NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES DISPUTE. (Hansard, 27 May 1892)

§ (6.45.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)
I have a Notice of Motion on the Colonial Vote having reference to the Newfoundland Fisheries question. On the 17th I put a question to the Colonial Under Secretary in regard to what had recently happened in the Newfoundland Legislature. I then asked whether the Newfoundland Assembly had rejected the "French 109 Shore Bill," and whether it was the fact that after three of the delegates had left this country alterations had been made in the Bill by two of the delegates and the Colonial Office in this country. The right hon. Gentleman, in answering me, said he could not properly reply to me in an answer to a question, and it is on account of that I have put down a Notice of reduction to the Vote for the purpose, if possible, of getting some little further information as to the alterations made in the Bill after the majority of the delegates had left this country. Of these alterations I am aware the people in the colony made great complaints, and I believe it was on account of these alterations that the Bill was rejected in the Legislature by a large majority, composed of both Parties, a few weeks ago. The great complaint, as I understand from communications I have received from Newfoundland in regard to these alterations—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me if I am right in my view, and I do not intend to occupy many minutes, for I understand the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position now to give a full answer—the great complaint is as to the means appointed in the Bill for the creation of a Court to deal with fishery disputes. The colonists complain that Commissioners are to be appointed by the Home Government and not by their own Government, but more especially it is a matter of strong complaint from the colonists that there is no appeal to a Superior Court in the colony from these Foreign Commissioners, as I might call them; the only appeal is to the Privy Council in this country. To offer such an appeal as this to poor fishermen 3,000 or 4,000 miles away is a somewhat ridiculous proceeding; there might as well be no appeal at all. The people say this is an attempt to coerce the fishermen of Newfoundland in the interests of French fishermen. Whether they are right or not in making that complaint I do not know, but it appears to me the Government would do well in the event of the matter being raised again in the Newfoundland Legislature, to consent to the institution of an appeal from the decisions of the Commis- 110 sioners to a Superior Court in the colony. I do not want to talk out the matter now, and will take up no more time. I hope we may have a few words from the right hon. Gentleman, containing an assurance that the utmost consideration shall be given to the wishes of this, our oldest colony, in a matter of this kind.

§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,) Liverpool, East Toxteth
As regards the question raised by the hon. Member, and as to which he put a question to me on the 17th instant, I have only to say that as it is one involving most delicate and difficult negotiations with France, and also affecting the relations between the Colony and the Mother Country, any discussion in this House at the present stage on matters still pending would be improper and most prejudicial to the public interest. I must, therefore, respectfully decline to take any part in the Debate should the hon. Member raise it, but I feel sure that after this statement he will not desire to do so.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid.)
With special reference to the complaint of Mr. Baird, who has a lobster factory on St. George's Bay, I should like to ask how comes it that the poorer fishermen receive such bad treatment at the hands of the British authorities—they receiving no compensation, while the wealthier traders do obtain a certain amount of redress of their grievances? In the last two Sessions I raised this question, and tried to do my best—