205 



engaged in it all their lives, they cannot poijit out a, solitary owner who has 

 become ivcaJthy from the irrofita of the Jishing business alone, nor a single 

 fisherman, unth a family diyending wpo?i him for suj)port, who has been able 

 to lay 'U'p,from the earnings of the business, a surjdusfor his old age^ 



In 184S many crews of fishing vessels owned in NeAvburvport, on 

 settlini^- with their owners, for six and seven months' hard toil at sea, 

 received onl}' about ten dollars per month ; and on this miserable pit- 

 tance they were to eke out the 3'ear. They had obtained good farea 

 offish, but were sufTerers i'rom tlic depressed state of the market. 



With facts like these before us, can we wonder that the more ambi- 

 tious 3'oung men abandon the employment at every opportunity? 

 Should we not wonder, rather, that any who seek to marry and to have 

 homes, and who are anxious to "lay up a surplus for old age," remain 

 in if? As a class, their condition has been without change. Sixty 

 years ago Fisher Ames said, in the first Congress, that "the fishermen 

 are too poor to remdn, too poor to remove."* 



*Thc report of a select committee of Parliiiment in 1833, on the British channel fisheries, 

 contiiins many interesting facta touching the same point. This committee was appointed in 

 consequence of the petitions of British fishermen, who complained of their distressful condi- 

 tion. Tlie committee, after iu<}uiries, which embraced the whole coast between Yarmouth and 

 Land's End, ruportcd that the channel fislieries, and th(^ interests which were connected with 

 them, were in a deeliiiiug state ; that " they appear to have been gradually sinking since the 

 peace of IS].'), and more rapidly during the ten years immediately preceding the investigation; 

 that the capital emi)Ioyed iu them did not yield a profitable return; tliat the number of vessels 

 and boats, as well as of men and boys, was much diminished; and that the fishermen's fami- 

 lies, who formerly paid rates and taxes, were then, in a greater or less degree, dependent upon 

 the poor rates." 



The causes assigned by the committee for this deplorable state of things were three : first, 

 the interference of French fishermen; second, the (juiintiry of foreign-caught fish sold in Lon- 

 don; third, the decrease and scarcity of fish in tlw- cliaiinel. Witli regard to the first, they 

 had evidence that, for a long pei'iod, large fleets of French tisliernuMi had frecpiented tlie coasta 

 of Kent and Sussex, and diat they had greatly increased in number since IrtJo, inasmuch as 

 there were no less than three hundred sailing out of Boidogue alone. The French vessels 

 were declared, indeed, to be more numerous than the Englisli vessels, to bo of larger size, and 

 to cany, frequently, double the number of men, as well as to use better nets and other fishing 

 gear. The comnuttee reniarked, further, that so disastrous to liritish fishermen had been 

 French interference, that while many were unable to earn a livelihood, some had been quite 

 ruined, or had witiidrawu from the business. 



.Siu-h statements, it luighi seem, were suflicieiitly hmniliating ; but the ccmimittce avrred 

 tliat the French had been in the iiabit of nieeting at sea boats from the Tliames and elsewhere, 

 wiiich took the foreign-caught fisii to thi' London market, where, it is to be inferred, they were 

 sold as of tilt.' pi'oduce of the British fisheries. This practice tliey condemned in strong tenns. 

 Of the third cause of distress, the commitree expressed the opinion, that the scarcit}' of fish 

 in the channel was occasioned by the great destruction of spawn, contrary to existing laws on 

 till) subject. 



To remedy these several evils, they suggested that foreiirm'rs should not be allowed to come 

 within a certain distr^ice to be j)rescril)ed; that such fisIieruHMi Ite required to cont(>rin to de- 

 fined and rigid rulfs ; and that oflicei-s of the revenue, Jind vessels cruising upon tlie coast, 

 should be instructed to euf()rci! wiiafever regiil;iti<ins iniybt lie adopted. They suggested, also, 

 the revision of the statutes relative to the destruction (d' spawn and yinmg fish, and to the use 

 of iiartinilar kinds of nets, and the repeal of other laws not specially relating to coasts whioh 

 they mentioned. 



The story of "aggressions," whether made by British subjects on this side of the Atlantic, 

 or on the other, is always to be examined before it is rect-ived as truth. In the cast- before us, 

 as in till" many tales related by the committees of the c<doniiil asstjmblii.'s, thi;re is sunietliing 

 t^i bi> allowed ; for it ap])ears that the English were " aggressors," alsit, on the fishiug-gronnds 

 of France at the very moii.ent that this report wns luider the consideration of rarliauuMit. In 

 J-^;!!, says a ISritish writer <d' authority, "A rencontre took place between smnt Jirstyjiflim^- 

 liiiats wliick luul in Uu: iiig/U IrcspumiU icitltin tlic nslrirlal liiiiit.1 of (ii^hf inU<:s off the I'rrnrk 

 cuast, and a French armed cutter, One boat was taken, and tho master of another shot." Tho 



