1092 MISCELLANEOUS. 



If the French had really had or retained any sovereignty in those 

 waters, the renunciation by Spain would more properly have been 



f'veii to France instead of to England; and its presence in the 

 nglish Treaty furnishes additional evidence against the present 

 claim of France. 



28. But it is hi reality unnecessary to go further than the text of 

 the Article itself. It assured to Great Britain the complete dominion 

 of Newfoundland, with the adjacent islands, and it would have been 

 absurd to state that the subjects of the Power possessing the sov- 

 ereignty of the island should have the right to fish in its territorial 

 waters. If any such stipulation had been necessary in regard to 

 fishery, it would have been equally necessary to insert every other 

 elementary right which sovereignty carries with it. Moreover, the 

 Article contained a most absolute renunciation for the future of all 

 rights on the part of France. And, accordingly, in the Treaty of Paris 

 of 1763 (Article V) the French fishery is spoken of not as & right but 

 as a liberty: "Les sujets de la France auront la liberte de la p6che et 

 de la secherie, sur une partie des c6tes de 1'Ile de Terre-Neuve, telle 

 qu'elle est specifiee par PArticle XIII du TraitS d'Utrecht, lequel 

 Article est renouvele et confirme par le present Traite, a 1'exception 

 de ce qui concerne File du Cap Breton, &c." 



III. State of Affairs subsequent to the Treaty of Utrecht. 



29. As a matter of fact, there can be no doubt whatever that the 

 concurrent right of fishery by British and French subjects was exer- 

 cised in the interval between the Treaty of Utrecht and the negoti- 

 ations of Versailles, inasmuch as, from 1769 onwards, the method of 

 its exercise gave rise to frequent complaints on the part of the French 

 Government. They urged that by permanent fishing establishments 

 formed by British subjects along the shore the French were practically 

 ousted from the enjoyment of the liberty conceded to them. It 

 appears on reference to the discussions which took place on this sub- 

 ject in 1776 (at a time when the British Government were particu- 

 larly anxious not to give France any unnecessary cause of offence), 

 that after M. de Gumes, the French Ambassador in London, had 

 made a proposal for exclusive rights of fishery which the British 

 Government had felt compelled to reject, Lord Stormont, then Brit- 

 ish Ambassador at Paris, was instructed to treat the matter with the 

 Comte de Vergennes. The latter, in the conversations which followed, 

 frankly admitted that the Treaty of Utrecht gave to Great Britain 

 the full sovereignty over the island : he said that to contend that the 

 Treaty gave to France an exclusive right of fishery would be to put on 

 it a strained construction ; but he laid down the principle that Treaty 

 stipulations should be liberally interpreted, and that the rights of 

 fishery conceded to the French on certain portions of the shore should 

 not be annulled in practice by prior occupation on the part of British 

 fishermen. 



30. The English Ambassador, on his side, explained that it was 

 impossible for his Government to order the removal of the sedentary 

 British establishments (to which, however, they were in principle as 

 much opposed as the French), because these had existed prior to the 

 Treaty of Utrecht, as appeared by a Charter granted by the English 

 Crown in 1610. He pointed out that the French system of bounties, 



