"Twelve large firms controlled the whole export trade of the colony—fish oils and fish products, valued at about 7,000,000 dollars. Of these twelve only two remain ... and these are sorely stricken. These firms occupied the whole waterside premises of St. John's, gave employment to hundreds of storekeepers, coopers, stevedores, and others, beside some thousands of unskilled labourers occupied in the handling of the fish. All these men are now without a day's work, or any means of obtaining it. The isolation of the colony, away out in the Atlantic with no neighbour, is its greatest curse. People unemployed cannot emigrate, but must swell an army of industrials depending on the Government for relief. The city is a veritable aggregation of unemployed; it is a city to let. Every business, factory, wharf, store, or shop employing labour has either suspended business or has curtailed the number of its employees to the lowest possible limit. It is not unreasonable to estimate the number unemployed here to-day at 6,000, every one of whom must be without work until spring opens."

It is not surprising to find that in this difficulty the minds of the colonists turned towards the Imperial Exchequer. But the distinction is vital between an Imperial grant in relief of a visitation of nature and a grant in relief of financial disasters which may be the result of improvidence or extravagance. The Imperial Exchequer is drawn from complex sources, and cannot be diverted to irregular purposes without injustice to large numbers of poor people. These facts were not unnaturally overlooked in Newfoundland, for in trouble the sense of proportion is apt to disappear. Thus on March 2nd, 1895, Sir W. Whiteway, the Newfoundland Premier, in a letter to The Times, said:

"We have approached Her Majesty's Government, and solicited a mere guarantee of interest to the amount of a few thousand pounds per annum for a limited period, in order to enable the colony to float its loans and tide it over the present temporary difficulties. Up to date the people of this old, loyal colony have received no response. They have been struggling against difficulties in the past, and if they still have to trust to their own inherent pluck, and to the resources of the country, they must only passively submit, although they may the more bitterly feel the heartless treatment of the Imperial Government towards them."

The touch of bitterness in Sir William Whiteway's letter was, perhaps, unreasonable. Mr Goodridge was Premier at the time of the crash, and his Government at once appealed for help to England, on the ground that if it were not forthcoming the colony would be unable to meet its obligations. A proposal was added that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the whole political and commercial position of the colony. Mr Goodridge was unable to keep his place, and his Government was followed by that of Mr Greene. The new Government at once inquired whether, if the Newfoundland Legislature acquiesced in the appointment of a Commission, financial help would be immediately forthcoming. They desired information also as to the scope of the Commission and the terms on which assistance would be given. To this the answer was inevitable, that all these points must depend upon the findings of the Commission. In fact, the Colonial Government wished for an unconditional loan and an assurrance that the Constitution of the island would not be interfered with. Mr Greene, in turn, proved unable to hold his ground, and was succeeded by Sir William Whiteway. The latter substituted for the earlier proposals a request that the Newfoundland bonds should be guaranteed by the Imperial Government; the suggested Commission being ignored. This was the request referred to in Sir William's letter. Now it is very clear that although the amount involved was relatively small, a very important principle was raised. Responsible government has its privileges and its obligations, the latter of which flow logically from the former. The Imperial Government charges itself with responsibility for the finances of a Crown colony because it directs the policy and determines the establishment on which the finances so largely depend. It is not reasonable to ask that the British taxpayer should assume responsibility for liabilities incurred by a colony with responsible government. The toga virilis has responsibilities. The case might, perhaps, be different if there were no danger that the concession of help might be drawn into a precedent. But it must never be forgotten that the aggregate public debts of the self-governing colonies at about that time exceeded L300,000,000.

The crisis of 1895 has been dealt with at some little length, because it would be impossible otherwise to understand the occasion of the great Reid Contract, which will form the subject of the next chapter. It so happens that the last ten years of the nineteenth century have been more momentous than any equal period in the history of the colony.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[41] The census of this year showed that the population had increased to 146,536.

[42] Op. cit., p. 495.

[43] This question of union was frequently raised—notably in 1906, and during the Great War in 1916 and 1917 (see end of chap. ix.).

[44] Sir Robert Bond, the ex-Premier of Newfoundland; Mr J.G. Blaine, the American Secretary of State.

[45] House of Commons Papers, Miscellaneous, No. 3, 1910, Cd. 5396.

[46] See chap. ix.

[47] December 14th, 1894.

[48] See General Dashwood's letter to The Times, December 18th, 1894.

[49] Rogers, p. 189.

[50] January 17th, 1895.



CHAPTER IX

THE REID CONTRACT—GENERAL PROGRESS AND RECENT HISTORY

The next few years may be dismissed briefly, for they were years of unrelieved melancholy, from the point of view of the public financial policy and the political development of the colony. Nor did the disease admit of a readily applicable remedy. The experience of each decade had shown more and more clearly that the colony had nothing in reserve—no variety of pursuits to support the general balance of prosperity by alternations of success. Potentially its resources were almost incalculably great, but their development was impossible without capital or credit. The colony had neither. Under these circumstances took place the General Election of October, 1897. The assets of the colony were not before the electorate, and there was no reason to suppose that financial proposals of an extraordinary kind were in contemplation. The result of the election placed Sir James Winter in power. In six months the famous "Reid Contract" had been entered into—a contract which must be described at some length in these pages, partly because it throws a vivid light upon the constitutional relations between the Mother Country and a self-governing colony, partly because it appears to be incomparably the most important event in the recent history of Newfoundland.

On February 22nd, 1898, Mr Chamberlain received a telegram from the Governor, Sir Herbert Murray, advising him that a novel resolution had been submitted to the Houses of Legislature by his responsible advisers. A fuller telegram six days later, and a letter intervening, explained the proposals in detail. To put the matter as shortly as possible, the Government advised the sale to a well-known Canadian contractor, Mr R.G. Reid, of certain valuable colonial assets. In the first place, Mr Reid was to purchase all lines of railway from the Government for 1,000,000 dollars; this amount was the price of the ultimate reversion, the contractor undertaking to operate the lines for fifty years on agreed terms, and to re-ballast them. If he failed in this operation his reversionary rights became forfeit. For carrying the Government mails he was to receive an annual subsidy of 42,000 dollars. Minute covenants by the contractor were inserted in the draft contract, "in consideration whereof," it continued, "the Government hereby covenant and agree to and with the contractor, to grant to him in fee simple ... 5,000 acres of land for each one mile of main line or branch railway throughout the entire length of the lines to be operated: the expression 'in fee simple' to include with the land all mines, ores, precious metals, minerals, stones, and mineral oils of every kind." Besides these general concessions a particular grant of mineral land was made. The areas of land near Grand Lake, in which coal had been discovered, were transferred to Mr Reid, on condition that he should so work the coal mines as to produce not less than 50,000 tons of coal per annum.

The contract then passed on to deal with the service of mail steamers. Under this head eight steamers for various services were to be provided by the contractor, and by him manned and equipped. In consideration therefor the Government undertook to pay subsidies upon an agreed scale. The docks were next disposed of. Under this head the Government agreed to sell to the contractor the St. John's Dry Dock for 325,000 dollars. The next available asset was the telegraph service. Here the agreement provided that the contractor should assume responsibility for all telegraph lines until 1904, in return for an annual subsidy of 10,000 dollars, and after 1904, until the period of fifty years was completed, should maintain them free of any charge to the colony by way of subsidy or otherwise.

By a later section of the draft contract it was provided that the contractor should not assign or sublet the contract, or any part or portion thereof, to any person or corporation whomsoever without the consent of the Government. The language of this prohibition is curiously general, and is indeed sufficient in its terms to prohibit assignments mortis causa, as well as those inter vivos. Such a result can hardly have been contemplated.

