CO885-(15-16) — Page 485

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.

Reference :-

.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

narrowest construction, therefore seem to have included power to this extent to regulate the acts of American fishermen.

7. The inconveniences caused by the presence of American fishermen in British waters under the Treaty of 1783 were however well known to His Majesty's Govern- ment at the time the Act of 1819 was drafted and passed; indeed they were adduced by Lord Bathurst in 1815 as one of the reasons why the whole of the fishery under that Treaty could not be restored to American fishermen on the conclusion of peace. The necessity of keeping the American fishermen exercising their rights under the Convention of 1818 within proper bounds, must therefore have been fully recognised by the framers of the Act of 1819 and it is hardly conceivable that while Parliament was empowering His Majesty in Council to impose the restrictions expressly con- templated by the Convention on the American right of entry into the reserved bays and harbours of British North America, it should not at the same time have em- powered His Majesty in Council to impose on the American right of fishery the restrictions to which the Convention subjected by implication the exercise of that right.

8. It is true that the Order in Council of June 19, 1819, in effect merely pro- vided for the quiet enjoyment by American fishermen of their fishing rights under the Convention. But if this exhausted the powers of His Majesty in Council under the First Section of the Act of 1819, it is difficult to suggest a reason why Parliament did not do it by 'express enactment, as it could easily have done. By leaving the matter to the King in Council something more would clearly seem to have been intended. According to the summary of the speech of Mr. Robinson, who intro- duced the Bill, printed in Hansard, the object was "to give His Majesty the power to enforce an observance of that Treaty, as well as to issue regulations for the 'carrying on of the fishery in those parts which remained open to the subjects of the United States,"" and those regulations would have apparently been embodied in the Act itself had not “the distance of place and the intricacy of details rendered a more distinct law.ineffectual." It would seem that it was soon recognised that it would be difficult to provide even in an Order in Council for the detailed regula- tion of the exercise of the American rights; at all events the Order in Council of June 19, 1819, after directing the Governor to warn British subjects not to interrupt the American fishery, and to conform himself to the Treaty, practically handed over the further details to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's despatch of June 21, 1819, gave somewhat minute instructions to the Governor not only as to what the Americans were entitled to do under the Convention, but also as to what they were not entitled to do, and directed him in effect to see not only that they were allowed to do the one, but also that they were not allowed to do the other. If there was any connection between this despatch and the Order in Council, the despatch is a clear indication of the view then held of the extent and nature of the powers con- ferred by Section 1 of the Act of 1819.

9. In 1819 and up to 1832 the only legislative authority over Newfoundland was the Imperial Parliament; consequently if Section 1 of the Act of 1819 did not em- power the King in Council to restrain American fishermen from acts in excess of their Treaty rights or otherwise to regulate the exercise of those rights, whenever such powers should have become necessary, a further reference to Parliament would have been required, or else the King would have had to resort to a series of Acts of State. That the matter should be dealt with by Acts of State seems altogether inconsistent with the object of the Act of 1819, which was to set up an adequate municipal law and jurisdiction.

In one respect the Convention imposed what amounted to a disability on the American right of fishery; it confined the right of drying and curing fish to the then unsettled bays of Labrador and the south coast of Newfoundland, and thereby made it unlawful for Americans to dry and cure their fish on the west coast of the Colony, and on the Magdalen Islands. It also made it unlawful in certain circumstances for the right of drying and curing fish to be exercised even on the coasts of Labrador and the south coast of Newfoundland. Newfoundland and the Magdalen Islands did not in 1819 stand on the same footing as regards the drying of fish. In the Magdalen Islands there was apparently no legal obstacle to the drying of fish by American fishermen, but it was unlawful (subject to a reservation of French rights on the Treaty Coast) for any person not being one of His Majesty's subjects in Great Britain or in one of the British Dominions in Europe to dry fish in Newfoundland. This prohibition was raised in favour of American fishermen, to the extent stipulated

