Twice, in 1884 and in 1885, a convention arranged between the British and French governments was submitted to the colonial legislature which, however, absolutely refused to ratify the ar rangement unless the French government would consent either to annul or to amend the system of bounties paid upon French-caught fish in Newfoundland waters. To counteract the effect of these bounties, which pressed very hardly upon the British competition, a Bait Act was passed in 1886, empowering the executive to pro hibit the capture in Newfoundland waters for exportation or sale of bait fishes, except under special licence to be issued by the colonial government. The consequence of this measure, had its provisions been properly enforced, would have been to place an embarco upon the local supply of bait requisite to the French fisherniell—the so-called "metropolitan fleet"—on the Grand Banks. The French government immediately demanded that Great Britain should deny its sanction to the Newfoundland Bait Act, and pressed their objections with such persistence as to in duce Lord Salisbury to disallow the measure. Nevertheless, the despatch of the governor, Sir William des Voeux, to the colonial secretary, Sir H. Holland, was entirely in favour of the principle of the bill. In 1887, at the conference of Colonial Premiers attend ing Queen Victoria's Jubilee the subject was argued at considera ble length. The claim of the senior colony "to control and legis late for her own fisheries" met with general approval, the single dissentient being the representative of Canada, who feared that Canadian fishermen would suffer under the bill. When an assur ance was tendered that Canada's fishermen would be placed upon the same footing with those of Newfoundland, the British govern ment somewhat reluctantly sanctioned the Bait Act. In the mean time the chagrin of the French Foreign Office at the failure of negotiations, and the hostile attitude taken up by the Newfound landers induced de Freycinet to devise retaliatory measures. In structions were issued "to seize and confiscate all instruments of fishing belonging to foreigners resident or otherwise, who shall fish on that part of the coast which is reserved to our use." Lord Rosebery, then foreign secretary, protested to the French am bassador against the spirit of these instructions, which he insisted were in direct contravention of the treaty, inasmuch as they ignored the concurrent as well as those sovereign rights of Great Britain which France solemnly undertook by the treaties never to question or dispute. About 1874 a Nova Scotian named Rumkey had established the first factory for the canning of lobsters on the west coast. This concern proved profitable, and others sprang up, until, at the close of the season of 1887, Captain Campbell, R.N., reported that 26 factories were at work, employing about Ioo hands. The year of the Bait Act's first successful applica tion was marked by the stoppage, by order of the French govern ment, of one of the largest factories, and by their contention that the lobster-canning industry formed a part of the exclusive privi leges conceded under the treaties to the French. "France," it was then declared, "preserved the exclusive right of fishing she always possessed. This right of France to the coast of Newfoundland reserved to her fishermen is only a part of her ancient sovereignty over the island which she retained in ceding the soil to England, and which she has never weakened or alienated." The French government then voted (1888) a special bounty for the estab lishment of lobster factories by their subjects on the treaty coast. Acting under a statute passed in the reign of George III., empowering British naval officers to interpret and enforce the treaties, Sir Baldwin Walker and others proceeded to destroy or remove a number of British factories at the request of the French agents. In 1890 the unexpected discovery was made that the act empowering British naval officers to enforce the provisions of the treaties with France had expired in 1832 and had never been renewed. Consequently all the proceedings of which the colonists had been the victims were illegal. One of them, James Baird, immediately took proceedings against Sir Baldwin Walker in the supreme court, which decided in his favour, mulcting the admiral in I 1,000.
On an appeal to the privy council the decision was upheld. But before this incident had taken place, the controversy between London and Paris culminated in the modus vivendi of 189o, by which the lobster factories, both British and French, which were in existence on July 1, 1889, were to continue for the present. Instantly the colony took alarm, and a deputation consisting of the island's leading men was sent to England to protest against both the principle and practice of such an arrangement. On their return they learnt that it was the intention of the imperial government to re-enact verbatim et literatim the act for the enforcement of the treaties which had expired 59 years previously To prevent such an occurrence, delegates from both parties in Newfoundland visited London in April 1891, and, appearing at the bar of the House of Lords, promised that if the measure which was then on the eve of being introduced into that body were withdrawn, a temporary measure would be passed by the Newfoundland legislature which would answer the same purpose of enabling Great Britain to carry out her treaty obligations with France. For a number of years the Modus Vivendi Act was an nually passed by the legislature, each year under protest.
In 1898 the secretary of state, Joseph Chamberlain, yielding to the urgent request of the senior colony, despatched a royal corn mission of investigation to the "French shore," and three years later a new conference was held in London. Later in the same year negotiations were begun between the British and French governments for a general treaty.
