MISCELLANEOUS. 1095 



merce; and, indeed, Article XIII provides merely for the re-establish- 

 ment of the fisheries on the footing on which they were previously to 

 the commencement of the war, and appears to have no reference to any 

 further arrangement than to such as, without altering the relative 

 situation of the two parties, might contribute to the maintenance of 

 peace in the fisheries as they now exist." 



44. A proposal made subsequently by the French Plenipotentiary at 

 Amiens for the cession of a portion of Newfoundland in full sovereignty 

 to France was positively refused by the British Government; and on 

 the 13th February, 1802, Lord Cornwallis states in a private letter to 

 Lord Hawkesbury: "The French Plenipotentiary seems determined 

 to press for some further indulgences at Newfoundland, but I am too 

 well apprised of the importance of those fisheries to make the smallest 

 concessions without His Majesty's commands, and I have taken pains 

 to discourage M. J. Buonaparte from entertaining any hopes that our 

 Government can give way on that point." 



VI. Subsequent Discussions. 



45. Lord Palmerston's note of the 10th July, 1838, to Comte 

 Sebastiani, which is quoted in M. Waddin^ton's note, distinctly 

 denies the right of the French to an exclusive fishery under any 

 Treaty engagement or documentary undertaking. His language is 

 very clear on this point, and he shows that the Proclamations issued 

 warning British subjects to leave the coast were so issued, not to pre- 

 vent British fishermen from fishing, but in consequence of interiup- 

 tions having been caused to French fishermen, and to prevent such 

 interruptions. 



46. The views expressed in Lord Salisbury's note to M. Waddington 

 of the 24th August, 1887, are in accord with the general principles laid 

 down in that note, and with the position constantly maintained by 

 Her Majesty's Government, that the French have not an exclusive 

 right of fishery under the Treaty engagements, and that the British 

 have never given up their right to a concurrent fishery, although in 

 exercising this right they are not to interrupt the French fishermen. 



47. It is difficult to understand how it can be supposed that such 

 a contention has now been advanced for the first time, whereas it 

 has formed the basis of all action and argument on the part of Her 

 Majesty's Government for the last 120 years. The first Law Officers' 

 opinion, of the 30th May, 1835, quoted in M. Waddington's note, 

 was, as his Excellency observes, modified on further consideration 

 and on their being supplied with more detailed information. It was, 

 in fact, given on a partial and defective statement of the case. The 

 second Keport, of the 13th April, 1837, which his Excellency also 

 quotes, stated distinctly that, "if there were really good room within 

 the limits of the district in question for the fishermen of both nations 

 to fish without interfering with each other, then we do not think 

 that this country would be bound to prevent her subjects from fish- 

 ing there." It went on to say that "it appears from the Report of 

 Admiral Sir H. P. Halkett that this is hardly practicable." 



48. The same consideration is made of the ground of the argument 

 used in Mr. Labouchere's despatch of the 16th January, 1857, that 

 whether the rights of the French were in strict logic exclusive or not, 

 they were so in practice. But this would be a question of fact, and 



