in this region of the principal local industries. A very exclusive national 

 sentiment prevailed more and more among the islanders not to submit with- 

 out resistance to this restriction of their sovereignty. 



Under cover of the tolerance that the French fishermen accorded to cer- 

 tain Newfoundland families rendering them services in supplying or guarding 

 their establishments during winter, infiltration was carried on deliberately. 

 At the same time, the St. John's authorities regarded with favor the flood of 

 grievances which they were pressed to transmit to London, complacently am- 

 plified. 



The British government could not uphold openly the complaints of the is- 

 landers by encouraging a direct action taken in violation of the treaties. It 

 was in the interpretation of the texts that it sought a means of giving them sat- 

 isfaction. They returned to the old judicial quarrel of a concurrent fishery 

 opposed to an exclusive fishery, and it was on this theme that laborious nego- 

 tiations were begun between France and England, the first represented by 

 Talleyrand, the second by Lord Palmerton. 



The controversy was somewhat embarrassing for the government at Lon- 

 don which, in the preceding years, had agreed, in very good faith, to the 

 French interpretation. In 1835, Palmerton decided to take recourse in the 

 judgment of three British jurists of high competence, Dordons, Campbell and 

 Rolfe. Their advice was categoric: "After having taken note of the treaties, 

 we think that the French subjects have an exclusive right of fishery on the 

 parts of the coast of Newfoundland specified in the fifth article of the treaty 

 signed at Versailles September 3, 1793. " 



Instead of admitting a check, the minister invited the three jurists to 

 "re-examine the question more deeply. " 



Although showing themselves somewhat less affirmative, the advice which 

 was reported in 1837 at the end of this second examination was, basically, 

 still in favor of the French claim: "There is no doubt from the treaties, " con- 

 cluded the jurists, "that the French fishermen have a right to an exclusive 

 fishery. These rights are always defined in precise terms, formal and com- 

 prehensible. But the right to fish which the French have is such that no one 

 can share it with them from the moment that they are hindered. " Now the 

 French negotiators considered as formally established that a common fishery 

 could not be practiced, in the conditions that existed in Newfoundland, without 

 being a source of hinderment for both parties. 



60 



