MISCELLANEOUS. 1091 



24. But the Xlllth Article, which treats of Newfoundland, follows 

 rather the model of the Xth than of the Xllth Article. There is no 

 question of instruments of transfer, and no mention is made of the 

 dominion of France in regard to Newfoundland; but only that New- 

 foundland, with the islands adjacent, "shall from this time forward 

 belong of right wholly to Britain" (" appartiendra desormais et abso- 

 lument a la Grande-Bretagne"), and to that end Placentia and what- 

 ever other places are in possession of the French "shall be yielded 

 and given up" ("et a cette fin le Roi Tres Chretien fera remettre a 

 ceux qui se trouverent a ce commis en ce pays la dans 1'espace de 

 sept mois a compter du jour de 1'echange aes ratifications de ce 

 Traite ou plus t6t si f aire ce peut, la ville et le fort de Plaisance, et 

 autres lieux que les Francais pourraifnt encore posseder dans la dite 

 ile"); and the French King, his successors and subjects, shall not 

 " lay claim to any right to the said island or islands, or to any part of 

 it or them" ("sans que le dit Roy Tres Chretien, ses heritiers et suc- 

 cesseurs, ou quelques-uns de ses sujets, puissent desormais pretendre 

 quoyque ce soit et en tel temps que ce soit, sur la dite Isle et les Isles 

 adjacentes en tout ou en partie"). This is the language of with- 

 drawing a claim, not of ceding the dominion of a territory; the 

 renunciation of all rights is absolute, and even more emphatic hi the 

 French ratification than in the English version of the Treaty; and it 

 may further be noted that this Article proves that the French at 

 that time only claimed to be in possession of Placentia and other 

 unnamed places, not of the whole island, of which M. Waddington 

 now claims that they had the sovereignty. 



25. Her Majesty's Government consider that the Xlllth Article 

 must be read as an admission of the title previously existing in 

 England, including control of the fishery in territorial waters; so 

 that when the Article proceeds to deal with fishery by the French, 

 it employs apt words of concession by the Sovereign Power; "it shall 

 be allowed to the subjects of France to catch fish, and to dry them on 

 land, in that part only and in no other besides that," &c. This is 

 the language of concession on the part of England, not of reservation 

 on the part of France; and it seems clear that, under the Treaty, 

 French fishermen only obtained the privilege of fishing side by side 

 with British subjects, whose right was derived not from Treaty, but 

 from the British sovereignty, which had then existed for exactly 

 130 years. 



26. This is the natural and common-sense construction of the 

 Article, while the French contention can only be accepted on the 

 supposition that the framers of the Treaty, who used precise and 

 accurate language for the cession effected by the Xllth Article, used 

 vague and indefinite language for the cession effected by the Xlllth. 

 But it seems incredible that writers who so carefully excluded the 

 French from the fisheries of Nova Scotia should not have thought it 

 necessary to be equally careful (if that had been their meaning) to 

 exclude the English from fishing on part of the coasts of Newfound- 

 land, especially as they had previously declared the whole island to 

 belong of right to England, a declaration which, according to public 

 law, would necessarily include the territorial waters of the whole. 



27. Again, during the negotiations at Utrecht, Spain laid claim to 

 fish as of right hi the waters of Newfoundland, and the Treaty between 

 England and Spam contains an express renunciation of such claim. 



