ii. 110) that the Commissioners, in their circular letter of 1777

to the commanders of American armed vessels, “carried very far the extension of neutral protection when they applied it indiscriminately to all captures within sight of a neutral coast.” There is nothing of this in the document given by Martens.

[1046] 19th Sept. 1778. _Op. cit._, i. 47.

[1047] 1st Aug. 1778. “E ne’ mari adjacenti agli altri porti, scali, torri, e spiagge del Gran Ducato non potrà usarsi atto veruno di ostilità nella distanza, che potrebbe circoscriversi da un tiro di cannone.” _Op. cit._, 24.

[1048] 4th March 1779. “Nè generalmente dentro la distanza di un tiro di cannone da terra.” _Op. cit._, i. 52.

[1049] 1st July 1779. “Nei porti, golfi, e spiagge del nostro dominio nella distanza, che potrebbe circonscriversi da un tiro di cannone.” _Op. cit._, 64.

[1050] 9th Sept. 1779, Arts. viii., ix. “Ed in tutti mari ad essi adjacenti, limitati, almeno allo spazio circoscritto dalla portata d’un grosso cannone di batteria.” _Op. cit._, i. 78.

[1051] Jenkinson (Lord Liverpool), _A Discussion on the Conduct of the Government of Great Britain in respect to Neutral Nations_ (1758), ed. 1801, Pref. Phillimore, _Commentaries_, iii. 273. Wheaton’s _Elements_ (ed. 1864), 1024. Martens, _Recueil_, iii. 158, _seq._

[1052] Mutual protection was to be afforded “dans leurs ports ou rades, mers internes, passages, rivières, et aussi loin que leur jurisdiction s’etend en mer.” 8th Oct. 1782, Art. v. Martens, _op. cit._, 433.

[1053] “À la portée du canon des châteaux de l’autre.” _Vide_ Martens and De Cussy, _Rec._, i. 381.

[1054] 26th Sept. 1786, Art. xli. “Leurs dites Majestés ne souffriront point que sur les côtes, à la portée du canon, et dans les ports et rivières de leur obéissance, des navires et des marchandises des sujets de l’autre soient pris par des vaisseaux de guerre, ou par d’autres qui seront pourvus de patentes de quelque prince, république, ou ville quelconque,” &c. Martens, _Rec._, iv. 178.

[1055] 11th Jan. 1787, Art. xxviii. “... Hors de la portée du canon des côtes de son allié ... dans les ports, havres, golfes et autres eaux comprises sous le nom d’eaux closes.” By Article xx. the salute was abolished. _Ibid._, 207, 210. The mention of closed waters no doubt referred to the Baltic, which was declared to be a closed sea (_une mer fermée_), into which the armed vessels of belligerents were to be refused entry, by a decree of the King of Denmark in 1780, and by conventions between Russia and Denmark and Sweden in the same year, and between Russia and the United Provinces and Prussia in the following year. _Ibid._, iii. 175, 195, 219, 250.

[1056] 17th Jan. 1787, Art. xix. _Ibid._, iv. 237.

[1057] 7th August 1803. Martens, _Recueil_, 2. viii. 105.

[1058] Martens, _Recueil_, iii. 763, 10th Sept. 1784, Art. vi.

[1059] See p. 527.

[1060] Oct. 28, 1790, Art. iv. Martens, _ibid._ iv. 489, 497. Wheaton, _Elements_, 307 (ed. 1864).

[1061] Wheaton, _Elements_, 723 ; President’s Proclamation of Neutrality, April 22, 1793; Mr Jefferson, Secretary of State, to M. Genet, 8th Nov. 1793; Wharton’s _Digest of the International Law of the United States_, i. c. 2, s. 32.

[1062] Opinion of Attorney-General, 14th May 1793; Letter of Sec. of State to the French Minister, 15th May 1793; Kent’s _Commentaries_, i. 30. Delaware Bay, it may be said, has always been, and still is, claimed as territorial water by the United States. _Vide_ reply of Government of United States to Observations of British Government on Draft Treaty, 1887. Correspondence relative to the Fisheries Question, 1887-1888. _Parl. Papers (Canada)_, 1888, p. 70.

[1063] Act of Congress, 5th June 1794, c. 50. Kent’s _Commentaries_, 30.

[1064] Wheaton, _Elements_, 724.

[1065] Wharton’s _Digest_, i. c. 2.

[1066] Mr Madison to Messrs Monroe and Pinckney, 17th May 1806. Kent, _Commentaries_, i. 31.

[1067] Hall, _A Treatise on International Law_, Part II. c. ii. s. 2.

[1068] The High Court of Admiralty, for instance, decided in 1760 that a French vessel taken by an English privateer at Hayti was not good prize, as it had been attacked while in a port belonging to the King of Spain, “within reach of his cannon and under his protection” (Marsden, _Report of Cases determined by the High Court of Admiralty_, 175).

[1069] There were two cases of _Twee Gebroeders_--the first (Alberts, master) tried on 29th July 1800; the second (Northolt, master) tried on 27th November 1801.

[1070] Robinson, _Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Admiralty_, iii. 162. London, 1802.

[1071] _Ibid._, 339.

[1072] _Ibid._, v. 373.

[1073] _Vide_ Chief Justice Cockburn, _Law Reports, Excheq. Div._, ii. 178. It is a curious circumstance that many English writers on municipal law, even after this time, adhering to a different line of inquiry, clung tenaciously to the husk of the old claims of England to the sovereignty of the sea. Hale, as we have seen, followed Selden, as did Hargrave and Blackstone, though with apparent diffidence. Chitty, in his _Treatise on the Law of the Prerogative of the Crown_, published in 1820, relying on Selden, Hale, and Molloy, declares that “the king possesses the sovereign dominion in all the narrow seas, that is, the seas which adjoin the coasts of England, and other seas within his dominions” (p. 173); and that he “has an undoubted sovereignty and jurisdiction, which he has immemorially exercised, through the medium of the admiralty courts, over the British seas, that is, the seas which encompass the four sides of the British islands; ... the law of nations and the constitution of the country have clothed the sovereign with this power, that he may defend his people and protect their commercial interests” (p. 142). He also assigns the soil under the sea to the king. Hall, in his _Essay on the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Subject in the Sea Shores of the Realm_, published in 1830, states the doctrine even more nakedly. After defining the British seas according to Selden, he says, “Over the British Seas, the King of England claims an absolute dominion and ownership, as Lord Paramount, against all the world. Whatever opinions foreign nations may entertain in regard to the validity of such claim, yet the subjects of the King of England do, by the common law of the realm, acknowledge and declare it to be his ancient and indisputable right.” Hall also assigns the bottom or _fundum_ of the British seas to the king, the authorities cited being Coke, Callis, Molloy, Hale, and Blackstone. Loveland, the editor of the second edition of Hall’s _Essay_, which was published in 1875, does not attempt to qualify the statements. It was not, indeed, till after the decision in the case of the _Franconia_ in 1876, and the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878, that the doctrine was abandoned in theory by English lawyers. Even Moore, the editor of the third edition of Hall’s _Essay_, which appeared in 1888, while pointing out the alteration of the law by the decision in the _Franconia_ case, and by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, thought it undesirable to vary Hall’s text, having regard to the diversity of the opinions expressed by the judges in the case referred to. _Vide_ p. 590.

[1074] Convention, 1818, Art. i. “... And the United States hereby renounce for ever any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of his Britannick Majesty’s dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits.” Wheaton, _Elements_, 324, 463 (ed. 1864). _Parl. Papers, North America_, No. 1 (1878). Henderson, _American Diplomatic Questions_, 497.

[1075] Martens, _Nouv. Recueil_, V. ii. 358; Behring Sea Arbitration, British Case, _Parl. Papers, United States_, No. 1 (1893), p. 38, App. I. No. 1.

[1076] The Duke of Wellington to Count Nesselrode, 17th Oct. 1822; G. Canning to the Duke of Wellington, 27th Sept. 1822; Count Nesselrode to Count Lieven, 26th June 1823; G. Canning to S. Canning, 8th Dec. 1824; S. Canning to G. Canning, 3rd April 1825. _Parl. Papers_, _ibid._, 41, 42, 44, 46, 56, App. II. pt. i. 14, 15, 29, 52, 57.

[1077] _American State Papers, Foreign Relations_, v. 452; _Parl. Papers_, _ibid._, App. II. pt. ii. No. 5; Wheaton, _Elements_, 308.

[1078] Treaty between Russia and the United States, April 17th, 1824, Art. i. iv.; treaty between Great Britain and Russia, 28th Feb. 1825, Art. i. vii. Martens, _Nouv. Recueil_, vi. 684. _Parl. Papers_, _ibid._, 52, 53.

[1079] In 1842. _Parl. Papers_, _ibid._, 83.

[1080] In 1846. _Ibid._, 84.

[1081] _Ibid._, 87.

[1082] _E.g._, the case of the _Leda_, in which Dr Lushington claimed that the term United Kingdom included the waters to a distance of three miles from the shore (Swa., _Adm._, 40); General Iron Screw Company, in which Lord Hatherly said that it was “beyond question that for certain purposes every country may, by the common law of nations, legitimately exercise jurisdiction over that portion of the high seas which lies within three miles from its shores,”--whether this limit was determined by the range of cannon was not material, since it was clear it extended at any rate to that distance (1 J. and H., 180); Whitstable Fishery Case, in which it was said that the soil of the seashore to the distance of three miles from the beach was vested in the crown, and in which Lord Chelmsford observed that “the three-mile limit depends upon a rule of international law, by which every independent state is considered to have territorial property and jurisdiction in the sea which washes their coast within an assumed distance of a cannon-shot from the shore” (11 C.B. (N.S.), 387; 2 H.L.C., 192); the _Annapolis_, in which Dr Lushington said. “Within British jurisdiction, namely, within British territory, and at sea within three miles from the coast” (1 Lush., _Adm._, 306); Rex _v._ Forty-nine Casks of Brandy, in which Sir John Nicholl said that “as between nation and nation, the territorial right may, by a sort of tacit understanding, be extended to three miles” (3 Haggard, 257); Gammell _v._ Commissioners Woods and Forests and Lord Advocate, in which Lord Wensleydale referred to the distance of three miles as belonging, by the acknowledged law of nations, to the coast of the country, and “under the dominion of the country by being within cannon range, and so capable of being kept in perpetual possession” (3 MacQueen, H.L., 419).

[1083] This subject is treated of by Mr A. H. Charteris, Lecturer in International Law, University of Glasgow, in a paper read before the International Law Association at Berlin in 1906 (_Twenty-third Report_, 103).

[1084] Two small islands in the Channel.

[1085] Bell, _Crown Cases Reserved_, 72. See Hall, _Internat. Law_, 5th edit., p. 156; Westlake, _Internat. Law_, i. 118.

[1086] The Direct United States Cable Company _v._ the Anglo-American Telegraph Company, Privy Council, 1877. _Law Reports_, Appeal Cases, ii. 394.

[1087] 33 & 34 Vict., c. 90.

[1088] See pp. 592, 632.

[1089] Regina _v._ Keyn, _Law Reports, Excheq. Div._, ii., 1876-7, p. 63.

