174 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



England intended to pass, and France to be put in possession of, an 

 exclusive right, proper words are employed to that effect. The 

 island, by the operation of the clauses cited, was placed in a certain 

 state of division between the two countries, the right of each being 

 made exclusive. Where shall we find any words of equivalent im- 

 port and strength in the treaty or declaration of 1783? It may be 

 proper to remark, that although this treaty of 1686 was binding upon 

 England, it was complained of by English subjects as derogatory to 

 the statute of 15. Charles 2nd, ch. 16, as that statute has prescribed 

 several regulations relating to the mode of carrying on the fishery, to 

 be observed in any of the harbours of Newfoundland. We may 

 gather hence how jealous was the English feeling as to all positive 

 grants of exclusive rights to any other nation, and how necessary 

 express words must have been accounted to pass such rights. 

 ******* 



[Rush quotes from a "Report of the Lords of the Committee of 

 Privy Council for trade on the subject of th Newfoundland fishery," 

 dated the 17th March. 1786, and then says :J 



I think that the whole tenor of these extracts leads to the conclu- 

 sion for which we contend. They show that however England may 

 have been inclined, for her own purposes or as matter of * * * 

 accommodation to France, to withdraw her subjects from the western 

 coast, she has never lost her right to resort there, in any manner that 

 can bar us. The committee are decidedly of opinion, that by the 

 words of the treaty, your Majesty continues to be sole Sovereign of 

 the Island of Newfoundland. This is our argument. It is that 

 upon which foreign nations will stand, and we in particular, under 

 our convention with England of 1818. * * * 



******* 



[He refers to the statute 28 Gep. Ill, cap. 35 : "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. 47. 1823, January 22: Letter from Mr. Gallatin (United States 

 Minister at Paris] to Viscount de Chateaubriand. 



PARIS January 22. 1823. 



SIR, Authentic information has been received by the Government of 

 the United States that several of their fishing vessels were in the 

 years 1820 and 1821, ordered away from their fishing stations on the 

 western coast of Newfoundland, within the limits secured to them by 

 the convention with Great Britain of October 20. 1818, by armed 

 vessels of France, and upon the threat of seizure. I have not yet 

 been informed whether the same proceeding was repeated in the year 

 1822. 



The President of the United States has no doubt that the com- 

 manders of those armed vessels did not correctly understand their 

 orders, and has instructed me to make this representation to His 



