236 



Her Majesty's Government being de- 

 sirous of bringing the Newfoundland 

 Fishery question to a prompt and sat- 

 isfactory solution, authorize Sir A. 

 Perrier to make the following propo- 

 sitions : 



1st British subjects shall not fish 

 during the season on any part of the 

 coasts of Newfoundland where French 

 subjects enjoy by Treaty the right of 

 fishery. 



2nd. The term coast (the literal 

 meaning of which is the shore or mar- 

 gin of the sea) being vague and open 

 to contradictory interpretation, it is 

 proposed to determine its signification 

 with reference to the fishery rights in 

 question, as follows: 



The word Coast, so far as it re- 

 lates to French fishing, curing, or dry- 

 ing, and erection of scaffolds and huts 

 for fishery purposes at Newfoundland, 

 shall be understood to mean the strand 

 and the ground extending inland one- 

 quarter of a mile from high water 

 mark; and where any river, creek, 

 arm of the sea, or other opening less 

 than three miles wide, intervenes, 

 then a straight line drawn from head- 

 land to headland, across this aperture, 

 shall be considered as equivalent to 

 high water mark. 



3rd. No British fixed settlement of 

 any kind shall be made in the Districts 

 reserved to France nearer to the sea 

 than the coast limits of a quarter of a 

 mile. 



We think It would be advisable to 

 state to the French Government rather 

 more fully the reasons why our own 

 proceeds to authorize a counter proj- 

 ect. For the terms we would suggest, 

 see the preamble of the Draft Project 

 In our separate paper. 



It is advisable to define a sea limit 

 within which British subjects shall be 

 prohibited from fishing on the coast. 

 We therefore suggest that this propo- 

 sition should be amended to the terms 

 of Article 1, of the separate paper. 



We would suggest, in place of the 

 first part of this proposition, Article 3 

 of our separate papers. 



This latter part of the proposition 

 would shut out the French from sev- 

 eral of the harbors now used by them. 

 But as between Cape John and Bonne 

 Bay there are no large rivers, nor any 

 in which we understand the tide flows 

 beyond a short distance, we suggest, 

 instead of this latter passage, the in- 

 sertion of a provision that the right of 

 fishery shall in no case be enjoyed by 

 the French in any creek, river, or 

 stream, above the flow of the tide, and 

 shall be limited to salt water only, as 

 in Article 2 of the separate paper. 



We fear, with Sir A. Perrier, that 

 the French having acquired by the 

 Declaration of 1783, a right to the re- 

 moval of fixed settlements, will not be 

 satisfied unless this right is main- 

 tained in the present Convention, and 

 interpreted in some more general sense 

 than one confined to fishing establish- 

 ments only. 



But an obligation on our part to re- 

 move settlements in a general sense 

 would obviously be very inconvenient 

 to us, if not completely beyond our 

 power to discharge. It would, there- 

 fore, we think, be advantageous to 

 both parties to concede to the French 