[1090] _E.g._, p. 204: “There are several treaties by which nations have engaged, in the event of either of them being at war with a third, to treat the sea within three miles of each other’s coasts as neutral territory,” the treaties being those referred to on p. 572. “After the three-mile theory had been propounded by Bynkershoek,” p. 177. Mr Justice Amphlett went further, and attributed a similar doctrine to Grotius: “All the earlier writers, including Grotius, the vigorous advocate of the free navigation of the high seas, and many of the later writers, maintained that within the zone of three miles the state had, without qualification,” &c., p. 122.

[1091] 41 & 42 Vict., c. 73.

[1092] 58 & 59 Vict., c. 42.

[1093] _Hansard_, xxxiii. 504. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell), who followed, said : “He was far from saying that three miles was to be the limit of territorial waters for all time. Originally the distance was fixed by gunshot, and it was always said that the distance a gun could fire to was three miles. How far this principle was to be extended, and whether it was to be extended indefinitely, was a question for consideration, and it was a question which would not be without its difficulty.” Lord Salisbury referred to a gun which was fired on Jubilee Day and carried twelve miles, and Lord Herschell to one which had a range of thirteen miles.

[1094] 9 Geo. II., c. 35; 24 Geo. III., c. 47; Twiss, _The Law of Nations in Time of Peace_, 261; Hall, _A Treatise on the Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown_, 244.

[1095] 16 & 17 Vict., c. 107, ss. 212, 218; 39 & 40 Vict., c. 36, s. 179.

[1096] Kent, _Commentaries_, i. 31; Wheaton, _Elements_, 267, 323.

[1097] Riquelme, _op. cit._ See p. 569.

[1098] _Fifteenth Ann. Rep. Assoc. for Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations_,. 18, 22; _Seventeenth_, _ibid._, 302; _Annuaire de l’Institut_, xi. 151.

[1099] _Fifteenth Rep._, _ibid._, 84, 121; _Ann. de l’Institut_ for 1894. Customs Act of Canada, 49 Vict., c. 32, s. 21.

[1100] 26 Geo. II.; 6 Geo. IV., c. 78.

[1101] _Mer Territoriale_, 222; and see pp. 551, 560, 564.

[1102] Twiss, _op. cit._, 261-264; Phillimore, _Commentaries_, i. 236; Kent, _loc. cit._; Wheaton, _loc. cit._; Hall, _loc. cit._ The latter author states that they “repose on an agreement which, though tacit, is universal,” and that “no civilised country encourages offences against the laws of a foreign state when it sees that the laws are just and necessary.”

[1103] _De la Liberté des Mers, ou le Gouvernement Anglois devoilé_, 1798.

[1104] _La Mer Libre, La Mer Fermée_, 1803.

[1105] _Institutions du Droit de la Nature et des Gens._

[1106] _De la Liberté des Mers._

[1107] _A Practical Treatise on the Law of Nations relative to the Legal Effect of War on the Commerce of Belligerents and Neutrals._ London, 1812.

[1108] _Das Europäische Völkerrecht_, Berlin, 1817, p. 141.

[1109] “So weit der Schuss des Geschütses vom Ufer es bestreichen möge; dies selbst nahm man mit noch ungebundenerer Will-Kühr auf 3 Lieues an.”

[1110] P. 564.

[1111] _Europäisches Völkerrecht_, Stuttgart, 1821, p. 204; _Droit des Gens moderne de l’Europe_, 1819, III. ii. 130 (ed. 1831).

[1112] _A Digest of the Law of Maritime Captures or Prizes_, New York, 1815, c. ii. p. 55.

[1113] _Elements of International Law_, c. iv. ss. 6-10. London, 1836.

[1114] The King’s Chambers were, however, confined to the coast of England. See p. 122.

[1115] _Commentaries on American Law_, i. Part I. Lect. iii.

[1116] _Commentaries on the Law of Nations_, p. 119. 1839.

[1117] _Das Europäisches Völkerrecht der Gegenwart_, Berlin, 1844. _Le Droit International de l’Europe_, Paris, 1873, s. 75. “La ligne de la portée du canon elle-même, bien qu’elle soit regardée comme de droit commun, ne présente aucune base invariable et peut-être fixée par les lois de chaque État, du moins d’une manière provisoire.”

[1118] _Researches in Maritime International Law_, i. 16. 1844.

[1119] _Règles Internationales et Diplomatie de la Mer_, i. 177.

[1120] _Histoire des Origines, des Progrès, et des Variations du Droit Maritime International_, ed. 1858, p. 22.

[1121] _Traité des Prises maritimes_, i. 93. Paris, 1855.

[1122] “La portée du canon, placé à terre, est la seule limite réelle et vraie des mers territoriales.”

[1123] _Le Droit commercial, dans ses rapports avec le Droit des Gens et le Droit Civil_, Paris, 1844-47, tom. i. Liv. ii. tit. i. c. i. ss. 103-105.

[1124] _Plans and Proposals transmitted to the Committee on the Fishery_, No. 1, &c.

[1125] _Reports by the Commissioners for the British Herring Fishery_ for 1819, 1821, 1822; _Staatsblad_, No. 28, 4th April 1824, for a copy of which I am indebted to Mr H. van Hall, of the Universiteits-Bibliotheek, Amsterdam. After a reference to the previous decrees prohibiting the taking of herrings “between the banks and rocks of Scotland,” as being injurious to the reputation of Dutch pickled herrings (see p. 201), it is stated that the Board for the Great Fishery is of opinion that, in the interest of this branch of national industry, the fishing should be carried on at a farther distance from the main coast of Scotland (_Schotsche vaste kust_), and it is determined and resolved as follows: “Art. I. Het zal aan geenen Nederlandschen visscher geoorloofd zijn, de groote of pekelharingvisscherij op eenen naderen afstand der vaste kust van Schotland uitteoefenen, dan dien van twee uren hemelsbreedte (20 zoodanige uren eenen graad uitmakende), noch onder eenig voorwendsel hoe ook genaamd (alleen met uitzondering van het geval van dringende noodzakelijkheid bij art. 22 der voormelde wet voorzien), gedurende den tijd dat hij de vangst van pekelharing bedrijft, de vermelde kust op eenen minderen afstand te naderen.” The second article excepted the fishing at Shetland (Hitland) and Fair Isle (Fair-hill), the autumn fishing on the English coast and off Yarmouth, and the fresh-herring fishery; but these exceptions were withdrawn by a royal decree of 5th June 1827 (_Staatscourant_, 1827, No. 278). It may be said that in 1818 the old prohibition of fishing between the sandbanks and rocks of Norway, Shetland, and Scotland had been renewed. _Staatsblad_, No. 15, 12th March 1818.

[1126] _Rapport fait en Exécution des Ordres du Ministre de la Marine_, par M. L. de Montaignac, Capitaine de frégate, Commandant la Station de la Mer du Nord.

[1127] Montaignac, _op. cit._; _Parl. Papers_, Sess. 1837-38; _Rep. Com. Brit. Herring Fishery_, 1834.

[1128] _Report from the Select Committee on British Channel Fisheries, Parl. Papers_, Sess. 1833, No. 676.

[1129] An ordinance of the French Marine Department, of 15th January 1829, prohibited the use of certain nets, as drag and trawl nets, within _three leagues_ of the shore from 15th April to 1st September, and within two leagues from 1st September to 15th April.

[1130] Some of the English fishery Acts then in force, at least nominally, extended jurisdiction beyond the distance of one league with regard to the use of certain nets, &c., and the Committee apparently desired that, besides a zone of exclusive fishery, foreigners should be bound to observe the municipal law for the protection of the spawn and brood of fish that might apply beyond such zone. The Acts referred to were 3 Jac. I., c. 12 (1605), for the better preservation of sea fish, which, _inter alia_, prohibited the use of certain nets within five miles of any harbour, haven, or creek; 14 Chas. II., c. 28 (1662), regulating the pilchard-fishing in Devon and Cornwall, which prohibited the use of any “drift, trammel, or stream net,” between 1st June and 30th November, within one and a half leagues of the coasts of these counties; 1 George I., stat. 2, c. 18 (1714), which prohibited the use “at sea upon the coast of England” of certain nets, and the landing or sale of undersized fish; the Act 33 Geo. III., c. 27 (1759), prohibited the taking or knowingly possessing “any spawn, fry, or brood of fish, or any unsizeable fish, or any fish out of season.”

[1131] Under the Act 6 Geo. IV., c. 108, 1825.

[1132] Mr Cornish, quoting from his MS. treatise on zoology, said: “It is generally supposed that all sea fish, the cetaceous (_sic_) and cartilaginous excepted, deposit their ova in sand-banks, in creeks, bays, and shallow water near the shores, because it is imagined that a certain, though a small, degree of the sun’s action on the water and atmosphere is necessary to bring such ova to maturity. This we know to be the case with the salmon species, which always ascend to the shallow parts of rivers for that purpose, and never lay their eggs in deep water, and therefore we infer that the same influence prevails over the sea fish: this cannot, however, be proved, and rests mainly on opinion and probable conjecture, founded on such facts as we are acquainted with.” It may be said that a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed in 1817 to inquire into the condition of the fisheries on the south coast of Devon, strongly recommended Parliamentary action for the protection of the fisheries, founding on the same erroneous assumption that the fishes spawned near the shore. A Bill was accordingly introduced in the session of 1819, and again in 1822, for the appointment of conservators or overseers of the bays, creeks, and arms of the sea, to supervise regulations for the preservation of the fish coming there to spawn, and of their brood and fry, and applying to a distance of one and a half leagues from the shore; but it did not pass the Lords. _Rep. Select Com. on the State and Condition of the Fisheries on the South Coast of Devon_, 1817; _Parl. Bills_, xxii. 587, 601. _Eighth Ann. Rep. Fishery Board for Scotland_, Part III., pp. 13, 258 (1890); _Tenth, ibid._, pp. 19, 235; _Eleventh, ibid._, p. 13.

[1133] Memorials, &c., received by Her Majesty’s Government since 1st January 1832, complaining of the Aggressions of French fishermen on the British Coasts, _Parl. Papers_, Sess. 1837-38; Supplementary Papers relative to the Complaints respecting the Aggressions of French fishermen on the British Coasts, 1838, _ibid._, 1839; _Reports by the Commissioners for the Herring Fishery_, for 1834, 1835, 1839.

[1134] _Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French, defining and regulating the Limits of the Exclusive Right of the Oyster and other Fishery on the Coasts of Great Britain and of France._ Signed at Paris, August 2, 1839.

[1135] The line of closure, as will be seen from fig. 16, was not a single straight line, as usual, but a series of lines determined by landmarks. The area between this series and the three-mile limit, from which British fishermen were excluded, measures a little over 100 square (geographical) miles. On the other hand, all of the closing line north of 49° 3´ (and thus the greater part of it) is, curiously, _within_ the three-mile zone; the area outside this line to the three-mile line is about 23 square miles.

