MISCELLANEOUS. 1083 



anteed to foreigners or run counter to any principle of imperial 

 policy. 



3. The observations which suggest themselves to me, however, on 

 the perusal of the draft bill are 



1st. That if any misconception exists in Newfoundland respecting 

 the limits of the colonial jurisdiction, it would be desirable that it 

 should be put at rest by embodying in the act a distinct settlement 

 that the regulations contained in it are of no force except within three 

 miles of the shore of the colony. 



2nd. That no act can be allowed which prohibits expressly, or is 

 calculated by a circuitous method to prevent, the sale of bait. 



3rd. That all fishing acts shall expressly declare that their pro- 

 visions do not extend or interfere with any existing treaties with any 

 foreign nation in amity with Great Britain. 



4th. That, in any part of the colonial waters, it would be highly 

 unjust and inconvenient to impose upon British fisherman restrictions 

 which could not, without violating existing treaties, be imposed upon 

 foreigners using the same fisheries. On this point, however, I would 

 refer you to my despatch, marked " confidential," of the 2nd of 

 February. 



I have, &c., &c. 



NEWCASTLE. 



Governor Sir A. BANNERMAN. 



The Marquis of Salisbury to M. Waddington. 



FOREIGN OFFICE, July 9, 1889. 



M. L'AMBASSADEUR : In the note which I had the honour of 

 addressing to your Excellency on the 28th March last, relative to the 

 question of the lobster fishery in the waters of Newfoundland, I 

 stated that I proposed to address to you a further. communication 

 in reply to the observations contained in your note of the 7th Decem- 

 ber on the general subject of the Newfoundland fisheries. 



The note in question treats of the claim of Messrs. Dupuis-Robial 

 and Besnier for compensation on account of the diminution of their 

 catch of fish, which they attribute directly to the use of cod-traps 

 by British fishermen. 



In my note of the 24th August, 1887, relative to this claim, I had 

 stated that the right of fishery conferred on the French citizens by 

 the Treaty of Utrecht did not take away, but only restricted during 

 a certain portion of the year and on certain parts of the coast, the 

 British right of fishery inherent in the sovereignty of the island. 

 And in my subsequent note of the 28th July last I observed that the 

 right of British subjects to fish concurrently with French citizens 

 has never been surrendered, though the British fishermen are pro- 

 hibited by the second paragraph of the Declaration of Versailles from 

 interrupting in any manner by their competition the fishery of the 

 French during the temporary exercise of it which is granted to them. 



In your note of the 7th December vour Excellency meets these 

 arguments by asserting that the Frencli had always had the exclu- 

 sive right of fishery in virtue of their sovereignty over Newfound- 

 land. That when that sovereignty was transferred to England by 

 the Treaty of Utrecht, the right of fishery reserved to subjects of 



