Nr. 10722. Die Neufundländer Fischereifrage*). (Vgl. Band 56, 54, 52.) Nr. 10722. GROSSBRITANNIEN. auswärtige Amt. Botschafter in Paris an das Frankreich verlangt dauernde Garantien für die Ausführung der Verträge. Paris, June 4, 1891. (June 5.) (Extract.) When I saw M. Ribot yesterday at the Quai d'Orsay, I found britannien. him in receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 1st instant to M. Waddington 4. Juni 1891. relative to the measures necessary to insure the execution of the arbitral decision as to the Newfoundland Lobster fisheries. || His Excellency said, that this communication did not remove (in fact, he added, it rather increased) the embarrassing uncertainties of the position in which the French Government is placed by the substitution of temporary Colonial legislation, limited to a period of three years, for the permanent Act to which Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to obtain the assent of the Imperial Parliament for enforcing the award of the Arbitrators. || So long as the French Government had a well-founded assurance, that the Government of Her Majesty possessed not only the will, but also the power, to insure the permanent enforcement of the award, it was, of course, in no wise concerned with the nature of any arrangements made for that purpose between the Imperial Government and the Government of Newfoundland. But no such assurance was to be found in the present temporary arrangement, whereby the duty of providing for the protection of French rights was practically transferred from the Imperial Government, which acknowledged them, to the Colonial Government, which denied. and contested them. He warmly recognized and appreciated the scropulous loyalty with which Her Majesty's Government had acted towards France in this matter up to the present moment; and, in illustration of it, he laid stress upon an assurance which, he said, M. Waddington had received from your Lordship, that you were prepared to make a Cabinet question of the passage through Parliament of the Bill now abandoned. || France could desire no stronger guarantee for the fulfilment of our engagements towards her than would have been furnished by that Bill, had it become law. But, instead of that Bill, she was now asked to be satisfied with a temporary Act, extorted with great difficulty, and only under the strongest possible pressure, from a Colonial Legislature notoriously reluctant to pass it, and supplemented by a Resolution. of the House of Commons worded in the most general terms. If the New*) Die nachfolgenden Dokumente Nr. 10722 bis 10756 sind entnommen den englischen Blaubüchern New-Foundland Fisheries" 1891/92 und ,,New-Foundland" 1893. Gross foundland Government was acting in good faith towards France, why did it Nr. 10722. object to a permanent measure? It could only object to such a measure britannien. because it was resolved that, so far as in it lay, nothing in the nature of 4. Juni 1891. French rights should have permanent protection or existence in Newfoundland. The undisguised object of the Newfoundland Government was to evade the Treaty rights of France, and the terms of the modus vivendi, by every means in its power; to get rid altogether of the surveillance of the naval officers by whom these rights and terms were enforced, and to transfer the police of the fisheries entirely to the jurisdiction of the Colonial Courts. But in the impartiality of these Courts the French Government had no faith, and it could not assent to any arrangement which would have the effect of making the interpretation and enforcement of French rights dependent upon their decision. I reminded M. Ribot that, if the Newfoundland Government failed in the fulfilment of any obligations undertaken by it, Parliament stood pledged to the adoption of whatever measure the Imperial Government might, in that case, deem necessary for their enforcement. To this, however, his Excellency replied, that the Newfoundland Government and Parliament made no secret of the calculation on which they acted in passing the three years' Act. Before the expiration of that Act a change of Government in England might bring into power the party which had espoused the cause of the Newfoundlanders against the present Cabinet, and thereby (notwithstanding all conventional. disclaimers) against France. || That party had committed itself to the view put forward by the Newfoundland Government, that the jurisdiction exercised by naval officers in Newfoundland waters is an intolerable nuisance to the Colony, and that the police of the fischeries should, as soon as possible, be made over exclusively to the Colonial Courts. || The House of Commons is pledged, it was said, to the adoption of any Imperial Act which the English Government for the time being may hereafter introduce for the fulfilment of its international obligations in Newfoundland. But who could say what sort of an Act a future English Cabinet might deem necessary or sufficient for that purpose, or what interpretation might be placed on those obligations by a