234 



MISCELLANEOUS 



[Enclosure 1 In Letter to Sir A. Perrler.] 



Project of proposal to France for the Settlement of the Newfoundland Fishery 



Question. 



Dated J t th June, 18o8. 



The Proposal made on the 5th July 

 last by Monsieur de Bon on the part of 

 the French Government cannot be ac- 

 cepted for the following reasons: 



1st. The right of inhabiting St. 

 George's Bay already belongs to H. M. 

 subjects, for although they are de- 

 barred by the terms of the Treaty of 

 17S3 from forming Fishing Establish- 

 ments on the coasts where French sub- 

 jects may fish during the season, they 

 are nevertheless entitled to establish 

 themselves for all other purposes on 

 all parts of the coasts of Newfound- 

 land; this is one of the territorial 

 rights belonging to the Sovereignty of 

 the Island, none of which rights (ex- 

 cept that of temporary fishing) has 

 ever been conceded or can be conceded 

 by Her Majesty's Government. 



2nd. Concurrent fishery cannot be 

 carried on by British and French sub- 

 jects without mutual interruptions. 



1. That the terms " establissmens 

 sedentaries," or fixed settlements, in 

 the declaration were understood at the 

 time of the Treaty to have reference 

 only to fixed or permanent fishing es- 

 tablishments, appears from Governor 

 Campbell's Proclamation of September, 

 1784, as well as from the Act of 1787, 

 quoted by Sir A. Perrier; at the same 

 time it is right to bear in mind that 

 much has passed to commit the British 

 Government to the more enlarged in- 

 terpretation of the phrase adopted by 

 Monsieur de Bon. 



This would inevitably lead to a re- 

 newal of those quarrels to prevent 

 which the Treaty of 1783 was ex- 

 pressly made. 



3rd. For the same reason the French 

 cannot be permitted to fis for bait on 

 the southern coast of Newfoundland. 



2. The effect of this paragraph ap- 

 pears to be an indirect admission of 

 an exclusive right of Fishery in the 

 French, and is at variance with what 

 we have always contended for and 

 maintained on this point (see Lord 

 Palmerston's note to Count Sebastiani, 

 July 10, 1838). It is only where a con- 

 current fishery would actually inter- 

 rupt the exercise of the French right 

 of fishing, that it would be inconsist- 

 ent with the Treaty and Declaration; 

 moreover we think the impracticability 

 of carrying on a concurrent fishery 

 without mutual interruption too 

 broadly stated in the paragraph. We 

 believe that it is quite possible, and 

 that it has been the actual practice, 

 both before and since the Treaty of 

 1783, for both parties to use on amica- 

 ble terms parts of the coast not greatly 

 frequented by either, as for example 

 between Cape Ray and Bonne Bay. 

 We think it advisable therefore on 

 these grounds to omit this paragraph. 



3. The power to concede to the 

 French permission to fish for bait on 

 the southern coast of Newfoundland is 

 vested solely in the Imperial Govern- 

 ment ; but as local interests are deeply 

 involved in the question of such a con- 



