By the treaty of Paris of 1814 between Great Britain and France, the former restores to the latter, the colonies, fisheries, factories, and establishments of every kind, which France possessed on the 1st of January 1792, in the seas or on the continents of America, Asia, and Africa, with the exception of Tobago, St. Lucia, and the Isle of France. By the 13th article of this treaty it is declared that "as to the French right of fishery on the Grand Bank of Newfoundland, on the coasts of the island of that name, and the adjacent islands, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, everything shall be restored to the same footing as in 1792."

Finally by the convention of October 20, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, it is provided, article 1st, that "the inhabitants of the said United States shall have for ever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, and on the western and northern coast, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands." By the same convention, the United States are allowed to dry and cure fish on the southern part of the coast of this island, as above described, but not on the western coast.

110

From the preceding statement it follows, that the French have the right of taking and drying fish on the western coast of the Island of Newfoundland. The United States claim the right of taking fish on the same coast. But this the French deny, saying that the right both of taking and drying belongs to France exclusively. Their cruisers have accordingly in 1820 and 1821, ordered off the American fishing vessels, whilst within the acknowledged jurisdiction of the coast, threatening them with seizure in case of refusal.

It may be that France will allege in support of her doctrine, that by her treaty of September 3, 1783, with Great Britain, which gave her the right of fishing and drying fish on the western coast of the island, it was intended that this right should be exclusive; that the words of the treaty, and, above all, those of the declaration annexed to it, show this to have been the meaning, as France obtained the western coast in exchange for a part of the eastern coast with a view to prevent quarrels between the French and British fishermen. To this end, as it may perhaps be also alleged, the words of the declaration provide that British subjects were not to "interrupt the French fishery on this coast by their competition in any manner; and further provide that the "fixed settlements" which had been formed there (by British subjects it is presumed) should be removed. The United States will insist on the other hand, that Great Britain never could have intended by her treaty of 1783 with France to grant a right of fishing and of curing fish on the western coast to French fishermen exclusively, but that the right of British subjects to resort there in common, must necessarily be implied. That a contrary construction of the instrument cannot be received, the sovereignty of the whole island having been fully vested in Great Britain, and even confirmed by this very treaty. That it can never be presumed that she intended so far to renounce, or in any wise to diminish this sovereignty as to exclude her own subjects from any part of the coast. That no positive grant to this effect is to be found in the treaty, and that the claim of France to an exclusive right, a claim so repugnant to the sovereign rights of Great Britain, can rest on noth

ing less strong than a positive grant. That all that the words contained in the declaration to the treaty can be construed to mean is "that British subjects should never whilst exercising their right, improperly or injuriously " interrupt by their competition "the enjoyment of the French right. Furthermore the United States cannot suppose, that Great Britain by the convention of the October 20, 1818, above recited, would ever have agreed that the inhabitants of the United States should have (for a just equivalent contained in the convention) the right or the liberty to take fish on the very coast in question in common with British subjects, but under the natural conviction and belief that British subjects had the liberty of resorting there; and if they had, the claim of France to drive away the fishermen of the United States cannot stand.

The above summary may serve to present the general nature of the question which has arisen between the United States and France respecting fishing rights, and which Great Britain will doubtless desire to see settled in a manner satisfactory to the United States. It is obvious that if Great Britain cannot make good the title which the United States hold under her to take fish on the western coast of Newfoundland, it will rest with her to indemnify them for the loss. Another question which it is supposed will also be for her consideration is, how far she will consider it just or proper that France should be allowed to drive or order away vessels of the United States from a coast which is clearly within the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Great Britain.

August, 1822.

Since the foregoing summary was drawn up, and which, as will be seen, was in part hypothetical, a correspondence which has taken place beteween the Minister of the United States at Paris, and the French Government, will serve to show more distinctly the grounds upon which France claims to evict the United States from so essential a portion of their fishing rights on the coast of this island. The correspondence consists of four letters from Mr. Gallatin to Viscount Chateaubriand dated January the 22nd, March the 14th, April the 2nd, and 15th, 1823; and two from Viscount Chateaubriand to Mr. Gallatin dated February the 28th and April the 5th 1823.