By the last section it was recorded that "the Government undertake to enact all such legislation as may be necessary to give full effect to the contract and the several clauses and provisions thereof, according to the spirit and intent thereof, and also such as may be necessary to facilitate and enforce the collection and payment of fares and rates, the preservation of order and discipline in the trains and stations, and generally to give to the contractor all such powers, rights, and privileges as are usually conferred upon or granted to railways and railway companies for the purposes of their business."

Such, in barest outline, was the proposal of which Mr Chamberlain was informed by Governor Murray. It certainly involved a sacrifice incalculably grave of the colony's prospects, but those who brought it forward no doubt reflected on the truism that he who has expectations, but neither assets nor credit, must reinforce the latter by drawing in some degree upon the former. In fact, it seems to have been doubtful whether, at the time, the colony could by any device meet its obligations as they became due. The force of these observations must be frankly conceded; but it may still be doubted whether a less desperate remedy was not within the grasp of resourceful statesmanship. In his first telegram, sent on March 2nd, 1898, Mr Chamberlain called attention to the more apparent objections:

"The future of the colony will be placed entirely in the hands of the contractor by the railway contract, which appears highly improvident. As there seems to be no penalty provided for failure to operate the railways, the contract is essentially the sale of a million and a quarter acres for a million dollars."

From the legal point of view the contract was a very singular one. The Government of Newfoundland, in fact, assumed to bind its successors by a partial abdication of sovereign power. Yet the same capacity which enabled the then Government to bind itself would equally and evidently inhere in its successors to revoke the obligation. Those who are struck by the conscientious obligation which the then Government could no doubt bequeath, may ask themselves how long a democratically governed country would tolerate corruption or ineptitude in the public service on the ground that the monopolist worker of them had inherited a franchise from an ancestor who had known how to exploit the public necessities. The virtual expropriation of the Irish landlords, which was in progress in the United Kingdom, may have been right or it may have been wrong; it is at least a far more startling interference with vested interest than would be the resumption by a State of control over heedlessly aliened public services.

Whatever be the force of these observations, the disadvantages of the Newfoundland Government's specific proposals were patent enough. Nor were they unperceived in the colony, and in particular by the enemies of the Ministry. The islanders stopped fishing and took to petitions. These were numerous and lengthy, and it is only proposed to consider here the petition which was sent by dissentient members of the House of Assembly, containing a formidable indictment of the proposed agreement. The objections brought forward may be briefly summarized:

1. The electors were never consulted.

2. The Bill was an absolute conveyance in fee simple of all the railways, the docks, telegraph lines, mineral, timber, and agricultural lands of the colony, and virtually disposed of all the assets, representing a funded debt of 17,000,000 dollars, for L280,000.

3. While the Bill conveyed large and valuable mineral, agricultural, and timber areas, amounting, with former concessions, to four million acres, it made no provision for the development of these lands.

4. The conveyance embraced the whole Government telegraph system of the colony.

5. It included a monopoly for the next thirty years of the coastal carrying trade.

6. It included the sale of the dry dock, and the granting, without consideration, of valuable waterside property belonging to the Municipal Council of St. John's.

On March 23rd Mr Chamberlain answered the representation of Governor Murray, and the profuse petitions which the latter had forwarded. Both from the general constitutional significance of the reply, and its particular importance in the history of Newfoundland, it is convenient to reproduce the letter in full:

Mr Chamberlain to Governor Sir H.H. Murray.

Downing Street,

March 23rd, 1898.

SIR,—In my telegram of the 2nd instant I informed you that if your Ministers, after fully considering the objections urged to the proposed contract with Mr R.G. Reid for the sale and operation of the Government railways and other purposes, still pressed for your signature to that instrument, you would not be constitutionally justified in refusing to follow their advice, as the responsibility for the measure rested entirely with them.

2. Whatever views I may hold as to the propriety of the contract, it is essentially a question of local finance, and as Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the finance of self-governing colonies, it would be improper for them to interfere in such a case unless Imperial interests were directly involved. On these constitutional grounds I was unable to advise you to withhold your assent to the Bill confirming the contract.

3. I have now received your despatches as noted in the margin, giving full information as to the terms of the contract, and the grounds upon which your Government have supported it, as well as the reasons for which it was opposed by the Leader and some members of the Opposition.

4. I do not propose to enter upon a discussion of the details of the contract, or of the various arguments for and against it, but I cannot refrain from expressing my views as to the serious consequences which may result from this extraordinary measure.

5. Under this contract, and the earlier one of 1893, for the construction of the railway, practically all the Crown lands of any value become, with full rights to all minerals, the freehold property of a single individual: the whole of the railways are transferred to him, the telegraphs, the postal service, and the local sea communications, as well as the property in the dock at St. John's. Such an abdication by a Government of some of its most important functions is without parallel.

6. The colony is divested for ever of any control over or power of influencing its own development, and of any direct interest in or direct benefit from that development. It will not even have the guarantee for efficiency and improvement afforded by competition, which would tend to minimize the danger of leaving such services in the hands of private individuals.

7. Of the energy, capacity, and character of Mr Reid, in whose hands the future of the colony is thus placed, both yourself and your predecessor have always spoken in the highest terms, and his interests in the colony are already so enormous that he has every motive to work for and to stimulate its development; but he is already, I believe, advanced in years, and though the contract requires that he shall not assign or sublet it to any person or corporation without the consent of the Government, the risk of its passing into the hands of people less capable and possessing less interest in the development of the colony is by no means remote.

8. All this has been fully pointed out to your Ministers and the Legislature, and I can only conclude that they have satisfied themselves that the danger and evils resulting from the corruption which, according to the statement of the Receiver-General, has attended the administration of these services by the Government, are more serious than any evils that can result from those services being transferred unreservedly to the hands of a private individual or corporation; and that, in fact, they consider that it is beyond the means and capacity of the colony to provide for the honest and efficient maintenance of these services, and that they must, therefore, be got rid of at whatever cost.

9. That they have acted thus in what they believe to be the best interests of the colony I have no reason to doubt; but, whether or not it is the case, as they allege, that the intolerable burden of the Public Debt, and the position in which the colony was left by the contract of 1893, rendered this sacrifice inevitable, the fact that the colony, after more than forty years of self-government, should have to resort to such a step is greatly to be regretted.

10. I have to request that in communicating this despatch to your Ministers you will inform them that it is my wish that it may be published in the Gazette.

I have, etc., J. CHAMBERLAIN.

Some of the inferences set forth in the Colonial Secretary's lucid letter were questioned by the Newfoundland Government, but substantially his conclusions were not assailed. The decision of the Imperial Government by no means stayed the voice of local agitation, and the stream of petitions continued to grow. In a further letter to Governor Murray, dated December 5th, 1898, Mr Chamberlain laid down the great constitutional doctrine which is the Magna Charta of Greater Britain. Every student of colonial politics should be familiar with these passages:

"The right to complete and unfettered control over financial policy and arrangements is essential to self-government, and has been invariably acknowledged and respected by Her Majesty's Government, and jealously guarded by the colonies. The Colonial Government and Legislature are solely responsible for the management of its finances to the people of the colony, and unless Imperial interests of grave importance were imperilled, the intervention of Her Majesty's Government in such matters would be an unwarrantable intrusion and a breach of the charter of the colony.

"It is nowhere alleged that the interests of any other part of the Empire are involved, or that the Act is any way repugnant to Imperial legislation. It is asserted, indeed, that the contract disposes of assets of the colony over which its creditors in this country have an equitable, if not a legal claim; but, apart from the fact that the assets in question are mainly potential, and that the security of the colonial debt is its general revenue and not any particular property or assets, I cannot admit that the creditors of the colony have any right to claim the interference of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. It is on the faith of the Colonial Government and Legislature that they have advanced their money, and it is to them that they must appeal if they consider themselves damnified.

