1610 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



setts there was a general right of fishery given to all the subjects of 

 the King upon that coast. But it is important to observe that that 

 general right of fishery given in 1691 was followed in 1692 by a 

 regulative Act. It was a right of fishery given subject to the local 

 jurisdiction, and the local jurisdiction was very strict. 



I have given the Tribunal the reference to the statute of 1692, and 

 I do not propose, unless I am asked, to go through these references, 

 because I think at this stage of the case I may assume to refer to 

 them without dealing with every reference, because I am only refer- 

 ring to them generally as the steps in an argument. 



They at once proceeded to regulate, so that in this case, where the 

 colonists had the right to fish, the right upon which so much stress 

 has been laid by learned counsel for the United States, it was a right 

 accompanied by and subject to the local jurisdiction, very impor- 

 tant when we have such immense stress laid upon this very thing by 

 the treaty of 1818 as being a survival, a continuance of an antecedent 

 right. I should be quite content to take the whole case on that foot- 

 ing. It would save a good deal of argument. I am afraid I must not 

 run that risk. 



However, that was Massachusetts. In Newfoundland also a right 

 was given to fish, a right given merely to the inhabitants. 

 974 but there were practically no inhabitants. A right was given 

 there in 1699 by a statute which in terms appears to apply to 

 all British colonies, but which is afterwards explained by another 

 statute in 1775, as being intended to apply only to British subjects 

 from Europe, giving special rights and priorities to that class of 

 subject. However, I do not need to dwell upon those minor distinc- 

 tions, because they do not affect the general line of my argument. 



When the right is in general, in the case of Newfoundland by 

 statute, as it was in general to British subjects in the case of Massa- 

 chusetts by charter, there also is the accompanying obligation to obey 

 the regulations. 



Then there, in each of those cases, where they enjoyed an antecedent 

 right, it was a right given in the terms and enjoyed in the terms for 

 which Great Britain is contending here to-day. 



Those are not the only cases. In other instances there were no 

 rights possessed by any colony on the seaboard of any other. Take, 

 for instance, Labrador. I am going to deal with the length of the 

 enjoyment also, as well as the nature of the rights, and we will see 

 how this historic case, pointed out as containing some grievance or 

 hardship on the part of the United States, contracts how it van- 

 ishes. What was their antecedent right in Labrador? None. They 

 had no right. Then what about Nova Scotia? There the record 

 which has been put before the Tribunal shows that there was a pen- 