On April 8, 1904 the Lansdowne-Cambon Convention was signed, which, inter alia, effected a final settlement of the French shore question. Territorial concessions were made consisting of a modification of the Anglo-French boundary line in the Niger and Lake Chad district, and a re-arrangement of the Gambia Senegambia frontier, giving Yarbatenda to Senegambia. The Los
Islands opposite Konakry Island were likewise ceded to France. Individual claims for indemnity were duly submitted to an arbi tral tribunal, composed of an officer of each nation; and at length what is known as the Lyttelton Award, was made as follows:— General award for French rights ..... . $255,750 Loss of occupation . ....... 226,813 Effects left by the French on treaty coast . . . . 28,936 Thus, so far as concerned the French, was an end put to a situation on the treaty shore, which for nearly 200 years had given rise to difficulties and anxieties.
American Claims.—Scarcely, however, had a year elapsed from the signing of the convention, when another international disagreement connected with the fisheries assumed grave im portance. There had long been intense dissatisfaction in the Col ony over the attitude of the American government and American fishermen towards the colony. The action of the American Senate in rejecting the Bond-Hay treaty negotiated in 1902 stirred the colonial government to retaliatory measures. By virtue of the treaty of 1818 American fishermen enjoyed the right, in corn mon with British fishermen, to prosecute their industry within certain defined areas. But America then formally renounced for ever "any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed . . . to take, dry or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's do minions in America" not included in the stated limits, with one qualification : "that American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter and of re pairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water and for no other purpose whatever." In 1905 an act was passed by the colonial legislature imposing certain restrictions on American vessels, and a further more stringent act in 1906, pre venting Newfoundlanders from joining American vessels. These acts were resented by the American government, which, through Secretary Root, called upon the British government to disallow such interferences on the part of the Newfoundland legislature. Lord Elgin's reply was to suggest a modus vivendi pending fur ther discussion of the questions at issue. In spite of the colony's energetic protest, a modus vivendi was agreed to in Oct. 1906, whereby the Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of 1906 was held in abeyance, and the act of 1905 was held not to apply to American fishing vessels, and light dues were waived, while on the other hand American vessels were to report at the custom house on entry for clearance, and their fishermen were to comply with colonial fishery regulations. The American government consented to waive Sunday fishing by the Americans, which was an im portant colonial grievance, if the use of purse seines by American fishermen were allowed. Lord Elgin's action was considered to be an interference with the internal affairs of the colony and great public indignation was aroused. Retaliatory measures were re solved upon, Newfoundland fishermen being declared liable to fine and imprisonment for selling bait to the Americans or for joining American vessels. The legislature voted an address to the imperial government, protesting against the modus vivendi, and this was carried to England in 19o7 by Sir Robert Bond, the premier of the colony. Finally the matter was referred to The Hague tribunal for arbitration, which gave its award in Sept. 1910, the two main points at issue being decided as follows : (a) Great Britain had the right to make regulations for the fisheries without the consent of the United States, subject to the provisions of the treaty of 1818. (b) The "three-mile limit" in bays (subject to special judg ment in individual cases) was to be taken from a line across the bay at the point, nearest the entrance, where a width of ten miles is not exceeded. Among other provisions it was decided that American vessels might employ foreign hands (but these received no benefit under the treaty) ; also that they might be required to report to custom houses if facilities to do so existed In the opening decades of the century the question of New foundland's claim to Labrador became an urgent one. It had indeed been raised about i888 and was a subject of discussion at the Halifax Conference of 1892. But not until 19°3 did the Government of Canada, learning that the Newfoundland Govern ment had issued a timber licence in the Hamilton river region, seriously challenge the island's ownership. In the succeeding years the rival claims of Canada (or to be more precise, the Province of Quebec) and Newfoundland were subjected to close and skilled investigation, especially since, in 1920, it was agreed to accept an adjudication by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The case was heard in 1926 before the Lord Chancellor, and Lords Haldane, Finlay, Sumner and Warrington, the argu ments lasting for fourteen days. In March, 1927, a decision was rendered, in which Newfoundland's claim was upheld. The Judicial Committee found "the boundary between Canada and Newfoundland in the Labrador peninsula to be a line drawn due north from the eastern boundary of the bay or harbour of Ance Sablon as far as 52° N. and from thence westward along that parallel until it reaches the Romain river, and then northward along the left or east bank of that river and its headwaters to their source, and from thence due north to the crest of the watershed or height of land there, and from thence westward and northward along the crest of the watershed of the rivers flowing into the Atlantic Ocean until it reaches Cape Chidley." This important judgment which first formally established the island Dominion's claim to territory nearly three times its own extent, caused great rejoicing in Newfoundland. It enabled the varied natural resources of the disputed region to be accessible at last to those desiring a valid title. The taking of the water shed as the boundary was held to remove the danger of any further dispute. The territory awarded is estimated (1928) to contain spruce forests valued at $5o,000,000.