HC Deb 26 May 1835 vol 28 cc164-8
Mr. Robinson

, in pursuance to notice, brought forward his Motion relative to the right of British subjects to a Concurrent Fishery on that part of the coast of Newfoundland, commonly called the French shore. If the subject were only of a local nature he would not presume to demand much of the attention of the House; but it involved more than local importance or the interests of a single colony. The question arose out of the construction put upon a treaty entered into between England and France in the year 1814, and though so long a period as twenty-one years had elapsed the Government had given no answer to the persons engaged in this fishery as to how the treaty was to be construed. This was very strange, and he would ask the Government how long after twenty-one years were British subjects to wait before they were told whether they had a right, concurrent with the French, of fishing on their own coast. In 1830, he moved for a Select Committee to consider the subject. The answer of the Government was, that a Select Committee was an inconvenient course of proceeding. In 1831, he again brought the matter before the House, when he was induced to withdraw it, in consequence of being told that the subject was under the consideration of the Government. Last Session, in June, he moved an humble Address to his Majesty, praying that he would, order the Law Officers of the Crown to give their opinion on the treaty in question, and then he withdrew his Motion, because he was told by Government that they were in treaty with France on the subject, and that it would be useless to press the matter until the pending negotiations were concluded. On the accession of his Grace the Duke of Wellington to office, he (Mr. Robinson) received from Newfoundland a strong memorial, complaining of the long delay in giving an answer, and almost insisting that the Government must say whether the memorialists had a right of fishing on that part of the coast alluded to. On the 25th of February he wrote to the Duke of Wellington enclosing the Memorial, and in the letter he stated it to be his opinion that the English had a concurrent right with the French of fishing on the coast in question; and that Government ought to tell them so, or tell them if, and why, the right was taken away. He was told soon after by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that the reason the Duke of Wellington had returned no answer to his communication was, that the negotiations with France were still pending. It was for these reasons that he placed a notice of Motion on the subject on the books for that day, and which made him feel it his duty to advert once more to the matter. He protested against any further delay in adjusting this Question. The French had an interest in having the settlement of the Question indefinitely postponed, because, whilst it was so, they arrogated to themselves the right of interrupting all others fishing on the coast. Unless the Government could satisfy him by cogent reasons that the Question could not as yet have been settled, he would persevere in his Motion. This right of fishing was given so far back as 1730, and so important was it thought to be that it formed a separate Article in all Treaties between this country and France ever since that time. France had no other right of fishing than that given by the treaty of Utrecht, and that was nothing more than a permissive right to fish. He remembered having written a letter to a former Secretary for the Colonies, the right hon. Sir George Murray, pressing him to tell those people if they had a right of fishing on what was called the French shore or not, and, strange to say, the right hon. Gentleman (able Minister as every one knew him to be) answered his letter by saying that the Government did not know. In the year 1831 a vessel was fitted out in this country for the purpose of trying the disputed right. On the approach of this vessel to the French coast the French assembled, and warned the Captain of the vessel, telling him that he had no right to fish there, and that they would prevent it. The captain answered that he was sent to try the right, and that he would not withdraw unless he was compelled to do so by force. A French ship of war then appeared, and told the English captain that he had orders from his Government to prevent the British from fishing on those shores, and that he would do so. Upon this intimation the captain of the English vessel withdrew. He contended that, according to the fair construction of all the treaties that existed between the two countries on the subject, the right which France exercised was a permissive, and not an exclusive, right. France had always pursued in respect to oilier nations a course of selfish policy, and he must, therefore, say, that if this question were suffered to remain much longer unsettled, the dignity of the British Crown would be compromised.

Mr. Potter

(interrupting the hon. Member)—I move, Sir, that the House be counted.

The House was cleared of strangers for the purpose, but there being forty Members present, the debate was proceeded with, although strangers were not readmitted, until Mr. Robinson had concluded, and Mr. Poulett Thomson had begun his reply.

Mr. Poulett Thomson

said, that he had formerly stated to the bon. Member (Mr. Robinson) the course which he (Mr. P. Thomson) considered should be taken, viz. to ascertain what was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with reference to the question; upon which afterwards the Government might proceed in negotiation. He (Mr. P. Thomson) had felt it his duty strictly to comply with the pledge he had then given to the hon. Member; and within a few days after, he addressed a letter to the Foreign-office, requesting them to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject. He had reason to believe, that that request was complied with; that the opinion was demanded; and, when it had been received, the noble Lord then at the head of the Government would have been prepared to make all endeavours towards negotiation with the French upon the subject. That opinion had not been received by the noble Lord, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, prior to his leaving office; and during the Administration that succeeded them, no further steps were taken in the question. As far then as he (Mr. P. Thomson) could fulfil the pledge given by him to the hon. Member, and as far as the noble Lord then at the head of the Foreign Department could fulfil it, so far it had been fulfilled. Since their return to office, he knew that the Law Advisers of the Crown had been pressed for their opinion, and he had no doubt that it would be soon in their possession. Now, having stated that they should be in a condition, at least as far as that opinion went, to commence negotiations upon the subject, he trusted that he had stated that which would prove to the hon. Gentleman that there would be no use whatever in the House acceding to the Motion, even if it were otherwise advisable. But supposing that negotiations upon the subject had been carried to any extent, he was prepared to say, that nothing would be more unadvisable than to lay whatever had passed upon the Table of the House. Because it was in the power of the hon. Gentleman to say, that his interpretation of the treaty was perfectly clear, it did not follow that others must agree with him. He wished that he could feel as little doubt upon that subject as the hon. Gentleman, and that all the other statesmen to whom the treaty had been successively referred for consideration had not, in their opinions, thrown great uncertainty upon the opinion of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman said he looked merely at the treaty of Utrecht; and if he looked at that treaty, he would find the rights for which he contended fully maintained and fixed. But let the hon. Gentleman look at the treaty of 1783, at the peace of Paris, and the declaration that accompanied it, (for that was the chief point) and the Act of 1786, which was framed for the purpose of carrying into effect that treaty, and let him turn to that with which he was well acquainted, the opinion of Mr. Huskisson given in 1827, and he was afraid the hon. Member would find doubt adhering to his (Mr. Robinson's) judgment. He was perfectly willing, however, to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance, that when the opinion of the Law Officers had been received, every exertion would be made by Government to bring that question to a settlement, and let him tell the hon. Gentleman that it was only by the endeavours of Government that it could possibly arrive at a satisfactory settlement; for, if he were anxious to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, let him ask he hon. Gentleman in what way would that be effected? Was he prepared to say, that Government ought to send out armed vessels to the coast of Newfoundland, and, with a treaty, the construction of which was yet undecided, take force into their own hands, when their rights were disputed? Was he prepared to say that?

An hon. Member here moved that the House be counted; and there appearing less than forty Members present, the House adjourned.