[1136] 6 & 7 Vict., cap. 79. “An Act to carry into Effect the Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French concerning the Fisheries in the Seas between the British Islands and France,” 22nd August 1843. The mesh of trawl-nets, the length of the trawl-beam, the weight of the trawl-irons and of the ground-rope, the mesh of herring, mackerel, “bratt,” and trammel nets, were in no case to be over or under a specified standard. A series of detailed regulations for oyster-fishing was also made, including a close-time and a minimum size. This Act was repealed by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868 (the Convention Act), 31 & 32 Vict., c. 45, but it was revived by Parliament in 1877 (40 & 41 Vict., c. 42), the Convention of 1867 not having been ratified by France.

[1137] _Reports of the Commissioners for the Herring Fishery_, 1839, 1840, 1841.

[1138] It was denounced in the Boulogne Chamber of Commerce as the greatest blunder the French Government had ever made, and many complaints were received from French fishermen of their boats having been captured or pursued by British cruisers. Deseille, _Histoire de la Pêche à Boulogne-sur-Mer_, 229. The French cruisers were no less active in apprehending British transgressors. _Parl. Papers_, Sess. 1854-5, 459.

[1139] Mitchell, _The Herring: Its Natural History and National Importance_, 243.

[1140] The Board pointed out that the fishermen of other foreign countries were not disposed to observe the limits laid down in the Anglo-French convention, specifying Dutch as well as Belgians, and that the naval superintendents were perplexed from the want of fixed instructions on this point. The letter from the Board of Trade was as follows (_Report of the Commissioners for the year ended 5th January 1849_):--

“OFFICE OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVY-COUNCIL FOR TRADE,

“WHITEHALL, _14th September 1848_.

“SIR,--With reference to your letter of 4th ultimo, requesting, on the part of the Commissioners of British Fisheries, to know whether Foreign Fishermen are permitted to fish within three miles of the Shore; I am directed by the Lords of the Committee of Privy-Council for Trade, to inform you, that it is the opinion of this Board, that no such permission is recognised by the British Government, and accordingly, that it is the duty of the Superintendents of British Fisheries, to warn Dutch, Belgian, or any other Foreigners, as well as French Fishermen, to keep outside of the limits above mentioned.--I am, sir, your obedient servant,

(Sd.) DENIS LE MARCHANT.

The Honourable B. F. PRIMROSE, Secretary, Board of Fisheries, Edinburgh.”

[1141] See p. 461.

[1142] Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the Belgians relative to Fishery. Signed at London, March 22, 1852. “Art. I. Belgian subjects shall enjoy, in regard to fishery along the coast of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the treatment of the most favoured foreign nation. In like manner, British subjects shall enjoy, in regard to fishery along the coast of the Kingdom of Belgium, the treatment of the most favoured foreign nation.” The convention was to endure for seven years, and it was to remain in force thereafter until the expiry of twelve months after either party notified to the other its intention of terminating it.

[1143] _Reports by the Commissioners for the British Fisheries_, 1848-51. _Parl. Papers_, Sess. 1856.

[1144] _Reports of the Commissioners for the British Fisheries_, 1852, 1853, 1862.

[1145] _Report of the Commissioners appointed to Enquire into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom_, I. lxix. (1866).

[1146] _Convention between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French, relative to the Fisheries in the seas between Great Britain and France._ Signed at Paris, 11th November 1867. Art. I. “British fishermen shall enjoy the exclusive right of fishery within the distance of three miles from low-water mark, along the whole extent of the coasts of the British Islands; and French fishermen shall enjoy the exclusive right of fishery within the distance of three miles from low-water mark along the whole extent of the coast of France, the only exception to this rule being that part of the coast of France which lies between Cape Carteret and Point Meinga. The distance of three miles fixed as the general limit for the exclusive right of fishery upon the coasts of the two countries shall, with respect to bays, the mouths of which do not exceed ten miles in width, be measured from a straight line drawn from headland to headland. The miles mentioned in the present Convention are geographical miles, whereof sixty make a degree of latitude.” In neither of the conventions was it expressly said that the ten-mile closing-line for bays was to be measured from low-water mark of the headlands, but it was so declared in the Act of 1843, 6 & 7 Vict., c. 79.

[1147] 31 & 32 Vict., c. 45.

[1148] _London Gazette_, 9th Feb. 1869. C. E. Fryer, _The Relation of the State with Fishermen and Fisheries. Parl. Papers, Commerc._, 24 (1882), p. 1.

[1149] 46 & 47 Vict., c. 22, sec. 30.

[1150] 6 & 7 Vict., c. 79, s. vi.

[1151] 5 & 6 Vict., c. 106.

[1152] _Parl. Papers_, Sess. 1867-68, Fisheries (Ireland), 135.

[1153] 31 & 32 Vict., c. 45, s. 67.

[1154] _Report from the Select Committee on Oyster Fisheries_, 8, 166 (1876).

[1155] Had the coasts of the United States been visited by British fishermen, it is not unlikely that the Government of that country would have been more willing to admit the ordinary interpretation with regard to bays. British vessels do not, however, fish on the coasts of the United States, and the United States fishermen, having exhausted the once productive waters of their own coasts of the New England States, go to catch a large part of their fish to the waters on the coasts of British North America, and hence it is to their interest that the limit of exclusive fishing on the latter should be as small as they can get it made. The position is very similar to that of the English trawlers who, having impoverished the North Sea, now go to foreign coasts, as Iceland, to keep up the supplies. See p. 707.

[1156] Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, signed at Washington, 1st June 1854, Art. i., ii. I. “It is agreed by the high contracting parties that in addition to the liberty secured to the United States’ fishermen by the above-mentioned convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward’s Island, and of the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the coasts and shores of those Colonies and the islands thereof, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the said coast in their occupancy for the same purpose.” The second article accorded to Canadian fishermen similar privileges in the waters of the United States, north of 36 degrees N. latitude.

[1157] Before this arrangement was made, the British Government, on 12th April 1866, instructed the Admiralty “that American fishermen should not be interfered with, either by notice or otherwise, unless they are found within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of a bay or creek, which is less than ten geographical miles in width, in conformity with the arrangement made with France in 1839.”

[1158] 27th June 1870. “The limits within which you will, if necessary, exercise the power to exclude United States’ fishermen, or to detain American fishing vessels or boats, are for the present to be exceptional.... Her Majesty’s Government are clearly of opinion that, by the Convention of 1818, the United States have renounced the right of fishing, not only within three miles of the Colonial shores, but within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of any British bay or creek. It is, however, the wish of Her Majesty’s Government neither to concede, nor for the present to enforce, any rights in this respect which are in their nature open to any serious question. Until further instructed, therefore, you will not interfere with any American fishermen, unless found within three miles of the shore, or within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of a bay or creek, which, though in parts more than six miles wide, is less than six geographical miles in width at its mouth. In the case of any other bay--as Bay des Chaleurs, for example--you will not interfere with any United States’ fishing vessel or boat, or any American fishermen, unless they are found within three miles of the shore.”

[1159] Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, signed at Washington, 8th May 1871, Art. xviii., xix.

[1160] _Parl. Papers_, No. 1 (1888), (C.--5262).

[1161] The number of American fishing vessels which take the licenses for Canadian waters is usually about 100, the fees aggregating 10,000 or 12,000 dollars per annum. _Ann. Reports, Marine and Fisheries_, Ottawa.

[1162] The three-mile limit is measured from the ten-mile arc.

[1163] Mr Phelps to the Marquis of Salisbury, 3rd August 1887, enclosing ad interim arrangement proposed by the United States’ Government, with “Observations” by the British Government and Reply of the Government of the United States.

[1164] Gordon, _15th Ann. Rep. Assoc. for Reform of Law of Nations_ (8). 1893.

[1165] _Report by the Commissioners for the Herring Fishery_, Scotland, 1869, p. 4; _Report by the Commissioners of the Fishery Board, Scotland_, 1876, p. 7.

[1166] Report of W. H. Higgin, Esq., Q.C., on the Outrages committed by Foreign upon English Fishermen in the North Sea. _Parl. Papers_ (C.--2878), 1881.

[1167] After all, however, the damage from the monetary point of view was not very great, amounting, according to the detailed information collected by Mr Higgin, to £4372, 3s. over the years 1870-1880, or at the rate of about £400 per annum.

[1168] Correspondence respecting the Conference at The Hague and the Convention of the 6th May 1882, relative to the Police of the Fisheries in the North Sea. _Parl. Papers, Commercial_, No. 24, 1882.

[1169] M. Barthélemy St Hilaire to Lord Lyons, 2nd July 1881; M. de Freycinet to M. Challemel-Lacour, 2nd March 1882.

[1170] “The fishermen of each country shall enjoy the exclusive right of fishery within the distance of three miles from low-water mark along the whole extent of the coasts of their respective countries and of the dependent islands. As regards bays, the entrances of which do not exceed ten miles in width, the distance of three miles shall be measured from a straight line joining the two extreme points of the bay. The present article shall not in any way prejudice the right of free navigation and anchorage in territorial waters accorded to vessels of all sizes, provided they conform to the special police regulations enacted by the Powers to whom the shore belongs.”

[1171] Messrs Kennedy and Trevor to Mr Farrer, Oct. 31, 1881. In the Anglo-French convention of 1867 the British negotiators unsuccessfully pressed for the insertion of the words, “the islands ... and their dependencies.” M. de Freycinet to M. Challemel-Lacour, 2nd March 1882.

[1172] Vide _Fiskeri-Beretning for Finansaaret_, 1907-1908, p. 178. Kjobenhavn, 1908.

[1173] _Report on the Sea Fisheries of England and Wales_, 1879. The British delegate laid stress on one of the conclusions reached by Mr Buckland, to the effect that “nothing that man has done, and nothing that man can do, can affect the supply of herrings in the seas.” Even if this were proved for the herring in the absolute form in which it is expressed,--and it is clearly illogical and unwarrantable to pledge the future in this loose way,--it obviously might not, and in point of fact does not, apply to the great bulk of the fishes that would have been affected by the German suggestion.

[1174] _International Convention for the Purpose of Regulating the Police of the Fisheries in the North Sea outside Territorial Waters._ Signed at The Hague, 6th May 1882.

[1175] Sir H. Rumbold to Earl Granville, 16th March 1882; H.M. Plenipotentiaries to the same, 8th May 1882.

[1176] The boundaries specified are, on the north, the parallel of the 61st degree of latitude; on the east and south, the coast of Norway between the above parallel and Lindesnæs Lighthouse, a straight line thence across the Skagerrack to Hantsholm Lighthouse in Denmark, the coasts of Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France, as far as Cape Gris Nez Lighthouse; on the west, a straight line from Gris Nez Lighthouse to the easternmost lighthouse at the North Foreland in Kent, the eastern coasts of England and Scotland, a line from Duncansby Head in Caithness to the southern point of South Ronaldsha in the Orkneys, the eastern coasts of the Orkney Islands, a straight line from North Ronaldsha Lighthouse to Sumburgh Head Lighthouse in the Shetland Islands, the eastern coasts of these islands, and the meridian of the North Unst Lighthouse as far as the parallel of the 61st degree of latitude. The Dutch proposed the 60th degree of latitude as the northern limit, and the British the 62nd degree.

[1177] 46 & 47 Vict., c. 22. An Act to carry into effect an International Convention concerning the Fisheries in the North Sea, and to amend the laws relating to British Sea Fisheries.

