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 Fâcheuse and Point
Enragée, 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 "pêcher et sécher 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 |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+