HC Deb 02 May 1843 vol 68 cc1157-8
Captain Pechell

wished to know what was the state of negotiations with respect to the fishery question between England and France. He wished to know whether it were to be conceded to the French to anchor within those limits on the British coast from which hitherto they had been prohibited, and whether the negotiations with the commissioners had been concluded?

Sir Robert Peel

, in answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman had to state that commissioners had been appointed on behalf of the two countries, for the purpose of coming to an arrangement with respect to a fishery treaty. The regulations which those commissioners had agreed upon had not yet been satisfied; but he had every reason to believe that in a few days this would take place, and as soon as the ratification was received, these arrangements would be laid on the Table of the House; for it would be necessary, as he believed, to bring in a bill, for the purpose of giving these arrangements the force of law.

Captain Pechell

must ask the right hon. Baronet whether the limits on these coasts were to be further intruded upon.

Sir R. Peel

would put it to the House whether, in the present stage of the proceedings, he ought to be required to give any further explanation. Arrangements had been made by the commissioners of the two countries. He had reason to believe that these would soon be laid on the Table of the House; but until he could state that they had been ratified by the French government, he should decline entering into any further explanation.

Viscount Palmerston

understood the right hon. Baronet to state that Fishery Commissioners had been engaged on the part of the two countries, and that they had agreed to certain regulations, but that these regulations had not yet received the approbation of the two governments, and that the right hon. Baronet expected that he would be able to announce that approbation before the termination of the present week. He wished further to understand whether the approbation of her Majesty's Government was to be given in the same manner that regulated the acceptance of a treaty, that it was to be binding on the Government, so that when it was submitted to Parliament, it must either be adopted by Parliament, as agreed upon by the Government, or that Parliament should compel the Government to violate its engagements. He wished to know whether it was thus that the regulations were agreed to by the Government, or specifically subject to the subsequent approbation of Parliament.

Sir R. Peel

replied, if notice had been given by the noble Lord of his intention to ask this question, his answer would be more complete than it could be at present. His impression was, that the consent of the Crown was to be given, and so far the Crown was bound by it; but to give effect to the consent of the Crown, the consent of Parliament would be necessary. He thought that the terms of the convention could hardly be fulfilled, unless by means of an act of Parliament.

Viscount Palmerston

was afraid the right hon. Baronet did not exactly see the purport of the question he had asked. He wished to know whether, on the regulations being laid before Parliament, it would be competent for a Member to object to any one of those regulations?

Back to