[1178] Messrs Kennedy and Trevor to Mr Farrer, 31st Oct. 1881. _Doc. cit._

[1179] Dispatch to Hon. E. Ashley, 17th Nov. 1881; Earl Granville to Her Majesty’s Representatives at Paris, Brussels, The Hague, Berlin, Copenhagen, and Stockholm, 6th December 1881.

[1180] A case occurred in 1908 in which the master of an English trawler, the _Taurus_, was convicted in a German court for trawling within the three-mile limit on the German coast, and the case was appealed on the ground that the place was outside the territorial waters, and was so shown on the English fishery charts. It was found, however, that the three-mile line on these charts did not take into account the dependent banks, whereas the German charts did take them into account, the limit running in some cases six or seven miles from the coast. It may be mentioned that as considerable parts of the Goodwin Sands are visible at low-water of neap tides, such parts are entitled to a three-mile limit in the same way as the dependent banks on the German coast. Recently, also, it has been found that the three-mile limit in the neighbourhood of the Scaw fluctuates considerably owing to the shifting of the shoals, and the Danish authorities, early in 1907, intimated that any case of alleged infraction of the limit by foreign fishing vessels would be judged of by the actual position of the line at the time, and not by what may be shown on any chart in use. The point in regard to banks was raised a century ago in connection with neutral rights in a case in which a British privateer captured a French corvette, the _Africaine_, on the coast of the United States, six miles from shore. It was argued that the capture was unlawful, because the place was within the neutral waters of the United States, the extent of which had been defined by Congress in 1794 as one marine league from the coast (see p. 574). It was contended that “coasts” included all the shoals or banks which, in Florida, extended to a distance of twenty miles from the land, and were therefore within territorial jurisdiction, and that the distance of protection should be reckoned from the outermost shoal. The American judge overruled the argument, because, although in a maritime sense this interpretation of “coasts” might be correct, it was too vague for juridical purposes, since the shoals vary, and there would be no fixed rule by which the boundary could be ascertained; and that the district courts would have to apply different rules at different places, instead of the one marine league everywhere. A somewhat similar question was argued in 1805 in the English Admiralty Court in the case of an American ship, the _Anna_, captured by a British privateer off the mouth of the Mississippi, at a point claimed to be within the neutral waters of the United States--viz., 1½ mile from an island, and “within view” of a fort, which was, however, five miles distant. A question raised was whether certain small mud-islands, formed of earth and drifted logs, and covered with reeds, where people occasionally went to shoot wild-fowl, was United States territory from which the marine league could be measured. It was argued that the islands had not sufficient consistency to support the purposes of life, and were sometimes scarcely distinguishable, and that since the distance of neutral protection “is reckoned according to the efficacy of protection, that is, within the range of firearms,” the land from which the extension is measured should be a place from which this protection could be in reality afforded. Lord Stowell, in deciding that they were United States territory, stated that the right of dominion did not depend upon the texture of the soil; and he quoted Bynkershoek’s formula as the rule of law, saying that the distance “has usually been recognised to be about three miles from the shore.” It may be said here that in the earlier writings and decisions about the limit of territorial waters, low-water mark is not specified, and in the case of the _Twee Gebroeders_ (see p. 577) it is clear that sand-banks uncovered at low-water were not regarded as entitled to an independent zone, the distance being measured from _terra firma_.

[1181] _Fish Trades Gazette_, May 31st, 1902, p. 8; _ibid._, April 4th, 1903, p. 21.

[1182] “Les articles 2 et 3 de ce contrat stipulent que les pêcheurs nationaux jouiront du droit exclusif de pêche dans le rayon de trois milles géographiques de 60 au degré de latitude, à partir de la laisse de basse mer, le long de toute l’étendue des côtes de leurs pays respectifs, ainsi que des îles et des bancs qui en dépendent.” _Loi relative à la pêche maritime dans les eaux territoriales. Exposé des motifs._ Sess. 1890-91.

[1183] The Marquis of Lothian, Secretary for Scotland, in introducing the Bill which became the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, said: “With regard to the east coast there is no very great difficulty in fixing the limits of territorial waters, because between Her Majesty’s Government and what I may call the riparian powers of the North Sea there is a Fisheries Convention; but on the west coast there is no such convention, and therefore it has been thought desirable to attach a schedule to this Bill in order to show exactly what are the waters closed against trawlers apart altogether from the general international rule as to the three-mile limit.” June 28th, 1889. Hansard, vol. 337, p. 975.

[1184] 46 & 47 Vict., c. 22, s. 28.

[1185] 6 & 7 Vict., c. 79 (1843). The international regulations agreed upon in virtue of the eleventh article of the convention were to apply to “the seas lying between the coasts of Great Britain and of France”; and differences of interpretation arose in this country as to the extent of the seas coming under this denomination--_e.g._, whether those on the west coast of Scotland were included. The power given to the crown to suspend the operation of the Act on the Irish coasts, and the obvious intention of the Act and articles, seemed to the Royal Commissioners of 1863 to warrant the opinion that these extra-territorial regulations applied to all the seas around the British Isles (_Report, Royal Commission on Sea Fisheries_, i. p. lxiii). On the other hand, it was contended that the words quoted must be construed strictly, and included only those seas which were situated geographically between the two countries. This difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the phrase in question does not, however, affect the validity of Article ix. of the convention, one of the principal objects of which was to determine the limits of exclusive fishery.

[1186] _Vide_ 46 & 47 Vict., c. 22, s. 24.

[1187] _Report from the Select Committee on Oyster Fisheries_, p. 1. 1876.

[1188] 19th, 22nd, and 23rd _Reports Fishery Board for Scotland_, Part I. Corresponding particulars are not given in the English or Irish fishery reports.

[1189] The preceding laws, however, left the territorial limits indefinite, under the law of nations, or subject to any special international agreement, as that of 12th February 1872, concerning foreign fishermen at Iceland. (“1. Drive fremmede Nationers Fiskere nogetsomhelst Fiskeri under Islands Kyster indenfor Søterritoriets Grænse, saaledes som denne er bestemt ved den almindelige Folkeret, eller ved særlige internationale Overenskomster for Islands Vedkommende maatte blive fastsat, straffes de med Bøder fra 10 til 200 Rd.” C. F. Drechsel, _Samling af Islandske Love, Forordninger, m.m. gældende for Fiskeriet paa Søterritoriet ved Island_, 1892.) Later laws, both for the Faröes and Iceland, merely referred to the “territorial sea.”

[1190] Convention between His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and His Majesty the King of Denmark for regulating the Fisheries of their respective Subjects outside Territorial Waters in the Ocean surrounding the Faröe Islands and Iceland. Art. ii. “The subjects of His Majesty the King of Denmark shall enjoy the exclusive right of fishery within the distance of three miles from low-water mark, along the whole extent of the coasts of the said islands, as well as of the dependent islets, rocks, and banks.

“As regards bays, the distance of three miles shall be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay, in the part nearest the entrance, at the first point where the width does not exceed ten miles.” The geographical limits for the application of the convention, which embodies practically the same regulations as in the North Sea Convention, are as follows: on the south, by a line commencing from where the meridian of North Unst Lighthouse (Shetland Islands) meets the parallel of 61st degree of north latitude to a point where the 9th meridian of west longitude meets the parallel of 60° north latitude, and from thence westward along that parallel to the meridian of 27° west longitude; on the west, by the meridian of 27° west longitude; on the north, by the parallel of 67° 30´ of north latitude; on the east, by the meridian of the North Unst Lighthouse (which is about 50´ west longitude). The area is thus very large, much larger than the North Sea. The convention continues in force until the expiration of two years from notice by either party for its termination, and a clause is inserted providing for the adhesion of any other Government whose subjects fish in the ocean surrounding the Faröe Islands and Iceland.

[1191] “Das positive deutsche Recht enthält keinerlei ausdrückliche Bestimmung über die Grenze der Küstengewässer landwärts.... Auch für die Grenze seewärts hat das deutsche Recht keine ausdrückliche Bestimmung, und adoptiert in dieser Richtung lediglich die Regeln des Völkerrechts.” Harburger, _Fifteenth Ann. Rep. Internat. Law Assoc._, 73. 1893.

[1192] Herstlet, _Commercial Treaties_, xiv. 1055. Perels, _Das Internationale öffentlichs Seerecht der Gegenwart_, 38.

[1193] _Mittheilungen des deutschen Seefischerei-vereins_, Bd. xiii. 61. 1897.

[1194] “Vi ville have fastsat som Regel i alle de Tilfælde hvor Spørgsmaal er om Bestemmelse af Vor Territorial-Hoiheds Græendse udi Søen, at denne skal regnes indtil den sædvanlige Sø-Miils Afstand fra den yderste øe eller Holme fra Landet, som ikke overskylles af Søen.” _Rescripter Resolutioner_, &c., i. 626, 22 (25), Feb. 1812. A circular of the Royal Danish Chancellory of 18th August 1810 made an exception for the territorial waters near the fortress of Kronberg, on the Sound, and of Glückstadt, on the Elbe, where the distance was to be computed only up to the range of the guns of the fortress. Auber, _Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International_, xi. 146 (1894).

[1195] _Svensk Fiskeri Tidskrift 9e_ Årg., 78. Stockholm, 1900. “Danmark räknar på grund af konvention samma [with Sweden] fyra mils gräns mot oss, men däremot på grund af Nordsjötraktaten blott tre mil gentemot de i denna deltagande makterna, t. ex. engelsmän och tyskar.” Instruks for det ved Fiskerikontrollen ansatte Personale, Landbrugsministeriet, den 20 Marts 1908, _Fiskeri-Beretning for Aaret_ 1908-9.

[1196] Natzen, _Den Danske Statsforfatningsret_, i. 36. 1888.

[1197] Fiskerikonventionen mellem Danmark og Sverig, 14de July 1899. _Fiskeri-Beretning for Finansaaret_, 1898-1899, Copenhagen, 1900. “Art. I. I de til Kongerigerne Danmark og Sverig grænsende Farvande skal, med de i Art. II. nævnte Undtagelser, det Omraade, hvor Fiskeriet udelukkende er forbeholdt hvert Lands egne Undersaatter, udgøre en Strækning af en geografisk Mil (1/15 Breddegrad) fra Kysten eller yderste der udfor liggende Holme og Skær, som ikke til Stadighed overskylles af Vandet,” &c. The definition in the Swedish is “en geografisk mil (1/15 breddgrad) från kusten eller ytterst därutanför liggande holmar och skär, som icke ständigt af vattnet öfversköljas.” (_Svensk Fiskeri Tidskrift, 16e_ Årg., Häft 6, p. 189.) Article II. makes the fishery in the Sound, including Kioge Bay, common to the subjects of each state, except that on either side, _within a depth of seven metres_ (four fathoms), subjects of the other country shall be allowed to fish for herrings only, with nets; and mutual liberty of herring-fishing with drift-nets is conceded in like fashion at certain other specified places. Certain amendments were made to this agreement in 1907, the chief one being the prohibition of trawling in the Sound. _Fiskeri-Beretning for Finansaaret_, 1906-1907, p. 45. _Svensk Författningssamling_, No. 79, År., 1907.

