; as a iiK'iiibi'r of tlu; .loiiit ]Iij,'li Coiniui.ssioii, uuluss on tliu i-leur understand- 

 iiij; lliat no such cession should be embodied in the Treaty witliont their eonsent. The expediency of 

 the cession of a common right to tlio inshore fisheries liiis been defeiukHl, on tlie ground that such a 

 sacrilice on the part of Canachi slmulil be made in the interests of peace. The (jonnuittec of the 

 Privy Council, as they have already ol>served, would have been prepared to recomuiend any necessary 

 concession for so desirable an object, but they must remind the Karl of Kimljerley that the origintd 

 proposition of Sir Edward Thornton, as appears by his letter of 2Gtli Januarj-, was that ' a friendly 

 and complete understanding should Ijc come to between the two Governments as to the extent of the 

 riglits wiiicJi belong to the citizens of tlie United States and Her Majesty's subjects respectively, with 

 reference to the fisheries on the coasts of Her Majesty's possessions in North America.' 



" In his reply, dated 30th January last, Mr. Secretary Fish infonns Sir Edward Thornton that the 

 President instructs liini to say that ' he shares with Her Majesty's Government the appreciation of the 

 importance of a friendly and complete understanding between the two Governments with reference to 

 the subjects specially suggested for the consideration of the proposed Joint High Commission.' 



" In accordance witli the explicit understanding thus arrived at between the two Governments, 

 Earl Granville issued instructious to Her Majesty's lligh Commission, which, in the opinion of the 

 Conmiittee of the Privy Council, covered the whole ground of controversy. 



" Tiic United States had never jiretended to claim a right on the part of their citizens to fish 

 within three marine miles of the coasts and liaya, accortling to their limited definition of the latter term ; 

 and although the right to enjoy the >;se of the inshore fi.-iheries might fairly have been made tlie subject 

 of negotiation, witli the view of ascertaining whether any proper ecpiivalents could be found for such 

 a concession, the United States was precluded by the original correspondence from insisting on it as a 

 condition of the Treaty. The abandonment of the exclusive right to the inshore fisheries, without 

 adequatG compensation, was not therefore necessary in order to come to a satisfactory understanding 

 on the points really at issue. 



" Tiie Committee of the Privy (Council forbear from entering into a controversial discussion ns to 

 the expediency of trying to influence the Ignited States to adopt a more liberal commercial policy. 

 They must, however, disclaim most emphatically the imputation of desiring to imperil the peace of 

 the whole empire in order to force the American Government to change its commercial policy. They 

 have for a considerable time back ceased to urge the United Stat(!S to alter their commercial policy, 

 but they are of opinion that when Canada is asked to surrender her inshore fisheries to foreigners, she 

 is fairly entitled to name the proper eiiuivalent. Tlie Committee of tlie Privy Council may observe 

 that the opposition of the Government of the United Ibiates to reciprocal free trade in the products of 

 the two countries was just as strong for some years prior to 1854, as it has been since the termination 

 of the Keciprocity Treaty, and that the Treaty of 1854 was obtainetl chiefly by the vigorous protection 

 of the fisheries wliich preceded it, and that but for the conciliatory policy on the subject of the fisheries, 

 whicii Her Majesty's Ciovernment induced Canada to adopt after the abrogation of the Treaty of 1854 

 by the United States, it is not improbable that there would have been no difliculty in obtaining its 

 renewal. The Committee of the Privy Council have adverted to the policy of Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment, because the Earl of Kimberley has stated that there is no difference in principle between a 

 money payment and ' the system of licenses calculated at so many dollars a ton, which was adopted 

 by ttie Colonial Government for several years after the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty.' 

 Referon' e to the correspondence will prove that the licence sj'stem was reluctantly adopted by the 

 Canadiaii (loverument as a substitute for the still more objectionable policy pres.sed iijion it by Her 

 Majesty's Government, it having been clearly understood that the arrangement was of a temporary 

 character. In his dispatch of the JHrd March, 1806, Mr. Seeretiiry Cardweil observed : ' Her Majesty's 

 Government do not feel disinclined to allow the I'nited States for the season of 1860, the freedom of 

 fishing granted to them in 1854, on the distinct understanding that unless some satisfaeUny arrange- 

 ments between the two countries be inaile tluriug the course of the year this privilege will cease, and all 

 concessions made in the Treaty of 1854 will be liable to be withdi-awii.' The princijde of a money pay- 

 ment for the concession of territorial rights has ever been most repugnant to the feelings of the Canadian 

 people, and has only been entertained in deference to the wishes of the Imperial Government. 

 What the Canadians were willing under the circumstances to accept as an equivalent was the 

 concession of certain commercial advantages, and it has therefore been most unsatisfactory to them 

 that Her Majesty's Government should have consented to cede the use of the inshore fisheries to 

 foreigners for considerations which are deemed wholly inadequate. The Committee of the Privy 

 Council need not enlarge further on the objectionable features of the Treaty as it bears on Canadian 

 interests. These are admitted by many who think that Canada ghould make sacrifices for the geneml 

 interests of the Empire. The people of Canada, on the other hand, seem to be unable to comprehend 

 that there is any existing necessity for the cession of the right to use their inshore fisheries without 

 adequate compensation. They have failed to discover that in the settlement of the so-called 'Alabama' 

 claims, whicli was the most important question in dispute between the two natious, Pjigland gained 

 such advantages as to be required to make further concessions at the expense of Canada, nor is there 

 anything in the Earl of Kimberley's despatch to support such a view of the question. The other parts 

 of the 'frotity are equally, if not more, advantageous to the United States than to Canada, and the 

 fishery question must, consequently, be considered on its own merits ; and if so considered, no reason 

 has yet been advanced to induce Canada to ced'! her inshoi-e fisheries for what Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment have aduiitted to be an inadeijuHto consideration. Having thus stated their vijws on the two 

 ciiief objectious to the late Treaty of Washington, the Committee of the Privy Council will proceed 

 to the consideration of the correspoiulence between Sir Eilwai-d Tiiornton and Mr. Fish, transmitted 

 in the Earl of Kimln'rley's despatch of the 17th June, and of his Ixirdship's remarks thereon. This 

 subject has already Ix-en under the consideration of the Committee of the Privy Council, and a 

 report, dated the 7th .June, embodying their views on the subject, was transmitted to the Earl of 



