1086 MISCELLANEOUS. 



of the deponents that they did not even apply to the British naval 

 officers for the removal of any of the traps, as they did not think it 

 would be of any use; by others that they did so apply, and that the 

 traps were removed, though they assert that these were afterwards 

 replaced, when apparently they took no further steps. 



Her Majesty's Government have every wish that the assurances 

 contained in the Declaration of 1783 should be punctually and com- 

 pletely fulfilled, but they cannot admit that there is anything in 

 those assurances, however liberally they may be construed, which 

 should involve liability for such a claim. 

 I have, &c. 



(Signed) SALISBURY. 



[Inclosure.] 



Memorandum. 



The French Ambassador, in his note dated the 7th December. 

 1888, reaffirms the French contention as to the exclusive character 

 of the right of fishery enjoyed by French citizens on part of the 

 Newfoundland coast, and again urges the claim for compensation 

 preferred by Messrs. Dupuis-Robial and Besnier on account of the 

 damage said to have been sustained by them through the use of 

 cod-traps. 



2. M. Waddington expresses surprise that Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment have now for the first time asserted the essential right of 

 British fishermen to fish by the side of French subjects, and have 

 alleged that this right has never been surrendered, and the French 

 Ambassador assumes that this doctrine is based upon the silence of 

 Article XIII of the Treaty of Utrecht. His Excellency also states 

 that "le Traits (of Utrecht) laissait subsister pleinement quant a 

 la p6che l'6tat de choses anterieur a 1713, c'est-a-dire, 1'etat en 

 vigueur alors que les Francais exercaient la souverainete territoriale. 

 La France conservait le droit exclusif de peche puisqu'elle 1'avait 

 toujours eu," and he further alleges that his " Gouvernement etait done 



fonde a croire que le droit de la France sur la c6te de 



I'lle de Terre-Neuve reservee a ses pecheurs n'est autre chose qu'une 

 partie de son ancienne souverainete sur File qu'elle a retenue en 

 c6dant le sol a PAngleterre, mais qu'elle n'a jamais ni infirme ni 

 alieneV' 



I. State of Affairs prior to the Treaty of Utrecht. 



3. M. Waddington asserts that France retained ("conservait") 

 the exclusive right of fishing, since she had always had it " (1'avait 

 toujours eu "). But this cannot be a correct statement, for it appears 

 that in the reign of King Charles I, and during the Commonwealth, 

 if not to a later date also, the French were required top&y to England 

 a tribute or tax of 5 per cent, for the privilege of fishing at New- 

 foundland, and of drying fish on the shore of the island. 



4. He also asserts that the French right of fishing is part of the 

 ancient sovereignty of France over the island, which sne retained 

 when ceding the soil to England, but which she has never weakened 

 or alienated. It is evident that this statement also is inaccurate, 