[1198] _Sixth Supplement to Section 44 of Customs Orders_, vol. vi., 1886; _Ordinance of Home Department for the Regulation of the Fishery Supervision on the Murman Coast_, 4th May 1887. See footnote, p. 657.

[1199] _Norsk Fiskeritidende_, 466, 1893: Revue Général de _Droit International Public_, 1894, p. 440.

[1200] In July 1910, a British trawler, _Onward Ho_, while engaged in fishing off the Kanin Peninsula, at a distance, according to the skipper, of 40 miles from Russian Lapland, and admittedly much beyond the three-mile limit, was arrested by a Russian cruiser and taken to Archangel, on the charge of illegal fishing. The vessel was released after representations had been made by the British Government, the Russian authorities finding that it had been arrested outside the boundary under the protection of the cruiser. The action was doubtless taken in connection with a new law of 10th December 1909, establishing a limit of 12 miles from the coast for customs purposes,--all vessels, Russian or foreign, being held to be subject to the control of the Russian authorities when within that distance. _Handelsberichten_, 12th May 1910, p. 135.

[1201] “Art. 2. Sur la demande des prud’hommes des pêcheurs, de leurs délégués et, à défaut, des syndics des gens de mer, certaines pêches peuvent être temporairement interdités sur une étendue de mer au delà de 3 milles du littoral, si cette mesure est commandée par l’intérêt de la conservation des fonds ou de la pêche de poissons de passage. L’arrêté d’interdiction est pris par le Préfet Maritime.”

[1202] M. de Chasseloup Lubat, in _Ann. di Agricoltura_, 50. 1891.

[1203] Law of 7th June 1832. Heffter, _Le Droit International de l’Europe_, c. ii. s. 75.

[1204] “Loi relative à la pêche maritime dans les eaux territoriales,” 19th August 1891. A decree of 5th September 1892 regulated foreign fishing-boats when within territorial waters.

[1205] Wet van 15 Juni 1883, _Staatsblad_, No. 73; Koninklijk Besluit van 20 March 1884, _Staatsblad_, No. 40, putting in force the North Sea Convention: “Art. 1. De bepalingen dezer overeenkomst, welke ten doel heeft de politie der visscherij in de Noordzee buiten de territoriale wateren te regelen, zijn toepasselijk op allen, die tot de nationaliteit der Hooge contracteerende Partijen behooren. 2. De visschers van elken Staat zullen het uitsluitend recht van visscherij genieten binnen een kring van drie mijlen, gerekend van de laagwaterlijn, langs de geheele uitgestrektheid der kusten van elken Staat en evenzeer langs de eilanden en banken, die daarmede zijn verbonden,” &c. Wet van 7th December 1883, _Staatsblad_, No. 202; Wet van 26th October 1889, _Staatsblad_, No. 135, “Tot vaststelling van bepalingen tegen het visschen door opvarenden van vreemde vaartuigen in de territoriale wateren van het Rijk”; the limits, as laid down in the convention of 1882, are applied to all foreign fishing vessels. There are special agreements with Belgium as to the fishings in the Schelde. H. van der Hoeven, _Wetgeving betreffende de Zee- en de Zalmvisscherijen_. Leiden, 1897.

[1206] Strisower, _Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International_. 1894.

[1207] Verordnung der Ministerien des Handels und des Ackerbaues, im Einvernehmen mit dem Ministerium des Innern, vom 5 December 1884, betreffend die Seefischerei, s. 3.

[1208] Handels- und Schiffahrtsvertrag vom 27 Dec. 1878, zwischen Oesterreich-Ungarn und Italien. Schlussprotokoll ad Art. xvii., xviii.; Marchesetti, _La pesca lungo le coste orientali dell’ Adria_. Trieste, 1882.

[1209] Vorschriften über die See-Fischerei giltig in Oesterreich-Ungarn seit 12 December 1884.

[1210] Legge sulla pesca del 4 marzo 1877, No. 3706 (Serie 2^a).

[1211] _Annali di Agricoltura_, 1891. Atti della commissione consultiva per la pesca, pp. 32, 86.

[1212] Definizione del mare territoriale e ordine di vigilare sugli armamenti alla pesca. _Ann. del Ministero di Agricoltura, Industria e Commercio_, i. parte i. 96. Genoa, 1871.

[1213] Corsi, in _Fifteenth Ann. Rep. Assoc. for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations_, 83.

[1214] No. 7, 409, 2nd Dec. 1869. Apostolidès, _La Pêche en Grèce_, 86. Athens, 1888.

[1215] Dr Kishinouye, _in litt._

[1216] Civil Code, Articles 593, 611.

[1217] Reglamentendo la pesca y caza, _Boletin official_, 20th September 1907.

[1218] Reglamento para las concesiones de pesca en el litoral oceánico de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, 4th June 1909. “Art. 3^o. Los concesionarios solo podrán emplear redes arrastradas por vapores en una zona distante no menos de doce (12) millas, contadas desde las líneas de las más bajas mareas. Art. 4^o. Dentro de la zona de doce millas hasta la línea de las más bajas mareas, podrán usarse redes arrastradas por veleros. Se declara libre el uso de las líneas, palangres ó espineles, nasas y redes verticales de deriva. Art. 6^o. Las personas ó empresas que quisieran usar artes especiales de pesca distintos de los indicados, deberán solicitar permiso especial de la División de Ganadería y obtener la autorización correspondiente. Art. 7^o. Las embarcaciones llevarán bandera nacional y sus tripulaciones se compondrán de una parte de individuos de nacionalidad argentina, de acuerdo con las leyes y reglamentos de cabotaje nacional.” I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr R. M. Bartleman, the American Consul-General at Buenos Aires, for a copy of these regulations.

[1219] Reuter’s telegrams from Buenos Aires, 21st March, 30th June 1908. _Scotsman_, 23rd March, 2nd July 1908. _La Prensa_, one of the leading journals of Buenos Aires, is quoted as declaring it hard to believe that the British Government has decided to raise a question of such exceptional gravity, seeing the first effect of such action would be to bring about a conflict to which there could be no conciliatory or friendly solution, since the immediate reply, which would be final, would be absolute rejection of the claim put forward--that is, that the waters of the estuary outside the limits of three miles from the coasts are non-territorial.

[1220] Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration, p. 23, “outside the ordinary three-mile limit.” The President, Baron de Courcel, has since explained that the tribunal “s’est borné à constater que les parties étaient d’accord pour admettre que l’étendue de trois milles à partir de la côte comme formant dans l’espèce qui lui était soumise, la limite ordinaire des eaux territoriales.” M. de Courcel to M. Auber, _App. Ann. de l’Institut de Droit Internat._ for 1894, p. 282. _Vide_ Hall, _A Treatise on International Law_, 4th ed., p. 161.

[1221] For example, Leoni Levi, “No territorial sovereignty exists or can be claimed beyond the three miles zone.” _Internat. Law_, 112.

[1222] Mr Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr Tassara, 6th December 1862. The same to Mr Burnley, 16th September 1864. Wharton, _A Digest of the International Law of the United States_, i. 105. American ships were charged with pursuing Confederate vessels into British waters, and the balls from the guns they fired had struck objects on shore. The facts were used to show that the hostile acts had occurred within our territorial jurisdiction. Hansard, vol. 173, p. 509; February 1864.

[1223] Secretary Fish to Sir E. Thornton, 22nd January 1875. “We have understood and asserted that, pursuant to public law, no nation can rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea beyond a marine league from the coast.” _Loc. cit._

[1224] Torres-Campos, in _Fifteenth Ann. Rep. Assoc. for Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations_, 93. Negrin, _Tratado de Derecho internacional maritimo_, 1883.

[1225] _Negocios Externos. Documentos apresentados ás Cortes na Sessão legislativa de 1879 pelo Ministro e Secretario d’Estado dos Negocios Estrangeiros. Questão das Pescarias_, p. 258. Lisboa, 1879. The volume contains a full discussion of the questions between the two Governments.

[1226] Tratado de navegación y comercio entre España y Portugal, firmado en Madrid el dí 27 de Marzo de 1893. Apéndice Sexto. Reglamento de policía costera y de pesca. Sec. 1. Disposiciones aplicables á las aguas de cada país, “Art. 1^o. La policía costera y de pesca en las aguas jurisdiccionales de España y de Portugal, quedará sujeta á las disposiciones siguientes. Art. 2^o. Los límites dentro de los cuales el derecho general de pesca, queda reservado exclusivamente á los pescadores sujetos á las jurisdicciones respectivas de las dos naciones, se fijan en seis millas, contadas por fuera de la linea de bajamar de las mayores mareas. Para las bahías cuya abertura no exceda de diez millas, las seis millas se contáran á partir de una linea recta tirada de una punta á la otra. Las millas mencionadas son millas geográficas de 60 al grado de latitud. Art. 3°. Cada una de los Estados tendrá el derecho de reglamentar el ejercicio de la pesca en sus respectivas costas marítimas hasta una distancia de seis millas de las mismas, límite dentro del cual solamente será permitido á los Pescadores nacionales ejercer esta industria.” F. López y Medina, _Colección de Tratados Internacionales, Ordenanzas y Reglamentos de Pesca_, pp. 44, 49 (Madrid, 1906). I am indebted to Sir Reginald MacLeod, K.C.B., late Under-Secretary for Scotland, for this volume.

[1227] _Revista de Pesca Marítima_, ix. 97 (1893); x. 209 (1894). Various regulations have been lately made with respect to trawling beyond the six-mile limit at certain parts of the Spanish coast (_vide_ López y Medina, _Primer Apéndice a la Colección de Tratados, &c._, pp. 34-45. Madrid, 1907), and also on the coast of Portugal (_vide Collecção de Leis e Disposições diversas com relação á Pesca e Serviço maritimo dos Portos_, pp. 28, 54, 276, 535. Lisboa, 1907). In no other countries, it may be added, have more regulations been made restricting all kinds of trawling than in Spain and Portugal.

[1228] Prof. A. F. Marion, _in litt._

[1229] The National Sea Fisheries Protection Association: _Twenty-fourth Ann. Rep. of the Committee of Management_, 1905, p. 7. “Spanish and Portuguese Territorial Limits. Communications were made to the Foreign Office on the subject of Spanish and Portuguese Territorial Limits, and, in reply, the Association was informed that His Majesty’s Government did not recognise any claims of the Spanish or Portuguese Governments to exercise jurisdiction over British vessels beyond the three-mile limit.”

[1230] _Fish Trades Gazette_, 10th Dec. 1904, p. 23. London. _Boletin Oficial de la Liga Marítima Española_; _Vida Marítima, Revista de Navegación y Comercio, Pesquerias, &c._ Madrid. In 1905 no less than forty-five English trawlers, as well as four German trawlers and one Spanish, landed fish at Lisbon and Oporto, which had been caught in neighbouring waters and as far as Morocco, the value being 332,220 milreis, or about £74,750. _Estatistica das Pescas Maritimas, Anno de 1905._ Lisboa, 1907.