3

in the Convention, by the Order in Council of June 19, 1819, but any drying or curing of fish by American fishermen contrary to the stipulations of the Convention continued, of course, to be illegal. In 1824, however, (see Section 1 of 5 George IV., cap. 51) the prohibition was removed altogether and the position of Newfoundland was thus assimilated to that of the Magdalen Islands. It cannot, it is presumed, be questioned that the powers necessary and proper for carrying into effect the purposes of the Convention conferred on His Majesty in Council by Section 1 of the Act of 1819 included power to restrain Americans from drying fish on the Magdalen Islands from the first and after 1824, when the matter ceased to be provided for by Parliament, to enforce the limitations expressly imposed by the Convention on the American right of drying and curing fish in Newfoundland. If His Majesty in Council had power to enforce the limitations expressly imposed by the Convention on the American right of drying and curing fish, it is difficult to suppose that His Majesty in Council was not at the same time empowered to enforce the other con- ditions on the exercise of the American rights implied in the Convention.

10. The words "with relation to the taking, drying and curing of fish by in- habitants of the United States of America" did not in Lord Elgin's view limit the full significance of the phrase " the purposes of the said Convention." He is inclined to regard them as intended merely as a succinct description of that part of the Convention with which Section 1 of the Act of 1819 deals, and to consider that that Section conferred on His Majesty in Council the power of doing everything necessary for the carrying into effect of the purposes for and with which His Majesty had arranged with the United States of America that American fishermen should take, dry, and cure fish in common with British subjects in certain waters in British North America, and consequently to make provision for all questions and circumstances which might arise out of that arrangement, and therefore inter alia to determine and enforce the conditions on which the American fishery under the Convention was to be exercised.

11. At the time when the Act 59 Geo. III., cap. 38, was passed, there was, as already stated, no legislature in Newfoundland. Up to the year 1832 the only legislative authority over the Island was the Imperial Parliament, and the only statutes in force Imperial statutes. In that year representative Government was given to the Island and a Legislature was created with full power and authority, to make, constitute and ordain laws, statutes and ordinances for the public peace. welfare and good government of our said Island and its dependencies, and the people and inhabitants thereof, and such others as shall resort thereto, and for the benefit of Us, Our Heirs and Successors, which said laws, statutes and ordinances are not to be repugnant, but to be as near as may be agreeable, to the laws and statutes of this our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

12. This was done by the Commission appointing Sir T. Cochrane to be Governor, ie., by the Crown in the exercise of its prerogative. The circumstances in which the change was effected are described in the accompanying despatch from Lord Goderich to Sir T. Cochrane. (Enclosure 2.)

13. In 1855 responsible government was granted to the Colony at the time of the appointment of Governor Darling. There was no formal grant and all that was done was so to draft the Royal Instructions as to enable the change to take place. Copies of Governor Darling's Commission and Instructions are also enclosed. (Enclosures 3 and 4.)

14. It should be mentioned for the sake of completeness, that between the appointment of Sir T. Cochrane in 1832 and that of Mr. Darling in 1855, four Imperial Acts were passed bearing on the Constitution of the Colony, viz:-2 and 3 William IV., cap. 78; 5 and 6 Vic., cap. 120: 9 and 10 Vic., cap. 45, and 10 and 11 Vic., cap. 44. They do not appear, however, to have been in the nature of a grant of legislative powers, except as regards the amendment of certain Imperial statutes as to the administration of justice and the celebration of marriages and as regards the appropriation of duties levied under Acts of Parliament. It is assumed that the recital in the preamble of 5 and 6 Vic., cap 120, of the powers granted to the Colonial Legislature in 1832 in no way invested that grant with the authority of Parliament. The general powers of the Legislature of Newfoundland are thus derived from a grant made by the Crown in the exercise of its prerogative; in common with other Colonial Legislatures, certain special powers of legislation have been conferred upon it by the Imperial Parliament, e.g., by the Colonial Inland Post Office Act, 1849, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and the Merchant Shipping Acts.

29103

A 2