Commons Sitting of 5 April 1838

COAST FISHERIES.
Mr. E. R. Ricemoved "for copies of all memorials or other documents which have been received by her Majesty's Government since the 1st of January, 1832, complaining of the aggression of French fishermen on our coasts." Whatever difficulties (the hon. Member observed) there were at present as to the settlement of this question must become greater if the remedy for the evil were longer delayed. Every Member of the House, who had given the slightest attention to the subject, must admit how important it was to give encouragement to our national fisheries. It was sufficient, therefore, for him to state that the evils which were complained of for some years past had increased. He believed it to be

433
an acknowledged principle of international law, that the coast should be considered part of the territory of the country. This principle was sanctioned by Acts of Parliament passed in this country, and was confirmed by the conduct of the French and Dutch Governments. In accordance with it, the French had forbidden our boats to approach nearer than within nine miles of their shore, though he was not aware whether this distance was measured according to the indentations of the coast or from headland to headland. He did not complain of the French Government for taking these precautions, but he claimed protection for our own fishermen in their right of fishing on our own coast. The French boats were of larger tonnage, and carried a much greater number of men, having eighteen to twenty for the crew of each boat, when our boats were only capable of holding five men. The consequence was, that they not only destroyed the nets of our fishermen and cut their boats adrift, but they frequently boarded our boats and carried away the fish. This was a system of intolerable annoyance which the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, ought not to allow to continue. He did not blame the present Government for the present state of our fisheries. The evils of the system were one of those unwelcome legacies which had been handed down from former Administrations; but he trusted, that such a remedy would be now applied as to prevent the possibility of the continuance of what was not only a check on our national industry, but a stain on our national honour.
Captain Pechellsaid, that although his hon. Friend had, as it were, been poaching on the fishing ground that he had claimed for his own Parliamentary privilege and occupation—he should cordially second the motion and co-operate to the utmost in its object; for it was melancholy to see the difference between the encouragement given to our fishermen and those of France by their respective Governments. In 1829, there were nine affidavits laid before the Treasury of the aggressions committed on the Dover boats; but the Duke of Wellington said he could find or suggest no means to remedy the grievance, but that the fishermen should go to sea in such numbers as to protect themselves. The danger was believed to be so great last season that the Brighton fishermen gave up their harvest. All along the Suffolk and Sussex coasts, the fishermen
434
were (to use their own phrase) "as thick as bees, and as poor as rats," and prayed especially for a couple of ships of war off Hastings and Brighton.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the Government was fully sensible of the bearing of this question on the national industry; but, at the same time, he must assert, that the settlement of this question was attended with greater difficulty than hon. Gentlemen might at first sight think. Some months ago, the French Government had, on the application of the English Government, established a commission at Longueville on the subject of the oyster question, but it had not yet brought its labours to a conclusion. The cause of quarrel was, some years ago, a boundary line was fixed very unfavourable to the British fishermen, who thereupon had been tempted to trespass. The French fishermen had, on their part, been tempted to retaliate. However, judging from the friendly feeling prevailing between the two Governments, he hoped that some understanding would shortly be arrived at which would prevent these unpleasant collisions. With respect to the ships of war, he hoped that hon. Members would see that if any other means could be adopted it would be more consistent to resort to them in the first instance, and not to resort to a mode which might perhaps embroil the parties still more, and seriously interfere with the happy relations which now existed between the two countries.
Mr. Belloffered his acknowledgments to the hon. Member for Dover for having brought this important question under the consideration of the House. He had presented numerous memorials and some statements of well-authenticated cases of aggression committed by French fishermen on the fishermen of the county of Northumberland. In these attacks, the aggressors had many times destroyed property to the value of 20 l. or 30 l.; and, only in August last, a fisherman named William Oliver was attacked in his boat by three Frenchmen, who very nearly strangled him; and this gross outrage, he could assure the House, was perpetrated merely because Oliver had requested the French fishermen to keep clear of his nets. It was well known, that the fishing-boats of Northumberland carried only two or three men and a boy, whereas the French boats were manned with six, eight, and ten men each, so that any attempt at resistance would be entirely unavailing. These

435
attacks were generally made in the months of August and September, at the time of the herring-fishing, and as the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had so far listened to his appeals in respect to the fishermen of Northumberland as to promise them the protection of an armed vessel during the next herring season, he would not, on the present occasion, trouble the House further than by expressing a hope that the negotiations new pending might be brought to a successful termination.
Motion agreed to.

CAPTURED SLAVE VESSELS.
Captain Pechellrose to move for a return of slave vessels brought before the several courts of mixed commissions for adjudication between the 1st of January, 1828, and the 1st of January, 1838, stating the names of the seizor, and the decretal part of the sentence, whether forfeiture or restitution, with or without costs. The gallant Officer stated, that twenty-nine vessels had been captured under the equipment treaty concluded with Spain, nineteen of which were empty, and nine contained slaves. This fact was, in itself, a complete refutation of the statement made by a high authority that British officers refrained from capturing vessels while lying on the coast unladen, in order that they might seize them after they had taken on board their cargoes. The gallant Officer was proceeding, when the House was counted out.