[1231] A summary of this new law, which received the sanction of the King of Portugal on 26th October 1909, is given in _Mitteilungen des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins_ for February 1910 (Bd. xxvi. No. 2), from _Diario do Governo_, No. 247, viz.: Portugiesisches Gesetz betreffend das Verbot für fremde Fahrzeuge zum Fischen in den territorialen Gewässern. “Art. 1. In den portugiesischen Territorialgewässern innerhalb einer Zone von 3 Seemeilen, von der Linie des Niedrigstwasserstandes an gerechnet, ist fremden Fahrzeugen das Fischen verboten. In den Buchten ist die Zone von 3 Seemeilen gemäss den Grundsätsen des internationalen Rechts zu berechnen.”

[1232] Tratado de comercio con el emperador de Marruecos, 20th November 1861, _Revista de Pesca Marítima_, xiv. 149, 1898. López y Medina, _op cit._, 72.

[1233] This is also the interpretation made by Mr Arctander (_Norsk Fiskeritidende_, Tolvte Aargang, 1893, p. 464) of the wording of the ordinances, that the line must be drawn through points that lie above the water at high tide (_flod_), the rule thus differing from the usual one. On the other hand, the Norwegian Department of the Interior, in replying to certain queries from the International Law Association, stated, with reference to the royal ordinance of 1812 (see p. 653), that “it is not expressly said whether the distance is to be reckoned at half-tide, high-water, or low-water”; and they did not suggest which ought to be adopted. _Rep., Seventeenth Conference_, 1895, p. 301. The Danish terms agree with the Swedish. See p. 655.

[1234] Professor Auber thus states the practice in Norway: “Nous avons regardé comme tout naturel que, l’île n’étant pas située plus qu’à, deux anciens milles marins (deux quinzièmes de degré) de la terre ferme, l’étendue de la mer territoriale doive être compter jusqu’à un mille au delà de l’île, et ainsi de suite d’île en île” (_Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International_ for 1889, p. 139). M. Kleen, on the other hand, speaks of the outermost isle being included “sous la condition que cette île ou ce brisant ne soit pas situé plus loin de la côte qu’une lieu géographique” (_Fifteenth Ann. Rep., Internat. Law Association_, p. 20). The Norwegian law refers to “the island or islet farthest from the mainland, and not covered by the sea,” while M. Kleen says: “Comme brisant à compter sera alors considéré chacun qui n’est pas _continuellement_ submergé par la mer ... pourvu qu’il soit à découvert périodiquement et que la mer ne le couvre pas _toujours_.”

[1235] _Kongelig Resolution_ af 16 Oktober 1869: “At en ret linie, trukket i en geografisk mils afstand fra og parallelt med en ret linie mellem Storholmen og Svinö, bliver at betragte som grændsen for den havstrækning udenfor den tilsvarende kyst af Söndmöres fogderi, paa hvilken fiskeriet er landets egen befolkning udelukkende forbeholdt.” _Kongelig Resolution_ af 9 September 1889: “En linie, trukket i en geografisk mils afstand fra og parallelt med en linie fra Storholmen over Skraapen (udenfor Harö), Gravskjær (udenfor Ona) og Kalven (det yderste af Orskjærene) til yderste Jevleholme udenfor Grip, bliver at betragte som grændsen for den havstækning udenfor den tilsvarende kyst af Romsdal amt, paa hvilken fiskeriet er landets egen befolkning udelukkende forbeholdt.”

[1236] From about 62° 20´ N. lat. and 5° 13´ E. long, to about 63° 13´ N. lat. and 7° 35´ E. long.

[1237] Provisorisk Anordnung angaaende vaartorskefiskeriet ved Söndmöres kyster, 3 Jan. 1870; Lov angaaende vaartorskefiskeriet ved Söndmöres kyster, 6 June 1878; Lov om vaartorskefiskeriet ved Romsdals amts kyst og fjorde, 1 July 1907.

[1238] It is referred to in A.D. 888. The fishery is prosecuted from about the middle of January to the end of April; in 1908 over 20,000 fishermen, drawn from all the neighbouring parts of the coast, took part in it. _Aarsberetning vedkommende Norges Fiskerier for 1908_: 4^{de} Hefte. _Lofotfiskeriet_, 1908.

[1239] “Le droit exclusif de la pêche dans le golfe du Vestfjord, consacré par un usage plusieurs fois seculaire, n’a jusqu’ici été l’objet d’aucune disposition legislative.” Letter of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 6th August 1908. “The Vestfjord through centuries has been considered as Norwegian territorial waters, but no decree or decision as to the special frontier or limit between this fjord and the open sea has been issued up to the present.” Letter from his Excellency M. J. Irgens, the Norwegian Minister, 13th June 1908. Having some difficulty in getting authentic copies of the various Norwegian decrees, I applied to Dr Fridtjof Nansen, then Norwegian Minister in London, and later received full information from three sources--from Mons. J. Irgens, Dr Nansen’s successor, and now the Foreign Minister of Norway; by the courtesy of Sir Reginald MacLeod; and through Dr Baty, the Secretary to the International Law Association.

[1240] 5th January 1881; 19th June 1880; 14th June 1890; 17th December 1896; 7th January 1904. In the law of 17th December 1896 the limits are mentioned as follows: “Paa Havstrækningen ved Tromsø Amts og Finmarkens Amts Kyst i en Afstand af indtil én geografisk Mil fra Kysten, regnet fra den yderste Ø eller Holme, som ikke overskylles af Havet, skal det indtil videre være forbudt at jage, anskyde eller dræbe Hval i Tidsrummet fra 1ste Januar til Udgangen af Mai. For Varangerfjordens Vedkommende i Finmarkens Amt bliver Grændsen for den fredede Strækning udad mod Havet en ret Linie trukket fra Kibergnæs til Grændse, Jakobselv, dog saaledes, at det ogsaa udenfor denne Linie skal være forbudt i den ovenanførte Tid at jage, anskyde eller dræbe Hval i kortere Afstand fra Kysten ved Kibergnæs end én geografisk Mil.” See also Auber, Annuaire, xi. 136, 1892; Kleen, _Fifteenth Ann. Rep. Internat. Law Assoc._, 17; Aschehoug, Norges nuvarende Retsforfatning, 90; Kleen, _Neutralitetens Lagar_, 1889; _Norsk Fiskeritidende_, 1893, 461.

[1241] “Räknadt från kusten eller längst ut från denna liggande ö eller skär, som ej ständigt af hafvet öfversköljes.” _Svensk Fiskeri Tidskrift_, 9e Årg., p. 78.

[1242] Auber, _loc. cit._

[1243] Kleen, _op. cit._; Egerström, _Sveriges Landtbruksförvaltning_, 1896, p. 37. It is the same in Finland,--J. A. Sandman, _Uebersicht ueber die Seefischerei Finnlands_, p. 145, 1906.

[1244] Minister of the Interior to Minister of Foreign Affairs, 28th October 1868 ... “Cela s’explique: ces pêches, ayant lieu dans un golfe considéré comme faisant partie de la mer territoriale de la Norvège, out été regardées comme la propriété exclusive du pays. Cela ne peut certainement pas cadrer avec les principes du droit international, qu’on puisse tout à coup amener des changements dans une situation légale qui repose sur une reconnaissance tacite de plusieurs siècles.”

[1245] Letter of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 7th November 1868. “Aussi il est défendu aux sujets étrangers de faire la pêche dans ce golfe, et cette défense s’applique également à la mer voisine et à l’embouchure jusqu’à une distance d’une lieue marine à partir du point le plus méridional du group d’îlots dit ‘Röst.’”

[1246] Minister of the Interior to Minister for Foreign Affairs, 28th January 1870.

[1247] 20th August 1886. “Art. 7 ... Les deux parties contractantes conviennent de considérer comme limites des mers territoriales de leur côtes respectives pour tout ce qui se rapporte à l’application des règlements de douane et aux mesures prises pour empêcher la contrebande, une distance de trois lieues marines comptées depuis de la ligne de marée basse.” A similar customs treaty, it may be mentioned, was concluded between Mexico and Great Britain on 27th November 1888, in which three marine leagues was stipulated by each country “as a limit of their territorial waters on their respective coasts,” strictly for customs purposes. “The two Contracting Parties agree to consider, as a limit of their territorial waters on their respective coasts, the distance of three marine leagues reckoned from the line of low-water mark. Nevertheless, this stipulation shall have no effect, excepting in what may relate to the observance and application of the Custom-house Regulations and the measures for preventing smuggling, and cannot be extended to other questions of civil and criminal jurisdiction or of international maritime law” (Hertslett, _Treaties_). It is of interest to note, however, that the ordinary limit adhered to by the British Government so rigorously in connection with fishery rights, may be legitimately extended by treaty in order to protect the revenue.

[1248] Auber, _op. cit._, 141.

[1249] Foreigners are forbidden to carry on fishing within the territorial waters, the most recent law relative to this subject being that of 2nd June 1906. Instructions to the commanders of the Norwegian cruisers, dated 22nd December 1906, with reference thereto, describe the limit as an “ordinary sea mile” (measured as described), the equivalent distance being stated at 7529 metres, which is equal to 4·065 mean nautical miles, or 4·68 English statute miles. A law of 1908 prohibits trawl-fishing within the territorial waters.

[1250] _Le Droit International_, i. 349; _Dict. de Droit International_, 501. Bluntschli endeavours to place the doctrine on a philosophical but absurd basis, by stating that the sovereignty over the sea extended originally only to a stone’s-throw from the coast, later to an arrow-shot, and then according to the range of firearms.

[1251] _Das Moderne Völkerrecht_, s. 307-9.

[1252] _Commentaries upon International Law_, I. viii. cxcviii.

[1253] _International Law_, 135.

[1254] _Commentaries on Criminal Law_, iv. c. 5, s. 74.

[1255] _Introduction to the Study of International Law_, s. 56.

[1256] Wheaton’s _International Law_, 8th ed., p. 359.

[1257] _The Law of Nations in Time of Peace_, s. 172.

[1258] _Trattato di Diritto Internazionale Pubblico_, ii. c. 3, pp. 65-67.

[1259] In Fiore, _Nouveau Droit International Public_, note, p. 372.

[1260] _Das Internationale Öffentliche Seerecht der Gegenwart_, p. 21 _et seq._

[1261] _International Law_, 399.

[1262] _Droit Commercial Maritime_, 10.

[1263] _La Mer Territoriale_, 36.

[1264] _Neutralitetens Lagar_, i. s. 160; _Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International_, xii. 140.

[1265] _Norges Offentlige Ret_, 79-81; _Annuaire_, xi. 141.

[1266] _Revue générale de Droit International Public_, No. 1.

[1267] _A Treatise on International Law_, 4th edition, 1895, p. 160.

[1268] _International Law_, i. 242 (1905).

[1269] The Committee of the Association was composed of ten members--viz., Sir Travers Twiss, President; Sir George Baden-Powell; Hon. D. Dudley Field, New York; Dr F. Sieveking, President of the Hanseatic High Court of Appeal, Hamburg; Mr E. H. Schweigaard, Christiania; Rear-Admiral P. H. Colomb; E. Edouard Clunet, Paris; Dr E. N. Rahusen, Amsterdam; Mr T. H. Haynes; and Mr (now Sir) Thomas Barclay, Paris, who was Secretary. The Committee of the Institut comprised twenty-four members, including Sir Travers Twiss; Professor Westlake; Professor Lorimer; M. Desjardins, Advocate-General of the Court of Cassation; Feraud-Giraud, Judge of the French Court of Cassation; Harburger, Judge of the Court of First Instance at Munich; Hartmann, Privy Councillor, Hanover; Perels, Director of the German Admiralty; Marquis d’Olivart, Ex-Professor of International Law, Madrid; Edouard Rolin, Editor of the _Revue de Droit International_; &c. M. Renault, the Paris Professor of International Law, was appointed “reporter” to the Committee, but this position was soon occupied by Sir Thomas Barclay.