"No doubt, if it was seriously alleged that the Act involved a breach of faith or a confiscation of the rights of absent persons, Her Majesty's Government would have to consider it carefully, and consider whether the discredit which such action on the part of a colony would entail on the rest of the Empire rendered it necessary for them to intervene. But no such charge is made, and if Her Majesty's Government were to intervene whenever the domestic legislation of a colony was alleged to affect the rights of residents, the right of self-government would be restricted to very narrow limits....

"The fact that the constituencies were not consulted on a measure of such importance might have furnished a reason for its rejection by the Upper Chamber, but would scarcely justify the Secretary of State in advising its disallowance even if it were admitted as a general principle of constitutional government in Newfoundland that the Legislature has no right to entertain any measure of first importance without an immediate mandate from the electors."

The passing of the particular Bill by no means brought the Reid controversy to an end. In fact, the General Election in Newfoundland, of which the result was announced in November 1900, was fought entirely upon this absorbing question. The issue arose in the following way. The contract contained a clause providing that Mr Reid should not assign his rights over the railway without the consent of the Government. Mr Reid applied to the Government of Sir James Winter for such consent, but when that Government was defeated in February 1900, no answer had been received. Mr Reid wished to turn all his holdings in the colony over to a corporation capitalized at 25,000,000 dollars, he and his three sons forming the company. On the properties included he proposed to raise 5,000,000 dollars by debenture bonds, this sum to be expended in development.[51]

A Liberal Ministry under Mr Bond, who had consistently opposed the Reid arrangements, displaced Sir James Winter. Finding himself unable to hold his own in the Assembly, Mr Bond formed a coalition with Mr Morris, the leader of a section of Liberals who had not associated themselves with the party opposition to the contract. The terms of accommodation were simple: "The contract was to be treated as a fait accompli, but no voluntary concessions were to be made to Mr Reid except for a consideration." Consistently with this view, Mr Reid was informed by the Government that the permission he requested would be given upon the following terms:

(1) He should agree to resign his proprietary rights in the railway.

(2) He should restore the telegraphs to the ownership of the Government.

(3) He should consent to various modifications of his land grants in the interest of squatters able to establish their de facto possession.

To these terms the contractor was not prepared to accede. It is difficult not to feel sympathy with his refusal. I had the advantage of hearing the contention on this point of a well-known Newfoundland Liberal, who brought forward intelligible, but not, I think, convincing arguments. The clause against assignment without the consent of Government ought surely to be qualified by the implied condition that such consent must not be unreasonably withheld. In the private law of England equity has long since grafted this implication upon prohibitions against assignment. If, however, the Government had been content with a blunt non possumus, a case could no doubt have been made out for insisting upon their pound of flesh. They chose, however, to do the one thing which was neither dignified nor defensible: they offered to assent to an assignment on condition that Mr Reid surrendered his most valuable privileges. It is no answer to say, as many Newfoundland Liberals did say: We opposed the contract from the start, and it is therefore impossible for us to assent to any extension of the contractor's privileges. In fact, such an argument seems to betray an inability to understand the ground principle on which party government depends. That principle, of course, is the loyal acceptance by each party on entering office of the completed legislation of its predecessors. To borrow a metaphor from the Roman lawyers, the hereditas may be damnosa, but the party succeeds thereto as a haeres necessarius. Any other rule would substitute anarchy for order, and an endless process of reversing the past for a salutary attention to the present.

It must, on the other hand, be admitted that Mr Reid's conduct was not very well chosen to reassure his critics. He threw himself heart and soul into the General Election which became imminent, and displayed little judiciousness in his selection of nominees to fight seats in his interests. It is hard to suppose that independent men were not discoverable to lay stress on the immediate relief to the colony which the contract secured, and the inexorable necessity of which it might plausibly be represented to be the outcome. Mr Morine was Mr Reid's solicitor. He was a prominent Conservative and Minister of Finance, and his influence in the Assembly (where his connection with Mr Reid was apparently unknown) had been exerted in favour of the contract. When challenged on the point, Mr Morine asserted that he advised Mr Reid only on private matters, in which his interests would not come into conflict with those of the colony. Compelled to resign, however, by Governor Murray on account of the apparently incompatible duality of his position, he was reinstated (April, 1899) by Governor M'Callum, on an undertaking that his connection with Mr Reid should be suspended during office. Mr Morine became leader of the Conservative party on the retirement of Sir James Winter, reassuming at the same time his business relations with Mr Reid. In concert with the latter he began a political campaign in opposition to the Liberal party. His partner, Mr Gibbs, fought another seat in the same interest. The Times correspondent above referred to gives an amusing account of other candidates:

"One of Mr Reid's sons has been accompanying him through his constituency, and is mooted as a candidate. Two captains of Reid's bay steamers are running for other seats. The clothier who supplies the uniforms for Reid's officials is another, and a shipmaster, who until recently was ship's husband for the Reid steamers, is another. His successor, who is a member of the Upper House, has issued a letter warmly endorsing Mr Morine's policy, and it is now said that one of Reid's surveying staff will be nominated for another constituency."

It may easily be imagined that to the ordinary voter the Conservative personnel proved somewhat disquieting. Success at the polls would have enabled Mr Reid to say, with Louis XIV.—"L'Etat, c'est moi." Amid extraordinary excitement the election was fought in the autumn of 1900 on the sole issue of the Reid contract, and resulted in a sweeping victory for the Liberal party, supporting Mr Bond in his policy as to Mr Reid's monopolies.

The Reid Contract has been dealt with at this length at a sacrifice of proportion which the writer believes to be apparent rather than real. Newfoundland is newly emerged from infancy. The story of its childhood is relatively uneventful, but the political experiments of its adolescence must be of absorbing interest to all students of politics.

In 1901 an Act was passed giving sanction to a new agreement with Mr Reid in regard to the railways, and incorporating the Reid Newfoundland Company. Under the agreement the sum of one million dollars was to be paid to him in consideration of the surrender by him of the right to own the railway at the end of 1938; and 850,000 dollars instead of 21/2 million acres of land to which he had become entitled as a bonus for undertaking to operate the railway until 1938. He still had, however, claims in respect of certain rolling-stock and equipment that had been provided under earlier contracts; and also claims arising through the surrender of the telegraphs. All these were submitted to arbitration, resulting in awards to Mr Reid of 894,000 dollars and 11/2 million dollars respectively. However, under the new arrangement, Mr Reid ceased to be the virtual owner of the railway system; and became merely a contractor for its operation. The Reid Newfoundland Company, by agreement with Mr Reid, and with a capital of 25 million dollars, came into possession of over 21/2 million acres of land, with timber, mineral, and other rights thereon, and took over all existing contracts for working the railway, and mail and steamboat services of the colony, including St. John's Dry Dock and the St. John's tramways, as well as powers for electric lighting in the capital. The new Company commenced operations on September 1st, 1901.

With the beginning of the twentieth century was inaugurated an epoch of political as well as economic progress in the history of the island. The numerous and widespread activities of the new enterprise gave a great impetus to the colony: it ensured the efficient working of the railway, and gave employment at a good wage to an army of working men in the various branches, and also in connection with the flotilla of steamers that were run. Other spheres of activity were gradually opened up, e.g. the establishment of a sawmill to furnish the timber necessary for the various needs of the scheme, the opening of a granite quarry to supply material for bridge building and paving the streets of the capital, the development of a slate area and oil boring, coal mining, the construction of a hotel in St. John's, etc. The expansion of the undertaking increased from year to year, and included such projects as the establishment of flour mills, pulp and paper mills, etc. Next to the Government itself, the Reid Company became the largest paymaster in the island.[52]

Other factors contributing to the material advancement of the country were the development of the iron mines at Belle Island, and the production of pulp and paper by the "Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company," the initiators and controllers of which were Messrs Harmsworth, the well-known newspaper proprietors. This company was followed soon afterwards by the Albert Reed Company of London.

