The Earl of Elgin to Governor Sir W. MacGregor.
Copies went to you by last mail of communication from United States Government in which they contend that convention of 1818 justifies no interference, reasonable or unreasonable, with exercise of American rights of fishery, and request His Majesty’s Government to prevent any interference upon any ground by officers of Newfoundland government with American fishermen when they go to exercise their treaty rights upon the coast of Newfoundland during approaching fishing season. They disclaim desire that Newfoundland fisheries shall go unregulated, and express their readiness to join with His Majesty’s Government in agreeing upon all reasonable and suitable regulations for due control of fishermen of both countries in exercise of their rights, but state that they can not permit exercise of these rights to be subject to will of Newfoundland. [Page 719] Pending such an agreement, the furthest they are prepared to go is to accept such limitations as were in existence at time convention of 1818 was concluded, and in support of this position appeal to Lord Salisbury’s note to United States minister of the 3d April, 1880, in connection with disturbances at Fortune Bay. Light dues were presumably not levied in 1818, seines were apparently in use, the prohibition of Sunday fishing had been abolished in 1776 (see 15 George III, cap. 31), and fishing ships were exempted from entry at customhouse, and required only to make a report on first arrival and on clearing (see same act). United States vessels could, on the basis of the status quo in 1818, only be asked to make report at custom-house on arrival and on clearing.
It is clear that with such a wide divergence of view between the two Governments no immediate settlement of questions involved is possible, and His Majesty’s Government are of opinion that any attempt on part of your Government to apply to American fishermen the regulations to which exception is taken by the United States Government while the discussion of the questions is proceeding between the two Governments might give rise to a highly undesirable and even dangerous situation, and that it is therefore essential that some provisional arrangement should be made to secure the peaceable conduct of the coming fishery. His Majesty’s Government are therefore informing United States Government that they are prepared, pending the further discussion of questions at issue and without prejudice to such discussion, to negotiate a provisional arrangement which will enable the ensuing fishery to be carried on in good order and friendship, and that they will shortly submit proposals with that object. Please report whether your ministers have any suggestions to offer as to the nature of that arrangement. It seems to be certain that if your ministers press for prohibition both of seines and of Sunday fishing some concessions other than exemption from light clues and customs law will be expected. Can any such concessions be offered? If not, there is little prospect that both points will be conceded by United States, and as greater possibility of disorder is understood to be attached to Sunday fishing, it would seem better to try and obtain assent of United States to prohibition of this practice in return for use of seines. Have your ministers any observations as to any fair and reasonable limitations or conditions to be imposed on use of seines if this course is adopted? Telegraph reply immediately.