[1270] Most of the English members who expressed their opinion, as Sir Travers Twiss, Professor Holland, and Mr Moore, preferred to retain the limit at three miles; Professor Westlake favoured five miles.

[1271] _Report from the Select Committee on Sea Fisheries_, 1893; _Seventeenth Rep., International Law Assoc._, p. 103, 1896; _Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International_, xiii.

[1272] “Il en est ainsi pour les _firths_ écossais.... Toutes ces baies sont considérées comme étant sous la domination exclusive de l’État riverain.” _Annuaire_, 23.

[1273] _Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International_, x., xi., xii., xiii. _Reports, International Law Association_, xv., xvi., xvii.

[1274] 49 Vict., c. 95.

[1275] 38 Vict., c. 18; Order in Council, 28th November 1876.

[1276] _Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration_, p. 23. Declarations made by the Tribunal of Arbitration, 1893. As the Behring Sea case has been often referred to in recent controversies about the right of fishing, as having affirmed the three-mile limit as the true international boundary of the territorial sea, the facts may be briefly recalled. In 1867 the United States purchased from Russia the territory of Alaska with its dependent islands, &c., and an American company, very powerful financially and politically, was formed in 1870, which obtained a lease of the Pribilov Islands in order to engage in the fur-seal industry. Under the Act of Congress of 1870 which enabled this to be done, it was made unlawful to kill any seals upon the islands, “or in the waters adjacent thereto,” except during certain specified months. Sealing vessels, both from the United States and from British Columbia, began to frequent Behring Sea and the waters adjacent to the islands; their competition impaired the practical monopoly of the Company in the markets for seal-skins; and in 1886 three British vessels were seized by American revenue cruisers at distances of 70, 75, and 115 miles from the land, and the masters and mates were fined and imprisoned for illegal sealing. Up to 1890 other eleven British sealers were similarly seized and dealt with for fishing at distances between 15 and 96 miles from land, and five others were ordered out of Behring Sea. In the negotiations which followed, the American Government first pled a virtual _mare clausum_ for the whole of Behring Sea; then that they had jurisdiction up to 100 miles from land; and lastly, that they had special property in and right of protection over the fur-seals in Behring Sea and frequenting the islands for breeding purposes. The Tribunal of Arbitration decided that they had not this right of protection or property “when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit.” Then the Tribunal, in terms of the treaty appointing them, prescribed the regulations above referred to, leaving to Great Britain the honours of the contest, and to the United States the advantage. The true lesson to be derived from this chapter of international diplomacy, is not that the high tribunal reaffirmed the three-mile limit as the legal boundary of the territorial sea, which they did not do (see letter from Baron de Courcel, the President, p. 664), but that that limit may be set aside and a much wider boundary fixed (in this instance 60 miles) if the protection and preservation of a marine fishery require it. It may be added that of late years pelagic sealing by Japanese has greatly increased in Behring Sea, and since the regulations apply only to British and American subjects, the Japanese carry on their operations up to the ordinary three-mile limit around the Pribilov Islands, and sometimes within it, there having been several encounters with the American patrol-boats involving loss of life, and heavy fines have been inflicted on offenders. In the summer of 1908 a fleet of thirty Japanese schooners, some with sixteen boats, were thus engaged, and according to the Government agent, they effectually blocked the escape of the seals from the islands. The agent says that in the last ten years the seal herds have diminished almost three-fourths, and if the slaughter by the Japanese is not put a stop to, complete destruction of the industry will follow. Thus, while the British are compelled to keep sixty miles off the islands, and can only kill the seals with spears, the Japanese operate up to three miles from shore, and can use firearms or any other method. It is stated that some of the British Columbia sealers are endeavouring to nationalise their vessels in Japan, so that they may be able to fish under the Japanese flag. In April 1910, when the lease of the Company expired, the United States Government did not renew it, but took the seals under their own protection, and an Act was passed prohibiting the killing of the fur-seal unless authorised by the Secretary of Commerce and Labour.

[1277] _Parl. Papers, Russia_, No. 1 (1895). Correspondence respecting the Agreement with Russia relative to the Seal Fishery in the North Pacific. Seal Fishery (North Pacific) Act, 1893, 56 Vict., c. 23; Order in Council, 4th July 1893.

[1278] The Western Australian Pearl and Bêche-de-mer Fishery (Extra-Territorial) Act, 1889.

[1279] An Act for the further Encouragement and better Regulation of the British White Herring Fishery, 48 Geo. III., c. 110, s. 60, 46. Section 60: “And whereas it may be useful to provide a jurisdiction for preserving order and settling disputes among persons carrying on the fishery for herrings on the coast and in the lakes of Scotland; be it therefore enacted, That the jurisdiction of the sheriffs and stewarts depute of Scotland, and their substitutes, shall be extended over all persons engaged in catching, curing, and dealing in fish in all the lochs, bays, and arms of the sea within their respective counties and stewartries, and also within ten miles of the coasts of their said counties and stewartries, and that in as full and ample a manner as the same is exercised over the inhabitants of these counties and stewartries; and if any loch, bay, or arm of the sea shall adjoin to two or more counties or stewartries, or any part of the sea shall be within ten miles of the coasts of two or more counties or stewartries, the sheriffs and stewarts of the said counties shall have and exercise a concurrent jurisdiction over such persons as aforesaid, in any such loch, bay, or arm of the sea which shall be in or opposite to their respective counties and stewartries, or any part of the sea within the aforesaid distance of the coast thereof.”

[1280] _Report of Commission on Sea Fisheries_, 1863, p. lxvi.

[1281] Trawling, and, in particular, steam-trawling, is practically unknown in America; but in recent years French steam-trawlers have begun to frequent the Newfoundland banks.

[1282] _Annual Reports_, Fishery Board for Scotland; _Journal of the Marine Biological Association, &c._

[1283] For the earlier periods the statistics are incomplete. In 1863 the number of sailing trawlers was 955, of which 650 to 700 fished in the North Sea, 530 belonging to Ramsgate, Yarmouth, Grimsby, and Hull; in 1883 the aggregate was estimated at 3000, some being large vessels of ninety tons; in 1889 there were 230 steamers and 2323 smacks; in 1899 the steamers numbered 1186 and the smacks 1637.

[1284] Garstang, The Impoverishment of the Sea, _Journal Marine Biol. Assoc._, vol. vii. p. 47, 1900.

[1285] Return of the Number of Steam Trawlers registered at Ports in the States of Western Europe in the Year 1907, _Parl. Papers_, Cd. 4236, 1908.

[1286] _Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom_, vol. i., 1866. The late Professor Huxley and Mr Shaw Lefevre (now Lord Eversley) were two of the commissioners.

[1287] _Report on the Sea Fisheries of England and Wales_, 1879 (C.--2449). The commissioners were Mr Frank Buckland and Mr (afterwards Sir) Spencer Walpole.

[1288] _Report of the Commissioners on Trawl-Net and Beam-Trawl Fishing_, 1885 (C.--4328).

[1289] “That taking into consideration that the question of the destruction of immature fish is one of international importance, it is, in the opinion of this meeting, imperative in the public interest that an International Conference be held to consider the desirability of recommending legislation upon the subject; and this meeting of practical fishermen further requests of Her Majesty’s Government to take immediate steps to bring about such Conference at the earliest possible date.” _Fisheries Exhibition Literature_, vol. iv. pp. 346, 355.

[1290] Conference of Representatives of the Trawl-Fishing Industry, held at the Inns of Court Hotel, London, 13th November, 1888. “1. That we find a large and distressing diminution in the North Sea of soles, turbot, plaice, and all flat fish, and view with alarm the future, unless some steps are immediately taken to prohibit the catching of immature fish.” 2. “That the Conference petition Her Majesty’s Government, urging them to enter into negotiations with all Continental Governments to establish an international law to prohibit the wilful catching of immature fish, and to make it unlawful to offer such immature fish for sale.” 3. “That copies of the resolutions be forwarded to the President of the Board of Trade asking for immediate action, and to the President of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, asking that Association to undertake the responsibility of a measure for legislation, and to do all they can for the protection of immature fish in and around the coasts of the North Sea and other coasts of the United Kingdom upon which breeding-grounds exist.”

[1291] Conference of the Trawl-Fishing Industry of the East Coast Ports, held at Hull, 30th April 1890. 1. “That this Conference of the Trawl-Fishing Industry of the East Coast, consisting of delegates from Hull, Grimsby, Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Scarboro’, and Boston, having realised the enormous loss which the trade has sustained year by year through the wholesale capture and destruction of immature and inedible fish, hereby resolves that the time has come when a strong and united effort should be made to put a stop to this growing evil; and as a preliminary step in this direction, it is agreed by the whole of the delegates here assembled, for themselves individually and the Companies, Corporations, Fleets, and Associations they represent, to abstain during the coming summer from fishing on the grounds where immature fish are generally caught in great abundance, such grounds being specified in the next Resolution.” 2. “That the Fishing Grounds or Nurseries where experience has found immature fish to be most prolific, and which are referred to in the foregoing Resolution, shall be defined as follows: That part of the North Sea the Eastern Boundary of which is the German and Danish Coasts; the Western Boundary, Longitude 7 deg. 30 min.; the Northern Boundary, Latitude 56 deg.; the Southern Boundary, 53 deg. 50 min.” The third resolution defined immature lemon soles, soles, turbot, brill, and plaice; and the fourth expressed the opinion that it was “highly necessary for the future wellbeing of the trade, and for the preservation of an important food-supply, that Parliament should be asked to impose restrictions upon the sale and purchase of immature fish”; and the delegates were instructed to press for legislative interference, national and international.

[1292] International Conference of Representatives of Maritime Powers convened under the auspices of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, to discuss the Question of Remedial Measures necessary to be taken for the Preservation and Development of the Fisheries in the Extra-territorial Waters of Europe, 1890. _Minutes of Proceedings._ The Conference passed a resolution that an official international conference of European maritime powers should be held with the view of concluding a convention for the preservation of undersized fish; and another, proposed by Dr P. P. C. Hoek, the delegate for the Netherlands, that before such a conference met, “the different nations interested in the sea fisheries of European waters should collect, with as little delay as possible, sufficient information, scientific as well as statistical, with regard to the damage done by the capture of undersized fish by their fishermen.” The author, who was present, conscious of the advantages of international co-operation, if the programme and conditions were appropriate, proposed that Dr Hoek’s resolution “should be modified in the way of recommending that a joint scheme of investigation might be drawn up by the countries concerned”; and on the motion of Captain C. F. Drechsel, the delegate for Denmark, who approved of it, the delegates adjourned to consider this proposal. The result, however, was merely the tabling of a resolution, which was adopted, “That the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association be requested to formulate a set of questions with a view to obtaining scientific and statistical information in relation to undersized fish, and forward it to each delegate, in order that he may submit it to his Government for adoption”--with what result does not appear. _Ibid._, pp. 21, 34, 36, 37.

