1096 MISCELLANEOUS. 



it must be remembered that Mr. Labouchere's despatch was written 

 with the object of recommending to the acceptance of the Colony 

 the Convention of 1857 for the settlement of the question. It wa9 

 impossible for him to adopt the view now advanced in M. Wad- 

 dington's note, that the 1st Article of the Convention was no more 

 than a formal recognition of the ancient French rights. He did not 

 deny what was, in fact, unquestionable that the Convention was 

 an alteration of existing arrangements; but he sought to prove that 

 the interests of the Colony would not in reality suffer by it. It was 

 not, therefore, his purpose to define the strict rights of the British 

 fishermen, so much as their practical position at the time: the 

 tenour of his argument was that that position would not be injuriously 

 affected by the Convention, and the language of his despatch is cer- 

 tainly not in all respects precise. 



49. Such as the argument was, it undoubtedly did not recommend 

 itself to the Colonial Legislature, which unanimously and unhesi- 

 tatingly rejected the Arrangement. Whether that decision was 

 wise or unwise is a question foreign to the present argument. But 

 the mere fact that British fishermen have now for many years past 

 fished in the waters on the west and north-east coasts of Newfound- 

 land, without giving cause for complaint on the part of French 

 fishermen, except in occasional instances, is to Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment evidence that there is room for the fishermen of both 

 countries if proper precautions are taken. The arrangement has no 

 doubt its inconveniences, but that it is possible is proved by the 

 fact that it exists, and that, on the whole, the disputes which arise 

 between the fishermen of the two countries are not considerable 

 nor numerous. 



FOREIGN OFFICE, July 9, 1889. 



[Annex.] 



Viscount Palmerston to Count Sebastiani. 



[Extract.] 



Foreign Office, July 10, 1838. 



I NOW proceed to answer that part of your Excellency's note 

 which relates to the conflicting opinions that are entertained as to 

 the true interpretation of the Declaration annexed to the Treaty of 

 the 3rd September, 1783, and in which your Excellency urges the 

 British Government to disavow the claim of British subjects to a 

 right of fishery upon the coast in question concurrent with the right 

 of the subjects or France. 



And in the first place I beg to observe that it does not appear to 

 the British Government that either your Excellency's representation 

 or that of your predecessor has shown that any specific grievance 

 has been sustained by French subjects in consequence of the doubts 

 which are said to be entertained upon this question, so as to prove 

 that there is any pressing necessity for the call which the French 

 Government makes in this respect upon that of Great Britain. 



But the British Government is nevertheless willing to enter into 

 an amicable examination of the matter, with a view to set those 

 doubts at rest, although it is my duty to say that the British Gov- 



