FISHERIES (BRITISH ISLANDS AND FRANCE) BILL. (Hansard, 10 May 1855)

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, observed, that it was intended to carry into effect a Convention which had been concluded between the British and French Governments for the better regulation of the fisheries. In 1839 a Convention for this purpose was framed, and in 1844 an Act was passed for carrying it into effect; but great difficulty had been found in carrying out its provisions. The French Government complained that there were many infractions of the treaty by the British fishermen, and no sufficient means of bringing them to justice. By the provisions of the Convention it was laid down that fishermen offending against them should be carried into the port nearest to the spot where the offence had been committed, and that when the evidence against 290 them had been taken, they should be transmitted to their own country to be tried. As regarded British fishermen offending, there was this difficulty in the way of their conviction and punishment, that our courts of law refused to admit evidence taken before a French magistrate, although it did not appear that any corresponding difficulty existed on the other side; and it, had therefore been urged on our Government to allow depositions to be taken of offences committed by British fishermen before the British consuls at foreign ports, which might afterwards be transmitted to England, and received as sufficient evidence against the parties. The Bill accordingly proposed to do this, as also to put a stop to poaching, during the close season by enabling the proper authorities and officers of the Customs and Coast Guard to seize, not only any dredging machines, but any oysters brought into the ports of this country during the close season—that was to say, between the 30th April and the 1st September. An enactment of this sort was necessary, if it were only for the sake of the health of the metropolis; for it had been stated that as many as 100 tons of oysters were brought into London weekly between those terms—a season when the fish were in a very unwholesome state, and when, on account of its being the spawning time for the oysters, the take was extremely injurious to the fisheries. The Bill also gave power to seize and destroy any dredging machines which might be sunk in or floating on the sea, for it was the custom of the fishermen to leave them standing in the water until a fit opportunity offered to take them away. He thought they were bound to meet the demands of the French Government on this head, and take stringent powers for executing the treaty.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW
said, there was no reasonable ground of complaint against our fishermen to make such a Bill necessary. Circumstances had made a total alteration of the conditions under which the oyster fishery was carried on. In 1839, when the convention was signed between the two countries, oysters were only found within a short distance of the shores of each. Those in the neighbourhood of the French shores were naturally regarded as belonging to France, and those near the English shores to England; and during the months to which the prohibition from taking extended oysters were con- 291 sidered unwholesome. Recently, however, extensive oyster beds had been discovered mid-sea, or rather nearer to the coast of Dieppe. The fishermen of Essex and Sussex considered that they belonged to neither country, and were a treasure of which they had a perfect right to avail themselves, and they sent out their boats to dredge for them. The French, on the contrary, taking advantage of the strict letter of the law, claimed these beds as their own, determined to defend them, and sent out armed vessels to protect them. The English fishermen then armed their boats, collisions took place, and several boats and prisoners were taken into Dieppe, where they were tried. Since that time no collision had taken place. Both French and English had worked at the spot, and the consequence of the discovery of those mid-sea beds was, that the London markets had been amply supplied with as good oysters between April and September as at any other period of the year—not taken from the prohibited grounds, but from the beds to which he alluded. It appeared to him that the proposed Bill was intended to deprive the fishermen of those beds and to prevent the people of England obtaining oysters all the year round. He did not oppose the Bill, but he hoped that time might be allowed for the fishermen and fishmongers of the country to give expression to their feelings before it passed the other House.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
said, that the subject with which the Bill proposed to deal was one of the most fruitful sources of trouble and annoyance to the Foreign Office. He had known as many as 100 English vessels detained, and justly detained, by France, for poaching upon the French oyster beds. He did not think the geographical description of the new beds given by the noble Earl was a correct one. A great proportion of the mischief hitherto had arisen from the negligence of the Custom-house officers, who had allowed these vessels to go out; and he was convinced, if the authorities did not pay more attention to the subject than they had done up to this time, that the Act would remain a dead letter. He must say, in justice to the French authorities and French fishermen, that there had been very few instances of French fishermen breaking the law.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Wicklow), 292 doubted whether the mid-sea oysters were in season when they were out of season elsewhere. He believed that in neighbouring seas oysters were in and out of season all at the same time.

LORD CAMPBELL
believed that it was a maxim which was received all the world over, that oysters were not good unless there was an "r" in the month.