The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-24 00:00:00

Mr. CAVE was supported in his motion by seve-
ral other speakers, all of whom dwelt strongly on
the hardship and injustice of these arbitrary laws.
Mr. Du CANE especially asked for a relaxation of
the close month system. The fishermen of Essex as
well as of Sussex founditagreat grievance. The time
extended from the beginning of May to the end of
August, and deep sea fishing was then prohibited to the
deep-sea fishermen of England and France, although
dredging was carried on with the connivance of the
Government, and the fishermen of other nations
were not prohibited. Mr. REBOW and Mr. BLAKE
followed in the same course, and the latter spoke of
the stimulus which had been given to the Irish
fisheries by the report of the Commission. Since
it was published seven or eight companies had been
formed with every prospect of success, and should
their anticipations be realised a means of sup-
port would be afforded to a vast number of people,
and the English markets would be supplied with a
greatly increased quantity of fish. There will thus
be a new branch of profitable employment opened
in Ireland, besides the great advantage which an
increased supply of wholesome food would confer on
both countries. We sincerely hope these considerations
will weigh with the Government to induce them to
give the whole subject of our fisheries their careful
consideration. In the meantime they would do
wisely to listen to the appeal of the hon. member
for Shoreham, and at least give the French Govern-
ment notice of the termination of a convention
which is annoying and unprofitable to all parties.

On Thursday evening, when the order for the
second reading of the Jamaica Government Bill
came on, Colonel EDWARDS took the opportunity
of referring to a letter which he had received, re-
lating to the speech which he had made at the
Conservative dinner at Leeds. The writer was the
hon. member for Surrey, and Colonel EDWARDS
rightly characterised the course he adopted as an
" unwarrantable liberty." It called upon the
gallant Colonel to repeat, in the House of Com-
mons, the same charges which he made in Leeds
respecting those who " denounced the doings
in Jamaica." After remarking that he was not
one to say things behind a man's back, which
he shrunk from repeating face to face, Colonel
EDWARDS read an extract from the speech
in question, which, while it was very much to
the point, contained nothing to justify the extra-
ordinary step taken in reference to it by the hon.
member for Surrey. It referred to the speedy and
effectual suppression of the outbreak, and then went
on to say that thanks were sent out from the Colo-
nial-office to the Governor of Jamaica, and to the
authorities there. " Immediately it became known
there was a great howl in Exeter Ilall among the
Baptists and philanthropists. Mr. BRIGHT de-
nounced the Government of Jamaica and every-
body connected with its policy, and said it was
wrong altogether. Lord RUSSELL, feeling
the iron hand of Mr. BRIGIIT, trembled
in his shoes, and wrote out at once to suspend
Governor EYRE. Was there ever such a miserable
piece of administration, and was there ever such
gross injustice done, not merely to Governor EYRE,
but to the gallant troops under his command ?"
Colonel EDWARDS declared that the hon. member
had done him a service in calling attention to his
words, because they had gained increased pub-
licity, but he protested against the course pursued,
and he hoped the House would discourage it.
In this opinion we fully concur, and indeed the
presumption of the members of the faction, as it
it has truly been called, is extraordinary. Could a
better instance of their inconsistency be given than
this ? Here are they prejudging and calumniatinr, a
man in a difficult position to the utmost of their
powers, and yet they do not allow the least hint to
be dropped respecting their
Criticism is for them to bestow,Obwunt noluoovnee must
presume to call attention to their proceedings
otherwise than in a favourable and flattering
style. This is quite a new order of things as re-
lates to the speeches and acts of public men, and
the sooner it is condemned by the voice of public
opinion the better. The arrogant assumption of a
certain class of politicians is quite unbearable,

and annoyance to our fishermen on the south-eastern
coast. The object of the convention was to reserve
the exclusive right of fishing within a certain dis-
tance of the shore to the subjects of both countries,
but it is cumbersome and minute in its clauses, which
amount in number to no less than 89, and many of
their regulations, as Mr. CAVE pointed out, should
never have been made, seeing that they did not
apply to places in which England and France had
common jurisdiction, but either to the sea within
the three mile limit, where the municipal authorities
alone had interest, or to the deep sea, beyond
which was common to all the world. The attempt
to enforce special restrictions in such localities was,
said the hon. member, about as rational as the con-
struction of game laws for the preservation of the
antelopes in South Africa. The most trouble-
some part of the affair is that the provi-
sions of the Act are so numerous and so
uncertain that the fishermen never know
when they are right; and, in fact, one of them said
plainly, when questioned on the subject, that if they
did not break the law they could not live. The Act
gives rise to much irritation and ill-feeling between
the fishermen of the two countries, while its results
upon the oyster fisheries themselves are anything
but beneficial. In 1839, when the convention was
framed, the only beds known, or thought of, were
those in shallow water near the shore, but the rules
as to the close months when fishing was forbidden
do not apply to the deep sea beds, where the oysters
are never finer than in May and June. These deep
sea beds are of such enormous extent that boats
dredge the same bank 30 miles apart, and new
ones are continually found. For some years after
the discovery of these large beds the dredgers
worked all the year round ; but in 1850, in con-
sequence of complaints having been made by the
French, another Act was passed, whose clauses were
so stringent that the Shoreham fishermen were not
allowed to carry their dredges in their boats to the
•east coast, but were compelled to send them by
train. This clause indeed was found so oppressive
that last year an alteration was made, permitting
the dredges to be carried by boat if tied and sealed
up by the Customs. The impression is that the
French Government care very little about the
matter, and would indeed be glad to get rid of
a troublesome convention. The Deep Sea Fishery
Commissioners recommended its termination, and
the repeal of the acts enforcing it. There has been
indeed a rumour of an international commission
on the subject, but we agree with Mr. CAVE
in thinking this quite unnecessary., when the ques-
tion really is, whether especial restrictions should
be placed upon the industry of our fishermen in
respect to seas which are common to all the world.
" The time was drawing near," said the hon. mem-
ber for Shoreham, "when the restrictions would be
again in force—when, after a most stormy winter,
which must have unusually curtailed their opera-
tions, the fishermen of the southern coast would find
their means of livelihood suspended by an arbitrary
law, while they would have the mortification of
seeing whole fleets pursue beyond an imaginary
line the honest industry from which they were de-
barred."