The development referred to sprang from the growing lobster industry along the French shore. In 1874 and the following years lobster factories were erected by British subjects on the French shore, in positions where there was no French occupation and there were no French buildings. Here there was no violation of the Treaty of Utrecht provision, for the French were in no way restrained from "erecting stages made of boards, and huts necessary and useful for drying of fish," nor was there any violation of the declaration annexed to the Treaty of Versailles, that "His Britannic Majesty will take the most positive measures for preventing his subjects from interrupting in any way by their competition the fishery of the French during the temporary exercise of it which is granted them." The "fishing" which was not to be interrupted by competition was the fishery "which is granted to them," a limitation which throws us back at once upon the language of the earlier treaties. Now it is indisputably clear that the only fishing rights granted to the French were concerned with codfish. The lobster industry was then unknown; and the language used, and in particular "the stages and huts necessary and useful for drying fish" spoken of, are applicable to codfish and not to lobsters, for the canning industry was only of recent date, and lobsters, moreover, are not dried. No fishery other than that of the codfish could then have been contemplated. That this must have been abundantly clear is apparent from the memoirs of M. de Torcy, one of the negotiators of the treaty, who uses throughout the expression "morue" (codfish)--the liberty stipulated was "pecher et secher les morues" (to fish and dry codfish). The French, however, not content with objecting to the presence of English factories, erected factories of their own, comprehending them, it must be presumed, within the description "huts necessary and useful for the drying of fish." They contended, furthermore, that their rights were a part of the ancient French sovereignty retained when the soil was ceded to England. Such a claim was inadmissible on any view of the treaties. In fact, there was much to be said for the view that no _exclusive_ right of fishery of any sort was ever given to the French, in spite of the language of the celebrated Declaration. As Lord Palmerston wrote, some eighty 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