THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 205 



The Marquis of Salisbury further observed : 



There may be said to be three different contentions in regard to this matter. 



The French Government hold that the Treaties secure to them the fullest rights of 

 fishery and preserving of fish along this portion of the coast, including the catching 

 and canning of lobsters, to the exclusion of British fishermen, whose operations, if 

 permitted at all, are to cease at once upon notice from the French. They equally 

 contend that British subjects are debarred from erecting factories or settlements of any 

 kind along the shore, and the only limitation which they admit of their own rights, as 

 above stated, is that the establishments erected by French citizens for preserving offish 

 shall not be permanent buildings. 



Her Majesty's Government have not attempted to claim that under the terms of the 

 Declaration of Versailles of 1783, British subjects have the right of erecting lobster- 

 canning factories immediately on the Treaty Shore, but they contend that the French 

 themselves have no right to erect such establishments, nor do they admit that the 

 catching of lobsters is included within the fishery rights secured to the French by 

 Treaty. They maintain, moreover, that British subjects have the right both of catch- 

 ing lobsters and of other fishery along and off the Treaty Shore, except in cases where 

 it can be proved that their operations actually interfere with French fishing. 



Finally, the Colonial Legislature and the inhabitants on the coast not only claim the 

 rights of fishery for themselves and the hmitation of French rights as contended for 

 by Her Majesty's Government and set forth above, but they regard it as an intolerable 

 grievance, and as contrary to the intention of the Treaties, that any restriction should 

 be placed upon the establishment of factories on the shore, except the sole condition 

 that they are not actively to interfere with the fisheries and temporary fish-curing 

 establishments of the French. They point to the fact that these lobster fisheries and 

 lobster-canning establishments have existed up to 1886 without remonstrance on the 

 part of the French as conclusive proof that they do not constitute such an interference. 



The Colonial Minister, Lord Knutsford, concurred generally in the 

 views and proposals of the Prime Minister, and suggested that in the 

 first place it would be advisable to consult the French Government, 

 and accordingly the Prime Minister addressed a Despatch to the 

 British Ambassador at Paris, Lord Lytton, stating that in conversation 

 with the French Ambassador, M. Waddington, the French Govern- 

 ment were wilUng to accept a reference of the lobster, fisheries dis- 

 pute to Arbitration, provided that the Government of Newfoundland 

 would give an assurance to abide by the decision. 



As already stated, a proposition was made on the 28th March, by 

 the Colonial Minister, to the Government of Newfoundland, to which 

 a reply was anxiously looked for, and on the 30th October Sir Terence 

 O'Brien, the Governor of the Colony, informed Lord Knutsford that 

 his proposals had been rejected, and in consequence thereof H.M. 

 Government decided that the proposal of Arbitration should not be 

 formally made to the French Government, until they had had an op- 

 portunity of discussing the whole fishery question with the Prime 

 Minister of Newfoundland, especially as his arrival in England was 

 expected in the course of the following year. 



