BRITISH, COLONIAL, AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 277 



trated on them by the French when peaceably engaged in their fishing 

 operations. But should such conduct be repeated, the Government 

 greatly fear that when the hope of legal redress ceases to exercise 

 its influence on them, our people may be induced to make reprisals 

 for the wrong done them. 



That with the view to establish a preposterous and untenable claim 

 to an exclusive right in the place of a concurrent right of fishing on 

 the most valuable part of our fishing grounds, the French have, and 

 mere particularly of late years, by force attempted to assert that 

 right. 



That the inhabitants of this Colony appreciate the able and suc- 

 cessful manner in which Lord Palmerston, and other able British 

 statesmen, have from time to time sustained their Treaty rights. 

 Had there been the slightest misunderstanding with regard to our 

 concurrent right of fishing, it surely would have been put at rest at 

 the same time when the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were con- 

 veyed in full right to France, and in the same unmistakable language, 

 or it would have been so inserted in some subsequent Treaty ; but this 

 was never done, and we have exercised and maintained our rights 

 ever since with an annually increasing population. 



That there are localities on the so-called French Shore which have 

 been exclusively occupied by the French time out of mind, and others 

 in "like manner occupied by British subjects. During the time of war 

 British subjects took possession of those French premises, and in some 

 cases refused to conform to the stipulations of the Treaties when peace 

 was restored. Hence the Imperial act which was passed to meet the 

 contingency and the Proclamations of Governors ordering the removal 

 of such parties. In no other case was that Act ever availed of. There 

 is no instance on record where the French have been interrupted in 

 the rightful exercise of their fishery. All the collisions, with respect 

 to the fishery, have been from the unlawful interruptions and aggres- 

 sions on British subjects by the French. 



That the Treaties provide that no fixed settlement shall be erected 

 on the so-called French Shore. But the fact is, as if by mutual con- 

 sent, both the French and British have disregarded this restriction, 

 for both have fixed settlements, and British subjects are employed by 

 the French to take care of their property during their absence. The 

 French do not and have no right to reside in Newfoundland during 

 the winter season. 



That there is an Act in existence VII. Victoria, authorizing the issue 

 of grants of land without any restriction as to the so-called French 

 Shore, and a subsequent Act, which received the special sanction of 

 Her Majesty after twelve months' deliberation, under which licenses 

 to search for minerals have been issued and grants made subject to 

 French rights. 



That the extent of the coast-line of the so-called French Shore, 

 inclusive of the sinuosities of the Bays and Inlets, is little short of 

 the one-half of the whole sea-coast of the island. Of this great distance 

 the French occupy a small fractional part only; the British are scat- 

 tered more or less throughout the whole length. 



That the rights of fishing involved in the absurd claims of an 

 exclusive fishery by the French are not limited to the residents of 

 Newfoundland ; they are the rights of the other provinces of British 

 North America, and also those of the United States, to the latter 