[1293] “Your Committee are sensible of the difficulties of making international regulations, but are nevertheless of opinion that the best method for effectively governing the operations of the various classes of fishermen, and, at the same time, for securing, so far as it may be found possible, the proper protection of spawning and immature fish, would be to throw the responsibility of these duties, so far as the waters immediately adjacent to the various countries are concerned, on those various countries; that, for the effective realisation of this object, the present territorial limit of three miles is insufficient, and that, for fishery purposes alone, this limit should be extended, provided such extension can be effected upon an international basis, and with due regard to the rights and interests of all nations. Your Committee would earnestly recommend that a proposition on these lines should be submitted to an international conference of the Powers who border on the North Sea.” _Report from the Select Committee on Sea Fisheries_, 377, 1893. The Chairman of the Committee, which consisted of fourteen members, was Mr Marjoribanks (the late Lord Tweedmouth); among the others were Sir Albert Rollit, Mr Buchanan, and Mr (now Lord) Heneage. The report was presented to the House of Commons and ordered to be printed on 17th August 1893.

[1294] _Special Report and Report from the Select Committee on the Sea Fisheries Bill_, 1900 (287): “Your Committee think that it is proved beyond doubt that there is a very serious diminution of the supply of certain kinds of flat-fish, particularly in the North Sea. Of late years the total quantity of such fish caught has remained nearly stationary. This fact, when taken along with the enormously increased catching power and the vastly larger area of sea subjected to fishing operations, seems to show that the ancient fishing-grounds are much depleted. The whole of the local evidence, differing in many other respects, is practically unanimous as to this point. It seems clear that the evil is a growing one, and that in default of a remedy the consequences to the fishing industry in the diminished supply of flat-fish will at no very distant future be disastrous.” The late Mr (afterwards Lord) Ritchie, President of the Board of Trade, Mr Graham Murray (now Lord Dunedin), and Captain Sinclair, now Lord Pentland, Secretary for Scotland, were members of the Committee.

[1295] “Your Committee feel that the subject of the diminution of the fish supply is a very pressing one, and that the situation is going from bad to worse. In their view, no effort ought to be spared (1st) to arrange for international treatment of the subject generally, and especially for regulation of the North Sea area; and (2nd) to provide for the adequate equipment of the Government Departments in charge of the subject, so that they may effectively pursue scientific investigation and ascertain with sufficiency and precision what has been done, either in the way of scientific research or in the matter of practical legislation, by other inquirers and by other countries, with the view of determining whether any, and if so what, legislation may be desirable to effect the objects of the Bill.” _Ibid._, iv.

[1296] _E.g._, “That this conference regards as conclusive the evidence of a widespread diminution of the supply of food fishes in the North Sea and adjacent grounds, and is of opinion that the only practicable remedy is the prevention of landing and sale of immature and undersized fish.” Nat. Sea Fisheries Protection Ass., 1902.

[1297] _Report from, the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Sea Fisheries Bill (H.L.)_, 1904 (36). The Earl of Onslow, Lord Tweedmouth, and Lord Heneage were members of this Committee.

[1298] _Op. cit._

[1299] Thus from the year 1903 (when these statistics begin) to 1906 the number of tons of bottom fishes landed on the East Coast of England by first-, second-, and third-class fishing vessels, from the North Sea and from beyond the North Sea, was as follows:--

1903. 1904. 1905. 1906.

From North Sea 260,313 230,975 207,440 217,567 From beyond the North Sea 67,625 78,216 93,395 129,697

The particulars for all coasts are only given for 1906, and they show that almost half of the total supply of bottom fishes in England and Wales come from grounds outwith the North Sea. The figures are: from North Sea, 217,571 tons; from beyond the North Sea, 203,863 tons. Captain Walter S. Masterman, of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in a valuable report on his research work in the North Sea, states that while the total quantity of bottom fishes taken within the North Sea by steam-trawlers and landed on the East Coast of England has decreased in the four years, 1903-1906, by 39,650 tons, or nearly 17 per cent, the decrease in flat fish has amounted to 23,590 tons, or nearly 42 per cent; and that “the decrease has been continuous from year to year, especially in the case of plaice.” _Report on the Research Work of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in relation to the Plaice Fisheries of the North Sea_, 1908 (Cd. 4227).

[1300] A leading representative of the trawling industry, Mr G. L. Alward, thus described the process to the Committee of the Lords in 1904. The diminution, he said, was from over-fishing, “first of all in our original old fishing-grounds. We denuded those, and found less year by year as time went on. We then discovered new grounds, with, in process of time, the same result. In going back originally, say to about 1830 to about 1890, we found, at ground after ground, after being fished for a few years, the same results; the fish became scarcer and scarcer.” _Report_, p. 78.

[1301] The quantity brought to England from Iceland and Faröe in 1907 was nearly 117,000 tons, or nearly 26 per cent of the total quantity of bottom fishes landed. _Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Annual Report on Sea Fisheries for 1907_. Schmidt, _Fiskeriundersøgelser ved Island og Færøerne i Sommeren_, 1903, p. 132.

[1302] A sidelight is thrown upon the risks as well as the enterprise of their labours by the fact that in 1908 a trawler’s crew, on the one hand, fishing on the coast of Africa, fell into the hands of the Moors; while another, whose vessel was wrecked near the White Sea, were saved from starvation by the kindness of Russian Laplanders, who killed reindeer for their sustenance.

[1303] Trawlers, on discovering new and productive grounds, invariably select out the fish that are most remunerative and throw the rest back into the sea. “Hundreds of thousands of tons” of immature fish are said to have been destroyed in this way in the North Sea, and what has happened at Iceland with regard to mature fish is thus described in a letter from one trawler to another, which was read by the recipient to the Parliamentary Committee in 1893: “Dear Manton, ... At present the trawlers who are running Iceland are throwing thousands of tons of good mature fish away, which, if some scheme of storage were got up, the fish sorted, and bought for food, would supply thousands in the year. I have been to Iceland, and we have to throw away hundreds of tons of good mature fish, such as haddock, supposed to be too large, and great quantities of cod, ling, and other fish. The fact is, the ground, which is valuable for fishing, is completely rotten with the refuse from the trawlers. We have to haul every two hours, and we have to carry extra hands to get rid of the fish and get the bit below we choose to save. The ground is fairly poisoned, and the plaice-fishing not so brisk, only in odd places; whereas before it was more general where there is any trawling ground” (_Report cit._, p. 248). The grounds had only been recently opened up when this was written. It is different to-day, when 85 per cent of the fish brought back from Iceland are round fish, chiefly haddocks and cod (_Ann. Rep. Sea Fisheries for 1906_, App., p. 15). It used to be the same in the North Sea, only prime fish being taken, and haddocks, &c., thrown away.

[1304] _Vida Marítima, Órgano de la Liga Marítima Española_, 1904, 1905; _Boletin oficial_.

[1305] Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, 51 & 52 Vict., cap. 54. Section 1 is as follows: “1.--(1) The Board of Trade may from time to time on the application of a county council or borough council, by order, (_a_) create a sea fisheries district comprising _any part of the sea within which Her Majesty’s subjects have by international law the exclusive right of fishing_, either with or without any part of the adjoining coast of England and Wales; and (_b_) define the limits of the district,” &c. _Sea Fisheries (England and Wales), Annual Reports of the Inspectors_; _Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, Annual Reports of Proceedings under Acts relating to Sea Fisheries_. An excellent chart, showing the regulations with respect to trawling around the English coast, is published in the _Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Sea Fisheries Bill_, 1904.

[1306] _Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland: Report on the Sea and Inland Fisheries for 1907._ Part I., General Report, pp. 56-62.

[1307] _Report on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1904_, p. xxv. _Manual of Fisheries (Ireland) Acts._ Section 3 (subsection 1) of the _Steam Trawling (Ireland) Act_, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 74), gave powers to the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries to make, alter, and revoke byelaws for prohibiting steam-trawling “within three miles of low-water mark of any part of the coast of Ireland, _or within the waters of any other defined areas specified in any such byelaw_, and subject to any conditions or regulations contained in such byelaw.” Subsection 2 enacted that “each and every person who uses any trawl-net, or any method of fishing in contravention of any byelaw of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries made in pursuance of this section,” shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five pounds for a first offence, or twenty pounds for a second or subsequent offence, with forfeiture of the gear employed. Section 4 made it unlawful for “any person” to land or sell in Ireland any fish caught in contravention of any such byelaw. Section 1 (subsection 1) of the _Fisheries (Ireland) Act_, 1901 (1 Ed. VII., c. 38), makes “every person who uses any trawl-net or any method of fishing in contravention of any byelaw” of the department made in pursuance of the third section of the Act of 1889, liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, with forfeiture of the gear, for the seizure of which any duly authorised officer is empowered to “go on board any vessel propelled by steam employed in fishing.” The Irish byelaws must be approved by the Lord-Lieutenant and Privy Council of Ireland.

[1308] _Sea Fisheries (Clam and Bait Beds) Act_, 44 & 45 Vict., c. 11.

[1309] 48 & 49 Vict., c. 70; 50 & 51 Vict., c. 52.

[1310] 48 & 49 Vict., c. 70.

[1311] 1st Feb. 1886, 18th April 1887, 25th April 1887, &c. _Manual of Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Acts and Statutory Bye-laws_, pp. 253-257.

[1312] See pp. 592, 643.

[1313] _Ibid._, p. 255.

[1314] _The Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act_, 1889, 52 & 53 Vict., c. 23. Section 7.--(1) “The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling shall not be used within a line drawn from Duncansby Head, in Caithness, to Rattray Point, in Aberdeenshire, in any area or areas to be defined in such byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke byelaws for the purposes of this section, but no such byelaw shall be of any validity until it has been confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland.” The next section prohibits the landing or sale in Scotland of any fish caught in contravention of the Act or byelaws.

[1315] “11.--(1) The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling shall not be used within a line drawn from Rattray Point, in Aberdeenshire, to the Farne Islands, in Northumberland, in any area or areas to be defined in such byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke byelaws for the purposes of this section.”

[1316] _A Bill [as amended in Committee] intituled An Act for the better Regulation of Scottish Sea Fisheries_ (52), s. 10, February 1895.

[1317] _Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act_, 1895, 58 & 59 Vict., c. 42. Section 10.--(1) “The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling shall not be used in any area or areas under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty, within thirteen miles of the Scottish coast, to be defined in such byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke byelaws for the purposes of this section. Provided that the powers conferred in this section shall not be exercised in respect to any areas under Her Majesty’s jurisdiction lying opposite to any part of the coasts of England, Ireland, or the Isle of Man, within thirteen miles thereof.” (2) provided for a local inquiry to be held. (3) “Provided that no area of sea within the said limit of thirteen miles shall be deemed to be under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty for the purposes of this section unless the powers conferred thereby shall have been accepted as binding upon their own subjects with respect to such area by all the States signatories of the North Sea Convention, 1882.”

[1318] _Eighteenth Ann. Rep. Fishery Board for Scotland_, Part I., p.