Cabinet whose members had, in opposition, committed themselves to the Newfoundland view of them? | On an international question of this kind, it was impossible for the French Government to place itself in a position of which all the permanent conditions were left indefinite and dependent upon the precise terms of an Act of Parliament not in existence. || In these circumstances, therefore, he could not now attempt to obtain the assent of the French Parliament to the arbitration arrangement. Such an attempt was rendered hopeless by the action of the English Parliament, and nothing seemed left to do but to prolong the modus vivendi, if possible, till more substantial guarantees could be obtained for giving permanent effect to the award of the Arbitrators. || From some words addressed by your Lordship to M. Waddington, which M. Ribot quoted to me, but which do not occur in your Lordship's Gross britannien. Nr. 10722. reply to the French Ambassador's note, his Excellency appeared to have derived an impression that her Majesty's Government had in contemplation 4. Juni 1891. some arrangement with the Newfoundland Government for doing away with the surveillance of the naval authorities, and placing the police of the fisheries entirely under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Courts. || I cannot recall the exact words read to me by his Excellency from a document which I supposed at the time to be your Lordship's note to M. Waddington of the 1st instant, but I told him that they did not appear to me to bear the construction he put on them. Hitherto, the action often incumbent on Her Majesty's naval authorities in Newfoundland waters for enforcing the terms of the modus vivendi had been insufficiently protected by law. It was therefore necessary to legalize the scope of the powers exercised by them for the abovementioned purpose, and whether this result was effected by Colonial or Imperial legislation was a matter that could not concern the French Government. || M. Ribot said, that was undoubtedly the case. But the French Government would be seriously concerned by the transfer of judicial functions in reference to fishery disputes, under the modus vivendi or the arbitral award, from the naval authorities to the Colonial Courts, and he trusted that no such proposal would be entertained by Her Majesty's Government. || I gathered from the whole tenour of his remarks, that this is the point on which his mind is most exercised. Nr. 10723. Nr. 10723). FRANKREICH. Der Botschafter in London an das englische auswärtige Amt. Derselbe Gegenstand. Londres, le 7 Juin, 1891. (8. Juin.) M. le Marquis, || J'ai l'honneur de vous accuser réception de la lettre que Frankreich. votre Seigneurie a bien voulu m'écrire le 1er Juin et que j'ai communiquée 7. Juni 1891. sans retard à M. le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères. M. Ribot vient de m'in viter à vous faire part des observations que la lecture de cet important document lui a suggérées. | M. Ribot se rend parfaitement compte des difficultés en présence desquelles s'est trouvé le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté pour assurer l'exécution de l'arrangement du 11 Mars; mais il ne peut s'empêcher de regretter aussi bien que votre Seigneurie que le Bill présenté par Lord Knutsford et voté par la Chambre des Lords n'ait pas reçu force de loi par le vote de la Chambre des Communes. En effet c'est la première fois qu'en Angleterre on s'écarte de l'ancienne et constante pratique de confier au Gouvernement des pouvoirs permanents pour l'exécution des arrangements internationaux. Sans chercher à examiner ici l'origine première ou la portée actuelle de lois importantes telles que le "Mutiny Bill", qui sont renouvelées annuellement, je me bornerai à faire remarquer à votre Seigneurie que ces actes du Parlement, si importants qu'ils soient, sont tous d'ordre intérieur. Au contraire, il a toujours été reconnu que les Conventions internationales, souvent si difficiles à *) Vgl. Nr. 10412 und 10410. Anm. der Red. Frankreich. 7. Juni 1891. conclure, doivent être sanctionnées une fois pour toutes, et que les Gouverne- Nr. 10723. ments doivent être munis de pouvoirs permanents pour les exécuter. En effet il est de l'intérêt évident des deux pays contractants de ne pas renouveler périodiquement des débats qui peuvent soulever des questions irritantes. || M. Ribot, en présentant l'arrangement du 11 Mars à l'approbation du Sénat, avait pu affirmer l'engagement catégorique pris par les Ministres de la Reine d'assurer, d'une façon permanente, l'exécution de notre accord. Il est nécessaire qu'il puisse faire la même déclaration à la Chambre des Députés à laquelle l'arrangement est actuellement soumis. || Il est vrai que la Résolution votée à l'unanimité par la Chambre des Communes a consacré l'engagement pris par le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté vis-à-vis du Gouvernement de la République, et la haute assemblée s'est déclarée prête à soutenir le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté dans toutes