years
ago, to Count Sebastiani, in his unambiguous way: "I will observe to
your Excellency, 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
accorded in terms so loose and indefinitive. 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 at some time or other to be disputed, if there is
any maintainable ground for contesting them; and for these reasons,
when negotiators have intended to grant exclusive grants, 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."

It was, in fact, as Lord Palmerston argued, a perfectly open
contention that on the authorities no exclusive right was ever given
to the French, but the demeanour of this country had been such as to
render the position difficult and unconvincing. We are, however, upon
much firmer ground when we come to close quarters with the French
claims to rights of lobster fishing. The claim was first clearly
advanced in 1888, that none but Frenchmen were entitled to catch
lobsters and erect preserving factories upon the French shore. This at
once elicited an incisive English remonstrance, in deference to which
French diplomacy had recourse to the evasion that the factories were
merely temporary. They were not, however, removed, and finally in 1889
further remonstrances by Lord Salisbury were met with the bold
contention that these factories were comprehended within the language
of the treaties. The English Government met this _volte face_ with a
feeble proposal to resort to arbitration--a proposal which the
islanders declined with equal propriety and spirit. The consequent