CO885-(11-13) — Page 174

11182.

D. The French Government has a right to know in the clearest manner before any question is raised at the Mixed Commission that Her Majesty's Government denies the assumed rights of the French in the rivers of Newfoundland, and a special re- monstrance seems to us the most direct and proper means of informing the French Government to that effect.

E. If a remonstrance is not made the French Government may not unfairly urge before the mixed commission the acquiescence of the British Government.

F. The conduct of Captain de Boissondey is a further reason why the remonstrance should not be delayed.

3. But we are of opinion that although some notice may properly be taken of Captain de Boissondey's conduct that notice should be very moderate and guarded, and possibly confined to an expression that Her Majesty's Government does not press that subject further owing to the instructions which have been sent to the French naval officers. The difficulty which we have in answering this question with precision and definitely is that it goes to the root of the whole matter. If the French had no right, then Captain Miller acted quite properly, and the conduct of the French officer was altogether wrong; but if the French had the right contended for, Captain Miller gave a notice which Captain de Boissondey was justified in telling the French occupant to disregard; we think therefore that such a notice as we have suggested above will be sufficient.

In answering these questions, we have not lost sight of a point raised by Admiral Seymour in his letter of June 1853, namely, the inconvenience and anomaly of allowing French officers to exercise a jurisdiction over British subjects within Her Majesty's dominions at sea or on land. But this anomaly is the necessary consequence of the treaties, and your Lordship may think it a matter for the consideration of the Mixed Commission.

4. We think Captain Miller's proceedings and correspondence show considerable ability and discretion, and we agree generally in the opinions expressed by the Colonial Law Officer on the several questions involved. In one respect, however, we differ from him, since we are of opinion that the French have no right of fishing in the rivers whether above or below high water mark.

Referring to Mr. Hammond's second letter of the 6th October, the difficulty sug- gested will not arise if we are right in our opinion that the French have no fishing rights in the rivers. The 25 Viot. c. 2. being limited to fisheries on the coast pro- perly has the section 10 relating to treaty rights, whilst 23 Vict. c. 8. regulates the river fisheries, as to which there are no treaty rights. But if we are mistaken in our opinion upon the French treaty rights, and these extend to the rivers in Newfoundland, the French may notwithstanding the 23 Vict. c. 8. exercise their rights in any manner which they may deem fit, and the Colonial Act may properly be repealed.

We e have, &c. (Signed)

J. D. COLERIDGE. H. JAMES.

MY LORD,

No. 868. (ST. LUCIA.)

QUEEN'S ADVOCATE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Temple, October 23, 1873.

I am honoured by your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Holland's letter of the 17th of October, stating that he was directed to transmit to me the accompany- ing Despatch from the Governor-in-Chief of the Windward Islands.

Mr. Holland further stated that the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Port Spain has removed the Rev. M. Trouette from the appointment of curé of Castries, and Vicaire Forain in Saint Lucia, which is part of that diocese. That M. Trouette states that he has appealed to Rome against his dismissal.

On the other hand the Archbishop states that M. Trouette has no right to any such appeal. That in these circumstances the Administrator of the Government of Saint Lucia has raised the question whether the stipend can properly be paid to any person but M. Trouette.

Mr. Holland was pleased further to say that he was to explain that the stipends of the Roman Catholic curés in Saint Lucia are provided in the annual appropriation ordinance of the Colony, and that it has been the practice for the Administrator to appoint the cures on the nomination of the Archbishop.

Mr. Holland enclosed a copy of the answer which your Lordship has returned to the Governor-in-Chief of the Windward Islands, and stated that your Lordship requested to be informed whether I concur in that answer, especially as regards the arrangement proposed as to the stipend pending the answer from Rome to M. Trouette's appeal.

That should I be of opinion that any alteration is required in the terms of the Despatch the Governor can be directed by telegraph to defer taking any action upon it, and that your Lordship would be glad to receive my report at the earliest convenient opportunity.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands I have the honour to

Report

That I concur in the answer, especially as regards the arrangement proposed as to the stipend pending the answer from Rome to M. Trouette's appeal, and am of opinion that no alteration is required in the terms of the Despatch.

The Earl of Kimberley,

&c.

&o.

I have, &c. (Signed) J. PARKER DEANE.

J. PARKER DEANE.

16378-853.

25.--5/86.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

--