les mesures nécessaires pour assurer l'exécution des Traités et des Arrangements conclus avec la France. Il va sans dire que nous apprécions à toute sa valeur une résolution conçue dans ces termes et que nous la considérons, suivant l'expression même de votre Seigneurie, comme un engagement d'honneur. Mais il n'en reste pas moins une grave question d'interprétation à résoudre et je suis persuadé qu'il est de l'intérêt des deux pays de ne point la laisser dans la vague. Cette question je l'ai déjà posée à votre Seigneurie; mais M. Ribot m'invite à la préciser: Devonsnous comprendre la Résolution votée par la Chambre des Communes et acceptée par le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté en ce sens, que le Parlement Impérial s'est engagé à voter, à défaut du Parlement Colonial, un Bill identique en ses effets à celui dont l'avait saisi Lord Knutsford, c'est-à-dire, à donner au Gouvernement Anglais seul les moyens permanents de faire exécuter les Traités avec la France et l'Arrangement du 11 Mars. || En effet, ainsi que j'ai déjà eu l'honneur de vous le faire remarquer, nous ne pouvons reconnaître aux autorités ou aux Tribunaux de Terre-Neuve le droit de se mêler d'affaires internationales. C'est avec le Gouvernement Anglais seul que nous avons traité et c'est de lui seul que nous attendons, en ce qui le touche, l'exécution de nos accords. || Je prie votre Seigneurie de me fournir sur ce point spécial les explications qui sont nécessaires à M. Ribot, afin de se mettre en mesure de demander les plus tôt possible à la Chambre des Députés l'approbation de notre Arrangement du 11 Mars. Waddington. schafter in Paris. - Die englische Regierung wird. heit machen. Foreign Office, June 8, 1891. My Lord, I have received and laid before the Queen your Excellency's Nr. 10724. despatch of the 4th instant, reporting your conversation with M. Ribot on the Grossprevious day respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries question. || M. Waddington 8. Juni 1891. Staatsarchiv LVII. 16 britannien. Gross Nr. 10724. informs me, that, as soon as he has received M. Ribot's reply to the note britannien. Which I addressed a week ago to the Ambassador, he will come to me to 8. Juni 1891. explain the views of his Government. | Under these circumstances, I will not at present reply to your Excellency's despatch. || But there is one misconception into which M. Ribot has fallen, and which it is desirable I should correct without delay. He stated to your Excellency, that I had undertaken that Her Majesty's Government would make a Cabinet question of the Bill on the Newfoundland arbitration, which was introduced by Lord Knutsfort into the House of Lords. In this his Excellency is entirely mistaken. The only statement of mine which can have given rise to such a misunderstanding was a remark to M. Waddington, to the effect that we should look upon the approval of Parliament to the Convention which we were about to sign as indispensable to the existence of the Ministry. That approval we have received in the most formal manner. But I never pledged myself to attach that character to the passage of a particular Bill. Salisbury. Nr. 10725. britannien. Nr. 10725. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Auswärtiges Amt an den Botschafter in Paris. Unterredung mit dem französischen Botschafter über die Ausführung des Schiedsspruches. Foreign Office, June 10, 1891. My Lord, || The French Ambassador called upon me to receive my answer Gross- to the letter of which a copy has been forwarded to your Excellency. || I stated 10. Juni 1891. to him, that it appeared to me at first sight that M. Ribot had entered upon the discussion of matters which were not properly the subject of international controversy at all. England had undertaken to execute the Award of the Arbitrators. To that undertaking, in any circumstances, and under any Government, she was bound, and France had the fullest right to require from her a performance of her pledge. But France had no right to investigate the municipal arrangements by which the performance of that international duty was secured. It was for us to make what arrangements we pleased, and in discussing those arrangements the members of our Legislature were at liberty to use what language they pleased. The machinery we employed, the political principles we followed, the doctrines we defended or attacked among ourselves, were purely a question for our own discretion, with which no other nation had any right to interfere. One right, and one right only, France had acquired by the Convention, and that was a right to the substantial and honest performance of the Award. | M. Waddington answered me, that it was impossible France could omit to take notice of the unusual procedure which had been followed in England, of the statements which had been made in both Houses of Parliament, and especially the language that had been employed by the Opposition. They could not help deducing from it an intention on our part not to execute the Treaty or the Award ourselves, but to dele |