FISHERIES (NORTH AMERICA) BILL. (Hansard, 6 February 1855)

§ THE EARL OF DERBY

said, he did not wish to offer any opposition to the second reading of this Bill, as it was one of pressing importance, its object being to enable the Crown to carry into effect a treaty which had been already concluded between the United States and this country, and which had already received the sanction of the various Colonial Legislatures, except that of Newfoundland. If, however, they were then discussing the terms of the treaty, he should find some difficulty in admitting that the principle of reciprocity between the two countries had been fairly carried out by it. He doubted very much whether for the free navigation of the St. Lawrence obtained by the United States they had yielded a fair equivalent in the concession to us of the right of navigating Lake Michigan. But the concession on our part, for which he was unable to see that we had obtained any reciprocal advantage, was the right granted to American fishermen of taking fish, not only within certain limits, but in the very bays, harbours, and creeks of certain British 1293 North American Colonies; for it was idle to say that the concession to our fishermen of the right of fishing on the coasts of the United States was worth anything, for it was notorious that the only fisheries of any value were those possessed by the British Colonies. The only advantage that we had obtained in return for this concession was, in fact, that fish imported front the coast of Nova Scotia, whether in British or American vessels, should be admitted free of duty into the United States. He thought these terms were unduly favourable to the United States; but still, as the treaty had received the sanction of the various Colonial Legislatures, he was not disposed to enter further into their discussion. He wished, however, for information on two points on which some apprehensions were entertained. One point was as to whether the jurisdiction of the mixed Commission to be appointed under the treaty was to be confined, as he hoped, to the settlement of disputes that might arise as to whether particular parts of the coasts of our Colonies were or were not within the limits to be reserved for British fishermen. Another point was this: It appeared by the treaty that the American fishermen were to be allowed not only to fish upon the coasts and shores of the British Colonies, but were to be allowed to land there for the purpose of drying and curing their fish. Now, he thought that the utmost care should be taken that this right should not be extended so as to permit the erection of permanent buildings, or the maintenance of permanent establishments, the property of citizens of the United States; for if one thing more than another was likely to give rise to disputes between two countries, it was the granting territorial rights (secured by treaty) on the part of one country to the inhabitants of another. The result necessarily was, that on points guaranteed by the treaty questions continually arose between the two Governments, and their interference was invoked in disputes between the inhabitants of the two countries which might have been easily settled by an ordinary magistrate. He trusted that his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would be able to give him a satisfactory assurance that his apprehensions on these points were unfounded.