A few of the main events in the recent history of the colony may now be referred to; these, taking us down to the Great War, will suitably conclude the present chapter. First may be mentioned a curious development in the political arena. In 1902 the Ministerial candidates suffered a complete defeat in a by-election; and this result was attributed to two causes—in the first place, deficient fishing returns, and secondly, popular dissatisfaction at the monetary gains secured by Mr Reid. The contest of 1904 was further complicated by the formation of a number of factions in the ranks of the Opposition. The latter eventually joined their forces under five leaders, and, including all elements hostile to the party in power, took the field against the Bond-Morris Government. But the sympathies of the people were alienated from such an unusual combination, composed as it was of antithetical constituents, and when it was in addition rumoured that their aim was to effect a union with Canada, they suffered a severe reverse at the elections. Only Mr Morine was returned for his constituency; and he had no more than five followers in the Assembly. In these circumstances it was thought that Sir Robert Bond's administration was ensured a long term of office. But in July 1907 Sir Edward Morris, then Minister of Justice, resigned through a disagreement with the Premier on a question of the amount of wages to be paid to the employees in the Public Works. The Opposition under Mr Morison (succeeding Mr Morine, who had shortly before left Newfoundland for Canada) co-operated with leading supporters of Sir Edward Morris and invited him to become the leader of a united party. He accepted the offer, and issued a manifesto in March 1908, indicating his policy. The number of his adherents increased, as a result of his efforts in the Assembly. In the following November the quadrennial general election took place, which was vigorously—indeed bitterly—contested; and the result was a tie, eighteen supporters having been returned for Sir Robert Bond, and eighteen for the Opposition—a unique occurrence apparently in the history of self-governing colonies. The success of Sir Edward Morris was regarded as remarkable, in view of several disadvantages from which he suffered in the eyes of large sections of the population, e.g. his being a Roman Catholic (every Premier during the preceding half century had been a Protestant), his alleged sympathy with Mr Reid, and his alleged support of union with Canada. The Governor, Sir William MacGregor, having been requested by Sir Robert Bond to summon the Legislature, was then required by him, on the very eve of the session, to dissolve it, without giving it an opportunity to meet. The Governor refusing to do this, Sir Robert Bond, conformably to usage, resigned along with his cabinet. Sir Edward Morris was accordingly called upon to form a ministry; but at the meeting of the Assembly the attempt to elect a Speaker failed, owing to the opposition of the Bond party. The Governor next endeavoured to obtain a coalition Ministry, but failed, and a dissolution was granted (April, 1909). At the election in May the Morris administration was returned with a substantial majority—the new ministry for the first time in the history of the island consisting entirely of natural-born Newfoundlanders. The course adopted by the Governor, who had been charged by followers of Sir Robert Bond with partisanship and unconstitutional conduct, was thus vindicated by the election, and also approved by the Imperial authorities. In a despatch from the Colonial Office, November 14th, Lord Crewe observed:

"... It will be learned from my previous despatches and telegrams that your action throughout the difficult political situation, which was created in the colony by the indecisive result of the last general election, has met with my approval, but I desire to place publicly on record my high appreciation of the manner in which you have handled a situation practically unprecedented in the history of responsible Government in the Dominions. I may add that I consider your decision to grant a dissolution to Sir Edward Morris—which has, I observe, been adversely criticized in a section of the Newfoundland press—to have been fully in accordance with the principles of responsible Government."

In 1913 the growing prosperity of the fish trade was still further increased by the passing of the new United States tariff law, which admitted fish to the United States free of duty. Further, the opening of the Panama Canal made possible the establishment of new markets.

Now we come to the next momentous event in the history of modern Newfoundland, as it is in that of the modern world generally—namely, the outbreak of the Great War in August 1914. The colony, like all the other British dominions and possessions, was fully alive to the justice of the British cause, and, like the others, was resolved as a faithful and dutiful daughter to contribute to the military, naval, and material resources of the Mother Country. This manifestation of colonial association and unity was a remarkable feature throughout the war, and will ever be memorable as a token of the undying bonds that unite the scattered constituents of the British Empire, and of the common feelings and ideals that inspire the various sections of the British family. Despite doubt and solicitude as to the effect on trade, especially on the fish markets, on which Newfoundland is so much dependent, the colony devoted itself wholeheartedly to the prosecution of the war.

In September 1914 a special war session of the Legislature was held, and several measures were passed, making provision for the raising of a volunteer force of 1,000 men, for increasing the number of Naval Reserve from 600 to 1,000 men, and for raising a loan (which was subsequently furnished by the Imperial Government) for equipping and maintaining the projected contingents. It may be pointed out here that about the end of the nineteenth century the colony, desiring to participate in the obligations—and indeed privileges—of Imperial defence, took steps to establish a Royal Naval Reserve. From 1900 a number of men volunteered as reservists, and entered for six months' training on one of the vessels of the North American and West Indian squadron. In 1902 a training ship, H.M.S. Calypso, was stationed in St. John's harbour, where the 600 men—the number proposed—might duly complete their training. Before the war the Naval Reserve establishment amounted to 580. There were besides local Boys' Brigades, but no military force whatever.

In 1915 considerable efforts were made. By the end of the year a military contingent of 2,000 men was raised, and the Naval Reserve was enlarged to 1,200. In November a plebiscite was taken in regard to the question of total prohibition, and a majority decided in its favour; so that from January 1st, 1917, the manufacture, importation, and sale of intoxicating liquors were prohibited.

In 1916 a battalion of the Newfoundland regiment took part in a good deal of severe fighting in France; and it was maintained to full strength by regular drafts from home.

In the meantime an Act was passed imposing restrictions on the killing of seals in Newfoundland waters, the object being to prevent their extermination.

A political question that especially engaged the attention of the colony at this time was its relation to the Canadian Federation, but no progress was made towards the solution of the long standing problem. The following year it became again the chief concern (apart from the war) of the island's electorate. In June the question was raised in the Federal House of Commons at Ottawa; and members spoke in favour of union, declaring that from information received it appeared that the disposition of Newfoundland was becoming more and more in favour of it.[53] In July a coalition Ministry was established, and a Bill was passed prolonging the life of the Parliament for twelve months, as it would normally have expired in October. In the early part of this year, Sir Edward Morris, the Premier, was in London and represented Newfoundland at the Imperial War Conference.

During the last year of the war the population found itself much more affected by the world conflict than it had been in the preceding years. Additions to the Newfoundland contingent under the voluntary system were becoming inadequate: accordingly, the new Government, of which Mr W.F. Lloyd was Premier, decided to introduce a Bill for the purpose of establishing conscription. This was of a selective character, that is, applying to all unmarried men and widowers without children, between the ages of 19 and 39. The conscripts were to be divided into four classes according to age, the youngest being called up first. The Bill was passed, and the measure proved to be a successful one.

After the conclusion of the Armistice in November, the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Sir William F. Lloyd, K.C.M.G., acted as the representative of Newfoundland at the Paris Peace Conference (1919).

In concluding this chapter it will be of interest to give a few facts and figures showing Newfoundland's effort and record in the war.[54]

(1) PERSONNEL

At the outbreak of war there was no military force in Newfoundland. There was, however, a pre-war establishment of 580 Naval Reservists besides local Boys' Brigades.

