1098 MISCELLANEOUS. 



season, and within the prescribed limits; because, from the nature 

 of the case, it would scarcely be possible for British fishermen to dry 

 their fish upon the same part of the shore with the French fishermen, 

 without interfering with the temporary establishments of the French 

 for the same purpose, and without interrupting their operations. 

 But the British Government has never understood the Declaration 

 to have had for its object to deprive British subjects of the right to 

 participate with fhe French in taking fish at sea off that shore, 

 provided they di so without interrupting the French cod fishery. 

 And although, in accordance with the true spirit of the Treaty and 

 Declaration of 1783, prohibitory Proclamations have from time to 

 time been issued, on occasions when it has been found that British 

 subjects, while fishing within the limits in question, have caused 

 interruption to the French fishery, yet in none of the public docu- 

 ments of the British Government neither in the Act of Parliament 

 of 1788, passed for the express purpose of carrying the Treaty of 

 1783 into effect, nor in any subsequent Act of Parliament relating 

 to the Newfoundland fishery, nor in any of the instructions issued 

 by the Admiralty or by the Colonial Office, nor in any Proclamation 

 which has come under my view, issued by the Governor of New- 

 foundland or by the British Admiral upon the station does it appear 

 that the right of French subjects to an exclusive fishery, either of 

 codfish or of fish generally, is specifically recognized. 



In addition to the facts above stated, I will observe to your Excel- 

 lency, in conclusion, that if the right conceded to the French by the 

 Declaration of 1783 had been intended to be exclusive within the 

 prescribed district, the terms used for defining such right would 

 assuredly have been more ample and specific than they are found 

 to be in that document. For in no other similar instrument which 

 has ever come under the knowledge of the British Government is 

 so important a concession as an exclusive privilege of this description 

 announced in terms so loose and indefinite. 



Exclusive rights are privileges which, from the very nature of 

 things, are likely to be injurious to parties who are thereby debarred 

 from some exercise of industry in which they would otherwise engage. 

 Such rights are therefore certain to be at some time or other disputed, 

 if there is any maintainable ground for contesting them; and for 

 these reasons, when negotiators have intended to grant exclusive 

 rights, it has been their invariable practice to convey such rights 

 in direct, unqualified, and comprehensive terms, so as to prevent 

 the possibility of future dispute or doubt. 



In the present case, however, such forms of expression are entirely 

 wanting, and the claim put forward on the part of France is founded 

 simply upon inference, and upon an assumed interpretation of words. 



