192 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



theless, to operate on the conduct of that Government with equal 

 force at the present period. 



If this be a correct view of the matter, it remains for the American 

 Government to prove its title to the intervention of Great Britain, 

 by showing how that title is to be reconciled with the dis-qualification 

 resulting from its own anterior engagements with France, engage- 

 ments to which Great Britain is no party, and the very basis of 

 which was, in truth, hostility to her power. 



But there is another case to be provided for. The claim of France 

 to take fish on the western coast of Newfoundland may turn out to 

 be exclusive with respect to Great Britain as well as to the United 

 States. As to how far it may be just and necessary for Great Britain 

 to admit, or possible for France to make good such a pretension, in 

 virtue of treaties, I must take the liberty of referring you to the 

 report, No. 7, addressed to you on the 15th. ultimo by Mr. Huskisson 

 and myself. Whatever information we were able to collect on this 

 branch of the subject is substantially contained in that statement. 



In the event or the supposed claim being either at once admitted, 

 or fairly substantiated in such manner as to exclude the British no 

 less than the American fishermen from the limits assigned to France 

 it is not improbable that His Majesty's Ministers may feel them- 

 selves bound in equity to allow the Americans an equivalent in 

 some other quarter, unless they can prevail on France to waive her 

 extreme right and to consent to their participating henceforward in 

 the west-coast fisheries of Newfoundland. It is not to be imagined 

 that the British plenipotentiaries in framing the convention of 1818, 

 could have meant to concede, in return for concessions made by 

 America, a privilege already made over in toto to another 

 113 Power, even to the exclusive exclusion of British subjects; 

 though it is not impossible, that the clause relating to the 

 western coast of Newfoundland may have been inserted with a knowl- 

 edge of the French claim, and intended only to have an eventual and 

 contingent effect. 



Supposing that doubts were entertained by His Majesty's Minis- 

 ters as to the real character of the French title, notwithstanding the 

 conviction of its limited nature expressed by the American envoy 

 at Paris, you might perhaps think it advisable, sir, for the readier 

 satisfaction of all parties, to communicate on the subject directly 

 with the French Govt. But if, on the contrary, it be determined, 

 according to the known merits of the case, to reject the exclusive 

 claim of France, as obligatory on the British Govt, the American 

 Minister may be entitled to expect that such determination should 

 be made known to him. 



On either supposition the rights and dignity of His Majesty's 

 Crown would seem to require that no French officer should be allowed 

 to exercise authority over the citizens of the United States while 

 engaged, under treaty with Great Britain in fishing within the limits 

 of His Majesty's exclusive jurisdiction, as Sovereign of the Island of 

 Newfoundland. 



Recurring, however, to the correspondence between Viscount 

 Chateaubriand and Mr. Gallatin, it still remains to be seen whether 

 it be the intention of the French Government to maintain an exclu- 

 sive claim against Great Britain as well as against the United States; 

 and while this uncertainty prevails, and the fisheries in question are 