Newfoundland contributed to the fighting forces of the Empire 11,922 all ranks, consisting of 9,326 men for the Army, 2,053 men for the Royal Naval Reserve, 500 men for the Newfoundland Forestry Corps, and 43 nurses.

The Royal Newfoundland Regiment furnished a battalion for the Gallipoli campaign and sent 4,253 men to France and Belgium, suffering the following casualties:

Killed in action and died of wounds 1,082 Died from other causes 95 Missing 18 Prisoners of War 152 Wounded 2,314 ——- Total 3,661

The following decorations were won by the Regiment:

1 V.C., 2 C.M.G., 4 D.S.O., 28 M.C., 6 Bars to M.C., 33 D.C.M., 1 Bar to D.C.M., 105 M.M., 8 Bars to M.M., 1 O.B.E., 22 Mentions in Despatches, 21 Allied Decorations, 3 other medals: Total, 234.

In the Royal Naval Reserve 167 men were killed in action and 124 invalided out of the Service.

3,000 Newfoundlanders enlisted in the Canadian and other forces (outside Newfoundland), but there is no statistical record of casualties regarding them, although it is known they were heavy.

(2) MONEY, ETC.

Total receipts, Cot Fund[55] $129,200 " " Aeroplane Fund 53,487 " " Red Cross Fund 151,500 " " Patriotic Fund 166,687

A War Loan of $6,000,000 was raised by Newfoundland.

A large quantity of Red Cross material, etc., was sent from the Dominion during the war to the various organizations overseas, in addition to many thousands of dollars worth of comforts for the troops.

Newfoundland provided the pay and allowances of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment (6,326 all ranks) and made up the difference in pay to bring the Royal (Newfoundland) Naval Reserve to the same scale as that of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, besides equipping the Royal Newfoundland Regiment before proceeding overseas.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[51] See a letter from the able correspondent of The Times in Newfoundland, November 6th, 1900.

[52] P.T. M'Grath, "Newfoundland in 1911," p. 24.

[53] This question has already been referred to several times in the preceding pages (see especially beginning of chap. viii). It may be added here that in March 1906, the Prime Minister of Canada stated that the Government of Newfoundland was fully aware that the Government of Canada was ready to entertain a proposal for the entry of the island into the confederation.

[54] For the statement following the writer is indebted to Sir Edgar Bowring, the High Commissioner of Newfoundland.

[55] Instead of maintaining a hospital overseas, Newfoundland supported 301 beds in addition to 32 in Newfoundland.



CHAPTER X

THE FRENCH SHORE QUESTION

It has been impossible in the above pages to avoid reference to the Anglo-French disputes in Newfoundland, but it seemed convenient to postpone a detailed examination of the question to a separate chapter. No apology is necessary for such a chapter even in a work so slight as the present, for the French Shore question was chronically acute in Newfoundland, and the French claims, like George III.'s prerogative, were increasing, had increased, and ought to have been diminished. The dispute is partly historical, partly legal, and can only be explained by reference to documents of considerable age.

The French connection with Newfoundland was encouraged by the nearness of Canada, and in quaint names, such as Bay Facheuse and Point Enragee, it has bequeathed lasting reminders. For centuries the French, like the Dutch, went on giving too little and asking too much. By the time of Louis XIV. they had in fact established themselves—an imperium in imperio—upon the south coast, and William of Orange in the declaration of war against his lifelong enemy recited the English grievances:

"It was not long since the French took licences from the Governor of Newfoundland to fish upon that coast, and paid a tribute for such licences as an acknowledgment of the sole right of the Crown of England to that island; but of late the encroachments of the French, and His Majesty's subjects trading and fishing there, had been more like the invasion of an enemy than becoming friends who enjoyed the advantages of that trade only by permission."

The Treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, contained no mention of Newfoundland, and the French were, therefore, left in enjoyment of their possessory claims. In 1710 the splendid genius of Marlborough had brought Louis XIV. to his knees, and the arguments supplied by the stricken fields of Blenheim and Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet, should have made easy the task of English diplomacy. But from a corrupt political soil sprang the Treaty of Utrecht, the first leading instrument in the controversy of which we are attempting to collect the threads. The merits of the dispute cannot be understood without a careful study of Article 13 of the Treaty. It was thereby provided that:

"The island called Newfoundland, with the adjacent islands, shall from this time forward belong of right wholly to Britain, and to that end the town and fortress of Placentia, and whatever other places in the said island are in possession of the French, shall be yielded and given up within seven months from the exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty, or sooner if possible, by the most Christian King to those who have a commission from the Queen of Great Britain for that purpose. Nor shall the most Christian King, his heirs and successors, or any of their subjects, at any time hereafter lay claim to any right to the said island and islands, or to any part of it or them. Moreover it shall not be lawful for the subjects of France to fortify any place in the said island of Newfoundland, or to erect any building there, besides stages made of boards, and huts necessary and useful for drying of fish, or to resort to the said island beyond the time necessary for fishing and drying of fish. But it shall be allowed to the subjects of France to catch fish and to dry them on land in that part only, and in no other besides that, of the said island of Newfoundland, which stretches from the place called Cape Bonavista to the northern point of the said island, and from thence, running down by the western side, reaches as far as the place called Point Riche. But the island called Cape Breta, as also all others, both in the mouth of the River St. Lawrence and in the Gulf of the same name, shall hereafter belong of right to the French, and the most Christian King shall have all manner of liberty to fortify any place or places there."

The Treaty of Paris, in 1763, confirmed this arrangement, and twenty years later the Treaty of Versailles contained the following provision upon the subject:

"The XIIIth Article of the Treaty of Utrecht and the method of carrying on the fishery, which has at all times been acknowledged, shall be the plan upon which the fishery shall be carried on there; it shall not be deviated from by either party; the French fishermen building only their scaffolds, confining themselves to the repair of their fishing vessels, and not wintering there; the subjects of His Majesty Britannic on their part not molesting in any manner the French fishermen during their fishing, nor injuring their scaffolds during their absence." But for the boundaries prescribed by the Treaty of Utrecht (viz. those limited by Cape Bonavista and Point Riche) new boundaries were substituted, viz., those limited by Cape St. John round by the north to Cape Ray. The coast thus indicated came to be known as the "French shore."

As the declaration annexed to the above treaty was often relied upon by French diplomatists, it may be conveniently set forth in this place:

"... In order that the fishermen of the two nations may not give a cause of daily quarrels, His Britannic Majesty will take the most positive measures for preventing his subjects from interrupting in any manner by their competition the fishery of the French during the temporary exercise of it which is granted to them.... His Majesty will ... for this purpose cause the fixed settlement which shall be found there to be removed, and will give orders that the French fishermen shall not be incommoded in the cutting of wood necessary for the repair of their scaffolds, huts, and fishing boats."

The title of an Act of Parliament passed in 1782 in pursuance of this treaty was also pressed into the service of the French contention:

"An Act to enable His Majesty to make such regulations as may be necessary to prevent the inconvenience which might arise from the competition of His Majesty's subjects and those of the most Christian King in carrying on the fishery on the coasts of the island of Newfoundland."

No material alteration in the position took place from 1782 to 1792, and the Treaty of Peace of 1814 declared that "the French right of fishery at Newfoundland is replaced upon the footing upon which it stood in 1792."

On these documents a very simple issue arose. According to the English contention their cumulative effect was to give the French a concurrent right of fishery with themselves upon the coasts in question. It was maintained, on the other hand, by France that her subjects enjoyed an exclusive right of fishing along the so-called French shore.

