The board of trade in November 1758, shewed a disposition to take into consideration the trade and fishery of Newfoundland, which were then said _to have declined of late years_. For the purpose of obtaining every information that could be derived from those experienced and interested in the question, they directed letters to be written to the towns in the west; but they received for answer nothing but such matter as had relation to the inconveniences resulting to the trade from a state of war; and the only remedies proposed were a due regulation of convoys, and that seamen employed in that trade should not be subject to pressing[64]. [Sidenote: The Peace 1763.] After the conclusion of the peace in 1763, a more favourable opportunity seemed to present itself for doing something towards the encouragement of the fishery. Upon this occasion, as upon former ones, when this subject was under deliberation, the board of trade called upon the western towns for advice and information; and now they joined to them such towns in _Ireland_ and _Scotland_ as had lately engaged in that trade; namely, _Cork_, _Waterford_, _Belfast_, and _Glasgow_.[65] The French turned their attention to the arrangements to be made in their own fishery, in consequence of the peace. The French ambassador presented to our court a project of arrangement, to be reciprocally agreed upon between the two crowns, for avoiding disturbance and dispute between the English and French in carrying on the concurrent fishery. This matter came before the board of trade, who referred it to _Sir George Hay_, the king’s advocate, and _Sir Fletcher Norton_, and _Mr. de Grey_, the attorney and solicitor general, for their opinion, whether the project was consistent with stat. 10 and 11 Will. 3.? and whether the crown could legally enter into, and had power to enforce such regulations, so far as they related to the subjects of Great Britain? To which they answered, that the project contained many things contrary to the act, as well in respect of the rights of the king’s subjects, as to the mode of determining controversies arising there; and that the crown had no power to enter into, or enforce such regulations[66].