Imperial Interviews: V. Newfoundland: II French v. English: … [major editorial] … Newfoundlanders have a Magna Charta of their own in the despatch of the Secretary of State after the close of the Crimean War, in which he said that “The consent of Newfoundland is regarded as the essential preliminary to any modification of their territorial or maritime rights.” They point to this with pride as settling the question of the territorial rights of France for ever: And their contention is borne out by the most respected judge in the island, Mr. Justice Pinsent, in reply to a presentment of the grand jury of Bay St. George at the Supreme Court on Circuit, September 5th last. In this presentment they called his lordship’s attention to the fact that the result of the passing of the Bait Bill had already been to draw the attention of the French shipowners to Bay St. George, and that they feared that the French would assume territorial rights as well as practically ruin the inhabitants by catching all the bait they wanted instead of purchasing it as before. Mr. Justice Pinsent in reply observed (I copy this from his own manuscript), “That under the Treaty of Utrecht the whole of the island was declared to be the rightful territory of Great Britain, and to be under its absolute sovereignty. The terms of this treaty in this respect have never been abrogated or abandoned. I have never understood for a moment that the Crown has ever in any degree allowed any Sovereign or proprietorial claim on the part of France. The easement reserved to the French by treaty is no more a secession of sovereignty or dominion than are the privileges conferred by treaty upon the United States of America. The presence of British ships of war, of civil officers, and the right of popular legislative representation enjoyed by the people of this coast and its subjection to taxation and Customs regulations, with the presence here of the Supreme Court of this island and its dependencies, with jurisdiction over the adjacent seas and with cognizance of offences committed upon the banks of Newfoundland, all attest this position, which is in no wise annulled by the permissive presence of a French naval force for the discipline and protection of their own marine.” This is absolutely conclusive, and it is accordingly certain that the French will never become possessed, unless the fortune of war should give it to them as it took it away, of any portion of the Newfoundland coast. They had not the right by treaty, even if they had, they have allowed it to lapse by default, and now they are clearly not inclined to insist upon it. A pamphlet upon the subject which takes on a semi-official character from being handed to me by the French Consul as an accurate expression of French views, declares this openly and concludes with the mild but significant reproach ” Pour obtenir la cession d’un droit, c’est un mauvais point de depart que d’ennier l’existence.’ The question of territorial rights being thus disposed of, we come to the second question of French and English fishing relations that is to the Bait Bill. … [continues] …
[see also Freeman’s Journal: Thursday 15th December 1887]
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0747 Hennock: Robert John Pinsent: 1834 – 1893