It may be said at once that the course of English diplomacy was almost uniformly weak, and was in fact such as to lend no small countenance to the French contention. Thus, for many years it was the policy of the Home Government to discourage the colonists from exercising the right which was always alleged in theory to be concurrent. Nor did the Imperial complaisance end here. The French fishermen and their protectors from time to time put forward pretensions only to be justified by a revival of the sovereignty which was extinguished by the Treaty of Utrecht. Thus, they attempted systematically to prevent any English settlement at all upon the debatable shore. For residential, mining and agricultural purposes this strip would thus be withdrawn from colonial occupation. It is much to be regretted that these claims were not summarily repudiated. The Imperial Government, however, encouraged them by forbidding any grants of land along the area in dispute. Under these circumstances the theoretical assertion of British sovereignty by which the prohibition was qualified was not likely to be specially impressive. The islanders acquiesced in the decision with stolid patience, but, undeterred by the consequent insecurity of tenure, settled as squatters in the unappropriated lands. As recently as forty years ago their title was still unrecognized, and the presence of thousands of settlers with indeterminate claims had become a dangerous grievance. In 1881 Sir William Whiteway, then Premier of the colony, paid a visit to England, and his powerful advocacy procured recognition for the title of the settlers to their lands, and brought them within the pale of the Queen's law.

The French shore cod fishery was recently so poor compared with the Great Bank fishery that French fishermen abandoned the former for the latter; and, in fact, but for a recent development of the French claim, it would have been possible to say of the whole question solvitur ambulando.

The development referred to sprang from the growing lobster industry along the French shore. In 1874 and the following years lobster factories were erected by British subjects on the French shore, in positions where there was no French occupation and there were no French buildings. Here there was no violation of the Treaty of Utrecht provision, for the French were in no way restrained from "erecting stages made of boards, and huts necessary and useful for drying of fish," nor was there any violation of the declaration annexed to the Treaty of Versailles, that "His Britannic Majesty will take the most positive measures for preventing his subjects from interrupting in any way by their competition the fishery of the French during the temporary exercise of it which is granted them." The "fishing" which was not to be interrupted by competition was the fishery "which is granted to them," a limitation which throws us back at once upon the language of the earlier treaties. Now it is indisputably clear that the only fishing rights granted to the French were concerned with codfish. The lobster industry was then unknown; and the language used, and in particular "the stages and huts necessary and useful for drying fish" spoken of, are applicable to codfish and not to lobsters, for the canning industry was only of recent date, and lobsters, moreover, are not dried. No fishery other than that of the codfish could then have been contemplated. That this must have been abundantly clear is apparent from the memoirs of M. de Torcy, one of the negotiators of the treaty, who uses throughout the expression "morue" (codfish)—the liberty stipulated was "pecher et secher les morues" (to fish and dry codfish). The French, however, not content with objecting to the presence of English factories, erected factories of their own, comprehending them, it must be presumed, within the description "huts necessary and useful for the drying of fish." They contended, furthermore, that their rights were a part of the ancient French sovereignty retained when the soil was ceded to England. Such a claim was inadmissible on any view of the treaties. In fact, there was much to be said for the view that no exclusive right of fishery of any sort was ever given to the French, in spite of the language of the celebrated Declaration. As Lord Palmerston wrote, some eighty years ago, to Count Sebastiani, in his unambiguous way: "I will observe to your Excellency, in conclusion, that if the right conceded to the French by the Declaration of 1783 had been intended to be exclusive within the prescribed district, the terms used for defining such right would assuredly have been more ample and specific than they are found to be in that document; for in no other similar instrument which has ever come under the knowledge of the British Government is so important a concession as an exclusive privilege of this description accorded in terms so loose and indefinitive. Exclusive rights are privileges which from the very nature of things are likely to be injurious to parties who are thereby debarred from some exercise of industry in which they would otherwise engage. Such rights are, therefore, certain at some time or other to be disputed, if there is any maintainable ground for contesting them; and for these reasons, when negotiators have intended to grant exclusive grants, it has been their invariable practice to convey such rights in direct, unqualified, and comprehensive terms, so as to prevent the possibility of future dispute or doubt. In the present case, however, such forms of expression are entirely wanting, and the claim put forward on the part of France is founded simply upon inference and upon an assumed interpretation of words."

It was, in fact, as Lord Palmerston argued, a perfectly open contention that on the authorities no exclusive right was ever given to the French, but the demeanour of this country had been such as to render the position difficult and unconvincing. We are, however, upon much firmer ground when we come to close quarters with the French claims to rights of lobster fishing. The claim was first clearly advanced in 1888, that none but Frenchmen were entitled to catch lobsters and erect preserving factories upon the French shore. This at once elicited an incisive English remonstrance, in deference to which French diplomacy had recourse to the evasion that the factories were merely temporary. They were not, however, removed, and finally in 1889 further remonstrances by Lord Salisbury were met with the bold contention that these factories were comprehended within the language of the treaties. The English Government met this volte face with a feeble proposal to resort to arbitration—a proposal which the islanders declined with equal propriety and spirit. The consequent position was vividly and faithfully stated by Sir Charles Dilke, in a passage which may be quoted in full:

"Instead of protecting British fishermen in the prosecution of their lawful avocation, and resisting the new claim of the French, our Government, after failing to enforce the claim of the French, tried to go to arbitration upon it before a Court in which the best known personage was to have been M. de Martens, the hereditary librarian of the Russian Foreign Office, whose opinion on such points was hardly likely to be impartial. Luckily, the French added a condition, the enormity of which was such that the arbitration has never taken place, and it may be hoped now never will.

"While British officers were backed up by the Government in most arbitrary action on behalf of the French and against the colonists, the theory continued to be that the French pretensions were disputed by us. At the end of 1889 the Home Government sent for the Prime Minister of Newfoundland, who came to England in 1890. A modus vivendi was agreed to preserving such British lobster factories as existed, and the French Government agreeing that they would undertake to grant no new lobster-fishing concessions 'on fishing grounds occupied by British subjects,' whatever that might mean. But the limitation was afterwards explained away, and the modus vivendi stated to mean the status quo. The Colonial Government strongly protested against the modus vivendi, as a virtual admission of a concurrent right of lobster fishing prejudicial to the position of Newfoundland in future negotiation; and there can be no doubt that the adoption of the modus vivendi by the British Government without previous reference to the colony, and against its wish, was a violation of the principle laid down by the then Mr Labouchere, when Secretary of State in 1857, and by Lord Palmerston. Our Government deny this, because they expressly reserved all questions of principle and right in the agreement with the French, and that is so, of course; but there can be no doubt about the effect of what they did.

"By an answer given by an Under-Secretary of State in the House of Commons, the views of the Newfoundland Government were misrepresented, it being stated that they 'were consulted as to the terms of the modus vivendi, which was modified to some extent to meet their views, although concluded without reference to them in its final shape'; but the Newfoundland Government insisted that the terms of the modus vivendi had not been modified in accordance with their views, as they had protested against the whole arrangement. The Home Government quibbled and said that the answer showed that the Newfoundland Government were not responsible for the modus vivendi as settled. Plain people, however, must continue to be as indignant as the colonists are at the misrepresentation and the breach of Mr Labouchere's principle.