Copies of these letters are annexed. For the articles of the treaties (no longer however in force) between the United States and France to which Viscount Chateaubriand alludes, see volume 1. of the Laws of the United States, edition of 1815, pages 80 and 131. March, 1824.

No. 58.-1824, May 3: Letter from Mr. Rush (United States Minister at London) to Mr. G. Canning.

The undersigned Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, has received the instructions of his Government to lay before Mr. Canning, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the following case. By the first article of the convention between the United States and Great Britain, concluded at London on the twen

111

tieth day of October 1818, it is, amongst other things, provided, that the "inhabitants of the said States shall have, for ever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks, from Mount Joly on the southern. coast of Labrador to and through the Straits of Belleisle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along that coast."

After the ratification of the above convention, the fishermen of the United States proceeded, according to its stipulations to take fish on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland between the limits of Cape Ray and the Quirpon Islands; but, in the course of the years 1820 and 1821 whilst pursuing in a regular manner their right to fish, within these limits, and being also, within the strictest territorial jurisdiction of the island, these fishermen found themselves ordered away by the commanders of the armed vessels of France, on pain of seizure and confiscation of their fishing vessels.

This order was afterwards ascertained to rest upon a claim set up by France to an exclusive fishery upon that part of the coast of the island, a claim conceived by the Government of the United States to be without just foundation, and in violation of the rights of the citizens of the United States, as settled by the foregoing article of the convention of 1818.

The Government of the United [States] forebore at first to make any representation of the above occurrence, so injurious to the interests as well as rights of their citizens, to the Government of His Britannic Majesty, cherishing the hope that the difficulty which appeared to have arisen would be removed on a fit representation to the Court of France. A correspondence accordingly took place upon the subject, between the American plenipotentiary at Paris, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of His Most Christian Majesty, which, has not terminated in a manner satisfactory. to the Government of the United States, it appearing from it that France distinctly asserts an exclusive right of fishing within the limits in question. Copies of this correspondence, consisting of three letters from Mr. Gallatin dated the 22nd of January the 14th of March and the 2nd of April 1823, and two letters from Viscount Chateaubriand dated February the 28th and April the 5th of the same year, the undersigned has the honour to inclose for the more full information of Mr. Canning. It will be seen that the United States claim for their citizens the right to take fish only, not to cure and dry the same, within the limits from which France would interdict them, and that their claim is in common with the subjects and fishermen of His Britannic Majesty. The undersigned has not been furnished with any affidavits or other formal proofs to substantiate the fact of the fishing vessels of the United States having been ordered away by French vessels of war as above mentioned, since it will be seen by the notes of the French Minister of State that no question is raised upon that point, but that the fact itself is justified under a claim of right, thereby rendering superfluous all extrinsic evidence of its existence. The grounds of justification, assumed by France, are believed by the Government of the United States to be satisfactorily refuted by their plenipotentiary,

in the correspondence enclosed, and although France has placed her claim as against the United States upon the footing of treaties once subsisting between the two Powers, it will not fail to be perceived, that she also asserts in the most unqualified manner her anterior, unlimited and exclusive right to the fishery in question under the treaties of Utrecht and of Paris; consequently as preexistent to her former treaties with the United States, and paramount all title in any other Power. In the note of Viscount Chateaubriand of the 5th of April, it is stated that the chargé d'affaires of France at Washington had been instructed to enter upon explanations with the Government of the United States concerning this interest, and was then about to be again written to on the same head; yet it becomes the duty of the undersigned to say, that no adjustment of the subject has taken place, and that the fishing vessels of the United States still remain under the interdiction put upon them by the cruisers of France.

