MISCELLANEOUS. 1097 



eminent are not prepared, according to the view which they at 

 jHvsi'iii tnLo of the matter, to concede the point in question. 



The right of fishing on the coast of Newfoundland was assigned 

 to French subjects by the King of Great Britain in the Treaty of 

 Peace in 1783, to be enjoyed by them, "as they had the right to 

 enjoy that which was assigned to them by the Treaty of Utrecht." 



But the right assigned to French subjects by the Treaty of Utrecht 

 was "to catch fish and to dry them on land," within the district 

 described in the said Treaty, subject to the condition not to "erect 

 any buildings" upon the island "besides stages made of boards and 

 huts necessary and usual for drying of fish," and not to "resort to 

 the said island beyond the time necessary for fishing or drying of fish." 



A Declaration annexed to the Treaty of 1783, by which the right 

 assigned to French subjects was renewed, contains an engagement 

 that "in order that the fishermen of the two nations may not give a 

 cause for daily quarrels, His Britannic Majesty would take the most 

 positive measures for preventing his subjects from interrupting in 

 any manner by their competition the fishery of the French during 

 the temporary exercise of it which was granted to them;" and that 

 His Majesty would "for this purpose cause the fixed settlements 

 which should be found there to be removed." 



A Counter-Declaration stated that the King of France was satis- 

 fied with the arrangement concluded in the above terms. 



The Treaty of Peace of 1814 declares that the French right "of 

 fishery at Newfoundland is replaced upon the footing upon which 

 it stood in 1792." 



In order, therefore, to come to a right understanding of the ques- 

 tion, it will be necessary to consider it with reference to historical 

 facts, as well as with reference to the letter of the Declaration of 

 1783; and to ascertain what was the precise footing upon which the 

 French fishery actually stood in 1792. 



Now it is evident that specific evidence would be necessary in 

 order to show that the construction which the French Government 

 now desire to put upon the Declaration of 1783 is the interpretation 

 which was given to that Declaration at the period when the Decla- 

 ration was framed, and when the real intention of the parties must 

 have been best known. It would be requisite for this purpose to 

 prove that, upon the conclusion of the Treaty of 1783, French sub- 

 jects actually entered upon the enjoyment of an exclusive right to 

 catch fish in the waters off the coast in question; and that they 

 were in the acknowledged enjoyment of the exercise of that right 

 at the commencement of the war in 1792. But no evidence to such 

 effect has yet been produced. It is not, indeed, asserted by your 

 Excellency, nor was it contended by Prince Talleyrand in his note 

 of 1831, to which your Excellency specially refers, that French 

 subjects were, at the breaking out of the war in 1792, in the enjoy- 

 ment of such an exclusive right. And, moreover, it does not appear 

 that such right was claimed by France or admitted by England at 

 the termination of the war in 1801 or at the Peace of 1814. 



It is true that the privilege secured to the fishermen of France by 

 the Treaty and Declaration of 1783, a privilege which consists in the 

 periodical use of a part of the shore of Newfoundland for the purpose 

 of drying their fish, has, in practice, been treated by the British 

 Government as an exclusive right during the period of the fishing 