"The terms of the modus vivendi accord to unfounded pretensions the standing of reasonable claims, and confer upon the French the actual possession and enjoyment of the rights to which these claims relate. Mr Baird refused to comply with the modus vivendi. Sir Baldwin Walker, commanding on the coast, landed a party of blue-jackets in 1891, and took the law into his own hands against Mr Baird, was sued for damages, and twice lost his case.[56] There had existed an Imperial Act under which Sir Baldwin Walker might have been protected, but it had been repealed when self-government was granted to Newfoundland. In the same year of 1891 a Newfoundland Act was passed, under heavy pressure from the Home Government, compelling colonial subjects to observe the instructions of the naval officers to the extent of at once quitting the French shore if directed, and the Act was to be in force till the end of 1893. The Home Government had passed a Bill through the House of Commons, and dropped it, before it received the Royal assent, only after the Prime Minister of Newfoundland had been heard at the bar of both Houses and had promised colonial legislation. The French Government have insisted that a British Act should be passed; and Lord Salisbury, while declaring that there ought to be a permanent Colonial Act, has always refused to promise a British Act. To my mind, the Newfoundland people went too far in giving up their freedom by passing the Act which I have named, an Act to which, had I been a member of the Newfoundland Legislature, nothing would have induced me to consent; and my sympathies are entirely with the Newfoundlanders in their refusal to part with their freedom, for all time, by making so monstrous a statute permanent."

The modus vivendi treaty was periodically renewed by the Colonial Legislature with a submissiveness which would have seemed excessive if they had not been pressed with the shibboleth of Imperial interest. At the same time, signs of restiveness were not wanting. The complaints of the Newfoundlanders became more frequent, more insistent, and more emphatic. They pointed out that the French virtually claimed a monopoly of an 800-mile shore, which was entirely British of right, that in consequence they interfered with the development of the mining industry, and the extension of railways, and that thereby they were seriously hampering the progress of the colony. The case put forward by the colonists was historically strong, and there was much to be said for the contention that they were entitled to everything they claimed: on any view they could rightly complain of a cruel injustice, so long as the indolence or incompetence of English diplomacy suffered a debatable land to survive in the teeth of an undebatable argument.

In August, 1898, at the request of the Newfoundland Government, a Royal Commission was appointed by Mr Chamberlain, and sent out the following year, for the purpose of inquiring into the whole question of French treaty rights. A good deal of evidence was given by local colonists of acts of French aggression, and of consequent injury in person and property. But the report remained unpublished. Such aggression was in keeping with the instructions issued in 1895 by the French Premier and Foreign Minister to the commanders of the French warships on this station: "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 for our use"—instructions that amounted to an arbitrary assertion of territorial sovereignty. And yet the actual interests of France were very meagre: thus in 1898, on a coastline where some 20,000 Newfoundlanders were settled in 215 harbours, there were only 16 French stations and 458 men on the 800-mile shore; in 1903 only 13 stations and 402 men.[57]

In 1901 when the vexed question came once again before the Newfoundland Legislature, the Government declared that in renewing the modus vivendi for the following year, they did so only in consideration of the obstacles then in the way of the Imperial Government to securing a satisfactory settlement of the whole matter.

In 1904 the Newfoundland Government refused to relax the Bait Law any more; and France then consented to enter into the notable agreement, which once for all abolished the inveterate grievances and difficulties arising out of the "French shore" question. In consideration of certain territorial privileges in West Africa, France agreed to relinquish her rights as to landing and drying fish on the treaty shore, which had been recognized by the Treaty of Utrecht. French subjects injured by this arrangement were to receive such compensation from Great Britain as would be awarded by a tribunal consisting of one representative of each contracting party, assisted by an umpire if necessary. The French were to enjoy the same rights as British subjects of fishing on the coast generally, and were permitted to take bait, which they had been forbidden to do by the Newfoundland Act of 1886. This convention did not affect the applicability of local law as to bait in regard to the non-treaty coast.

Newfoundland was satisfied with this change. After the ratification of the agreement, the new Governor, Sir William MacGregor, telegraphed to Mr Lyttelton, the Minister for the Colonies, asking him to convey to the King the people's acknowledgment of the "great boon" conferred by the Convention, which His Majesty was chiefly instrumental in initiating, and to the British Government for having safeguarded the interests of the colony in negotiations involving so many difficulties. That this view represented that of the population at large was shown by the return to office (October) of Sir Robert Bond and his colleagues with a very strong majority.

Soon afterwards an entente cordiale was established between Newfoundland and the French colony of St. Pierre and Miquelon.

Thus, "the Anglo-French chapter—some four centuries long—closed; and the lobster, which darkened its closing paragraphs, ceased to be a force in history."[58]

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[56] [See Baird v. Walker, Law Reports, 1891, Appeal Cases, p. 491.]

[57] M'Grath, op. cit., p. 149.

[58] Rogers, op. cit., p. 225.



