RETURN MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 20 May 1862)

§ MR. BENTINCK
moved an Address for Return of all British and French Fishing Boats which have been captured during the last ten years for the infringement of the Convention of 1843, and of the punishments inflicted in both countries in those cases; and Copy of all Correspondence which has passed on the subject of 1961 such captures and punishments between the British and French Governments. He thought the House would agree with him that there was no class of men deserving more consideration than that valuable class from whom our navy and merchant service were principally recruited. The fishing on the English and French coasts was regulated by Convention. For some years past the fishermen on the southern coast of England had considered themselves greatly aggrieved by the manner in which the French authorities had put into effect the provisions of the Convention relating to the mode of dealing with fishermen who were guilty of an infringement of the law. At the outset he might state to the House that he had had no communication with the persons who considered themselves aggrieved, but he had been led to inquire into the subject solely from circumstances that had come to his knowledge. Hon. Members might, perhaps, be aware it was the practice of English fishermen to fish close to the coast of France, and of the French fishermen to exercise their calling near the shores of Great Britain. Naturally, that would lead to some irregularity; and in order that cases in which the law had been infringed might be properly dealt with a Convention was agreed upon between the two countries, which was known by the name of the Convention of 1843. That Convention had not been hitherto carried out in a fair and satisfactory manner, inasmuch as offences of the same class were not dealt with in a similar manner in the two countries. He complained that the French authorities had carried out the Convention rather according to its letter than to its spirit. By the Convention the authorities were empowered to punish infringements of the law either by fine or by detention of the vessel. The English fishermen also complained of the unnecessary delay which took place before they were brought to trial by the French authorities. From a Return for the last four years it appeared that the average delay between the capture and the trial was ten days, the shortest delay five days and the longest nineteen. And whereas in this country it had been the invariable practice to deal with those offences by fine, the French authorities inflicted the penalty of detention, which, in point of fact, was a much heavier punishment than fining. The fishermen also complained of the 1962 great distances they were taken before their cases could be brought before the French authorities. The Convention provided a fine of £10 in certain cases, and the object evidently was that this should be the maximum punishment. In this country such matters were dealt with summarily, and the punishment seldom exceeded the infliction of a pecuniary penalty; whereas by the different course which was pursued in France our fishermen were mulcted to the extent of £80, £100, or sometimes even £150. They therefore considered themselves most unjustly dealt with, the more especially as in many cases their cargoes were utterly destroyed. He assured the House that he had no desire to make out a case in order to shield the misconduct of our fishermen, who certainly were by no means immaculate; but, at the same time, he did not think that we were to sacrifice everything for the purpose of a close intimacy with France, and he thought in that instance the French authorities had allowed their zeal to outrun their discretion. They had inflicted many grievous punishments that had never been intended to be inflicted by the spirit of the Convention, nor had they any excuse from the manner in which such offences had been dealt with in this country. He could not but think that this was a subject which ought property to be taken up by Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped that he should receive an assurance on their part that inquiries would be made into the matter and such steps taken as the case demanded; and he could not but think, that if the case were properly stated to the French Government, the injustice of the whole proceeding was so obvious that he believed there would be no difficulty in obtaining attention to it. They were a helpless class of men, but at the same time a class most valuable to the community. As he had said before, it was from it that both our marine and naval services were supplied, and therefore he could not but think that it was the duty of the House of Commons to watch over their interest as closely as they did over the interests of all other classes of the community.

§ MR. CAVE
seconded the Motion. He was glad his hon. Friend had brought the question forward, as it was one which had excited growing attention and increasing dissatisfaction on the English coast. He had on former occasions advocated the cause of the deep-sea oyster fishermen of the South Coast, and since this Motion had appeared upon the paper he had received a long list of vessels detained, and nets seized, for alleged infringement of the Fishery Convention. He had given his best attention to the Convention, and it was fair to state that he believed it was a good measure, and had, on the whole, worked well. But owing to change of circumstances, and contingencies over looked at the time, certain enactments seemed now arbitrary and oppressive; and the fishermen complained, as he thought with reason, that when we made so many concessions to France under the Commercial Treaty, we did not in return obtain an abrogation of these harsh and vexatious restrictions.

§ MR. LAYARD
agreed with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) that the fishermen were a valuable and meritorious body of men, and were entitled to the protection of the Government and the House. It was perfectly true that they had some grievances to complain of, but they did not extend quite so far as the hon. Gentleman represented. He complained that the highest penalty warranted by the Convention between France and England was inflicted upon them; but the French authorities had a perfect right to avail themselves of either punishment prescribed by the Convention. The fact was, these fishermen were in the habit of occasionally defying the French authorities and exposing themselves to capture by French cruisers. This naturally excited a feeling of exasperation against them, and the French courts had inflicted upon them the highest penalty. But the real grievance was this:—By the 69th article of the Convention all transgressions of the regulations established for the protection of the fisheries lying between the English coast and France were to be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the magistrates designated by law in each country; 1964 and the 70th article provided that cases of infraction should be heard in as summary a manner and at as little expense as possible. It was alleged that this latter article had been infringed, because there was reason to believe that the parties were not brought to trial in a summary manner. If a boat was captured off Jersey, it was taken to the nearest French port, Granville, and then the fishermen had to travel eighteen miles to Avranches, where the nearest court was held; and that court sat only once a week. They had to travel at their own expense, and to wait at Avranches often several days before the case was heard, while the car go of the boat, being of a perishable nature, was partially, if not entirely lost. This was, no doubt, a hard state of things to be endured by these poor men, who, whether guilty or not, were virtually punished, without the authority of the Convention, by the total or partial loss of their cargo. The Government were consequently of opinion that they had a just cause of complaint against the French authorities. The strongest representations had been made at Paris on the subject, and correspondence had gone on for some time between the English and French Governments. M. Thouvenel had now informed Her Majesty's Government that he had entered into communication with the Minister of Marine, who had exclusive jurisdiction in these cases, and he promised that some arrangement would be come to by which this grievance would be put an end to. As the correspondence was still pending, he thought it would rather interfere with than promote the hon. Gentleman's object, if he were to press for these papers.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that after the assurance that had been given by the hon. Member that negotiations were taking place he would not press his Motion. With reference, however, to the observation that the French Government had a perfect right, under the terms of the Convention, to inflict the punishment of detention, he must observe that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take care that fair and equal justice should be done, and that the same description of punishment should be inflicted in both countries for the same kind of offence.