FISHERIES (BRITISH ISLANDS AND FRANCE) BILL. (Hansard, 31 July 1855)

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
said, he should move as an Amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. It was a question of great importance to the maritime population of the coasts of Suffolk, Kent, and Sussex, that no disadvantage should be inflicted upon English fishermen, as compared with those of France. The quarrels which took place in 1839, between the fishermen of the two countries made it necessary that the matter should become a subject of negotiation between the noble Lord now at the head of the Government and Marshal Soult, and a Bill was passed in 1843, by which three miles from the coast of England, and three miles from the coast of France, were fixed as the limits of the exclusive claim to the fisheries; but certain exceptions were made as to the oyster fisheries in the neighbourhood of Granville, and of the isles of Guernsey and Jersey. The effect of that Bill, however, would be to give up more than the French Government claimed, and to exclude English fishermen from a bank which had been discovered within the last four or five years outside the limits of each shore fishery, and, as it were, in the midst of the Channel. The complaints made by Count Walewski in 1852 were, 1605 that the English boats pursued fishing on the French coast in the prohibited months, June and July, when the oysters were not wholesome; that the vessels were not marked and numbered, according to the regulations; and that in cases where an English boat had been captured and its crew charged before the Commissary of Marine with illegal fishing, the English Consuls at French ports refused to attest the evidence that was there taken, so that the men could not be sent to England for trial. It would be quite satisfactory to the French if our Government would only give directions to the Consuls abroad and collectors of customs in our ports to look after the subject. He computed that by the Brighton and South Coast Railway and by the South Western Railway during the months of May, June, July, and August, in which oysters were not considered wholesome, not less than 16,224 tons, or upwards of 600,000 bushels of oysters were sent up; and that this was a very serious matter, and ought to be attended to.

§ MR. BERESFORD
seconded the Amendment. He trusted that the House would do nothing to impede the oyster fishery trade, and that, at any rate, an inquiry would be instituted before the law was altered. In the deep sea wholesome oysters might be obtained between April and September.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, that the sole object of the Bill was to carry into effect a treaty with France. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton really represented in the matter a great poaching interest. Oysters were taken at forbidden times, and the French Government complained of the infraction of the law, and demanded that we should enforce our engagement with them. He hoped, in spite of his hon. and gallant Friend and his poaching constituents, that the House would pass the Bill.