INDEX

Abandonment Suggested, 85, 106

Admirals, Fishing, 70, 71, 84, 85, 86, 98, 99

Amiens, Peace of, 102

American Independence, War of, 95

American prohibition of trade, 91

American Rebellion, 90

Area of Newfoundland, 8

Bacon, Sir Francis, 15, 66, 96

Baird, Mr, 182, 183

Bait Law, 185

Baltimore, Lord, 64, 70, 89

Banks Disaster, 135-142

Bannerman, Governor, 120

Basque Pioneers, 26, 47

Bathurst, Lord, 107

Beauclerk, Lord Vere, 85

Beazley, Mr Raymond, 30, 32, 35

Blaine, J.G., 128

Blaine-Bond incident, 128

Board of Trade, The, 78

Boeothics, 17, 102

Bonavista, Cape, 35

Bond, Sir Robert, 128, 162, 163, 186

Bond-Morris, Coalition, 155, 162

Bonfoy, Governor, 90

Bonnycastle, Sir Richard, 8, 19, 75

Boulton, Chief Justice, 110

Boys' Brigades, 166

Breton, Cape, Attack on, 87

Bristol, 30, 36, 67, 71

British indifference, 46, 76, 81, 84, 88, 91, 95, 176, 180, 182

Buchan, Captain, 105

Burleigh, Lord, 53

Burrill's Attack, 82

Bute, Lord, 88

Cables, Transatlantic, 7, 120

Cabot, John, 26-32, 35-6, 42-3

Cabot, Sebastian, 17, 28, 30, 39, 40, 43

Calypso, H.M.S., 165

Canada, 126, 129

Canada, Proposed Union with, 126, 135, 138, 162, 163, 166

Canadian Sympathy, 115, 134

Carbonier, 83

Carson, Dr William, 104, 107, 109

Cartier, 18, 50

Casualties in Great War, 168

Chamberlain, Mr, 144-154

Charles, I., 74, 75, 81

Charles II., 81

Cinderella of colonial history, 75

Climate, 9, 57

Coalition Ministry, 167

Cochrane, Governor, 107, 108, 123

Colonization, 45

Colville, Admiral Lord, 87

Columbus, Christopher, 26, 27, 41

Commercial Bank, 135

Commissioners of Foreign Plantations, 74

Committee of Trade and Plantations, 77

"Company of Adventurers and Planters," 67

Conscription, 167

Cook, Captain, Survey of, 89

Copper, 12

Cortereal, Gaspar, 47

Council, Governing, 107

Court of Civil Jurisdiction, 98

Courts of Session, 98

Crewe, Lord, 164

Customs, survival of, 79

Decorations won in Great War, 169

d'Haussonville, Count, 87

de Martens, M., 181

Dilke, Sir Charles, 180

di Raimondi, Raimondo, 31, 35, 43

Discovery, the age of, 22

Dorrell, Governor, 89

Drake, Sir Barnard, 65

Duckworth, Governor, Sir Thomas, 103, 104

Economic position, 20, 92, 122, 137

Edward VII., 186

Elizabeth, Queen, 54

Ericsson, Leif, 25

European War, (1914-19), 164-170

Exploits River, 11

Falkland, Lord, 70

Famine, 105

Financial crisis, 135

Fires at St John's, 106, 115, 134

Fishing industry, 8, 13, 37, 40, 45, 48, 52, 60, 86, 92, 136, 164-5, 173

Fishing regulations, 67, 74

Fisheries Commission, 1890, 15

Fisheries, Department of Marine and, 16

Foreign fishing vessels Act, 129

Foreign traders, duty on, 81

France, conflict with, 82, 83, 87

France, fishing concessions to, 67, 84, 175, 179

French aggression, 23, 81, 82, 96, 172, 185

French, agreement with, 185

French and fishing industry, 47, 84, 88, 105, 172-3

French claims, 171, 178, 184

French colonization, 64

French fishing interests, 98, 102

French settlement, 81

French shore question, 171, 186

French surrender, 87

French voyagers, 50

Gallipoli, 168

Gambier, Governor, 102

Gibbs, Mr, 158

Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, voyage of, 53-63

Goodridge, Mr, 140

Governor, first, 85

Gower, Governor, 103

Grand Falls, 12

Grand Newfoundland Bank, 14

Graves, Admiral Lord, 87, 89

Greene, Mr, 140

Grenville, Sir Richard, 53

Grey, Earl, 117

Guy, John, 67

Hague Arbitration, 16, 129

Hakluyt, Richard, 51, 53

Harmsworth, Messrs, 161

Harvey, Governor, 115

Hay-Bond Treaty, 129

Hayes, Captain Edward, 9, 55, 57-62

Hayman's, Robert, verses, 72

Henry VII., 24, 29, 42, 43

Henry VIII., 24, 48, 50

Hill, Governor, 131

Historians, 8

Hobart, Lord, 102

Hore's voyage, 51

Hospital, first, 103

House of Assembly, 109, 112

Hoyles, Mr, 121

Imperial War Conference, 167

Imports and exports, 20

Industries, development of, 124, 160, 161, 184

Iron mines, 161

James I., 66

Justices of the Peace, 85, 86, 90

Justice, Administration of, 77, 90, 98

Keats, Governor, 104

Kent, John, 111, 120

Kielly, Dr, 111

King, Governor, 100

Kirke, Sir David, 74

Labouchere, Mr H., 181

Labrador, 9, 35, 47, 89

Lakes, 11

La Salle, 64

Latona, H.M.S., mutiny on, 100

Laws, first, 56

Leake, Admiral Sir John, Attack by, 83

Lecky, W.E.H., 96

Legislative Council, 110

Legislative power, establishment of, 102

Lilly, Mr Justin, 111

Lloyd, Sir Wm. F., 167-8

Lobster fishery, 177, 180

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred, 186

M'Callum, Governor, 158

MacGregor, Sir William, 163, 186

Mansion House Fund, 135

Markland, 25

Mason, Captain John, 68, 72

Matthew, The, 30

May March, 19

Mayflower, The, 64

Merchants, 23, 69, 76, 80, 86, 99, 105, 106, 108

Milbanke, Governor, 98

Mineral resources, 8, 12, 161

Montague, Governor, 92

Morine, Mr, 157-8, 162

Morison, Mr, 162

Morris, Sir Edward, 162, 163, 167

Murray, Governor Sir Herbert, 144, 149

Musgrave, Governor, 126

Native inhabitants, 17, 19

Native races, 16

Natural features, 8, 11, 57, 58

Naval Reserve, 165, 168, 170

Newfoundland Act, the, 183

Newfoundland forestry corps, 168

Newspaper, the first, 103

Norse explorers, 25

Nova Scotia, 85, 106

O'Brien, Sir Terence, 135

O'Donnell, Bishop, 102, 122

Osborne, Captain Henry, 85

Ougier, Peter, 108

Oyer and Terminer, Commissioners of, 86

Pakington, Sir John, 117

Palmerston, Lord, 178, 182

Palliser, Governor, 88

Palliser's Act, 92

Panama Canal, 164

Paper Industry, 161

Paris, Treaty of, 87, 104, 174

Parke, Chief Baron, 112

Parkhurst, Anthony, 52

Pasqualigo, Lorenzo, 31

Pedley, Rev. C., 83, 89, 101

Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, 32, 39, 42

Pickmore, Governor, 105-7

Pitt, William (Lord Chatham), 87, 88, 97

Placentia, Attack on, 83

Plantations, 18, 66, 74, 77, 79, 95, 96

Planters, 18, 68, 76, 77

Poor Relief, 102, 123, 124, 131, 139

Population, 20, 77, 91, 93, 94, 102, 126, 132, 137

Popham, Sir John, 67

Portuguese, 24, 47, 52, 54

Post Office, 103

Prescott, Governor, 115

Prohibition, 166

Prowse, Chief Justice, 8, 30, 35, 109, 126

Railways, 21, 124, 131, 132, 133, 159, 184. (See also Reid Contract and Reid Newfoundland Company)

Raleigh, Sir Walter, 22, 53, 63, 65

Ramusio, 32, 39, 40, 42

Reeves, Chief Justice, 99

Reed, Albert, Company, 161

Reid Contract, 133, 143-159

Reid Newfoundland Company, 159-161

Religion and religious differences, 20, 70, 89, 102, 112, 121

Rent, first levied, 75

Revenue and expenditure, 20

Rivers, 11

Roads, first, 107

Roberval, 50

Rocky River, 12

Rodney, Governor, 86

Rogers, J.D., 8, 13, 66

Royal Commission, 184

Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 100, 102

"Royal Gazette," The, 103

Rut, John, 50

Ryswick, Treaty of, 82, 172

Salisbury, Marquis of, 180, 183

Savings Bank, 135

Seal Fisheries, 115, 166

Sebastiani, Count, 179

Self-Government demanded, 104, 107, 116

Settlers, 74, 77, 78, 102, 177

Shanandithit, 19

Shipping, 21

Smith, Adam, 95

Sothern, Captain, 100

Southampton, Mayor of, 78

Spain and Spaniards, 24, 29, 36, 45, 52, 54, 65

Squirrel, The, 54, 63

St George's Bay, 131

St John's, 7, 55, 83, 87, 103, 106, 116, 121, 134

St John's, Capture by French, 83

St John's, Surrender to French, 87

Stamp Act, 91

Star Chamber, 70, 74, 76, 77

Storm at St John's, 116

Taxation, 91, 97

Telegraphs, 7, 21, 120

Thirkill, 43

Unemployment Problem, 124, 138

Union Bank, 135

United States, 128, 130, 164

United States, Fishing Industry, 105

Utrecht, Treaty of, 83, 102, 172, 174, 176

Vaughan, Sir William, 69, 75

Verrazzano, 50

Versailles, Treaty of, 97, 177

Vesmond, Chevalier, 82

Vikings, 25

Volunteer Force, 165

Waldegrave, Governor, 100, 102, 123

Walker, Sir Baldwin, 182

Wallace, Governor Sir Richard, 100

Walsingham, 65

War Loan, 169

West Country merchants, 76

West Country, sailors of, 30, 38, 65, 67

Weymouth, Mayor of, 78

Whitbourne, Sir Richard, 10, 18, 69, 71

Whiteway, Sir W., 139, 141, 177

William III., 82, 171

Willoughby, Sir Hugh, 17

Winter, Sir James, 143, 155, 158

Wireless Telegraphy, 7

Wolfe, General, 87



* * * * *



Typographical errors corrected in text: Page 114: 'dissolve the Legislation.' replaced with 'dissolve the Legislature.' Page 143: incalulably replaced with incalculably Page 147: inepitude replaced with ineptitude Page 149: signficance replaced with significance Page 190: Masou replaced with Mason

THE END