The undersigned in fulfilling the orders of his Government to bring under the official notice of Mr. Secretary Canning the circumstances of the above case, does so in full reliance that, through the friendly dispositions of His Majesty's Government, the whole subject will receive such attention as it will be seen to merit. The United States seek only the fair and unmolested enjoyment of the fishing rights which they hold at the hands of Great Britain under the convention of 1818, satisfied that Great Britain, whether as regards the guarantee of those rights, or the maintenance of her own sovereign jurisdiction over this island and its immediate waters, will take such steps as the occasion calls for, and above all as are appropriate to the just and amicable intentions, which it may be so confidently supposed will animate the Government of His Most Christian Majesty, as well as that of His Britannic Majesty, towards the United States, touching the full rights of the latter under the Convention aforesaid.

The undersigned prays Mr. Canning to accept the assurances of his distinguished consideration.

LONDON MAY 3d. 1824.

1 George Street Portman Square.

The Rt Hon GEORGE CANNING

RICHARD RUSH.

His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

112

No. 59.-1824, May 6: Letter from Mr. Stratford Canning to
Mr. G. Canning.

The Rt Honble GEORGE CANNING,

LONDON, May 6th 1824.

SIR, Agreeably to your directions communicated to me this evening by Mr. Planta, I have examined with attention the note and accompanying documents submitted to you by the American envoy under date of the 3d instant. It appears from these papers that the Govt. of the United States desire the intervention of Great Britain in order to obtain for their citizens the actual enjoyment of the right to take fish on the western coast of Newfoundland, in virtue of their con

vention with His Majesty of October, 1818,-the Government of France denying that right, and the armed vessels of France being described as having interfered by force to prevent the exercise of it by American fishermen.

In considering the subject matter of Mr. Rush's statement & the annexed correspondence between M. Gallatin and Viscount Chateaubriand, two leading points present themselves for enquiry; namely, the extent, as far as relates to the question raised by France,-of the American claim upon Great Britain, and, secondly, the nature of the French pretension to an exclusive right of fishing on the western coast of Newfoundland.

The former of these questions may be answered by a reference to the terms of the convention already named.-The first article of that instrument stipulates that "the inhabitants of the United States "shall have for ever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic "Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind on. . . . the "western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from Cape Ray to "the Quirpon Islands."

It is obvious from these expressions that whatever right to take fish is enjoyed by British subjects on the western coast of New foundland, the same is to be equally enjoyed by the citizens of the United States, in so far as depends on the consent and authority of the British Government. It follows that within the jurisdiction of His Majesty, as Sovereign of Newfoundland, the same local protection, which secures to British subjects the peaceable exercise of their fishing rights on the coast, ought also to be extended to the citizens of the United States, though it does not appear that any engagement amounting to a guaranty of that right, in the proper sense of the term, has ever been contracted towards them by the Crown of Great Britain.—

The second point of enquiry, if viewed only in connection with the correspondence presented by Mr. Rush, appears to admit of a plain and conclusive answer. The pretension advanced by Viscount Chateaubriand, whatever be the grounds on which it virtually rests, is not brought openly to bear against the rights of the British, but solely against those of the United States. It is true that the French Minister has endeavoured to establish that pretension on grounds independent of the actual validity of treaties at any time subsisting between the United States and France; but this argument will be found to stop short of Great Britain, amounting only in substance to an exclusion of the United States from any participation in the disputed privilege, in consequence of their having recognised, to their own prejudice, the claim of France, in the full extent attached to that claim by the French Government, and having thereby incapacitated themselves from reaping any benefit, as to the western coast of Newfoundland, except by consent of France, from their subsequent agreement with Great Britain. The argument of M. de Chateaubriand is, in fact, an argument ad verecundiam. The sum of it is this: admitting that the treaties by which the American Government bound itself to recognise and respect the right alleged by France, are no longer in force, the just and powerful reasons which formerly prevailed to obtain from the American Govt. a recognition of the right, and on which the treaty-stipulations were grounded, ought, never