THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS 47 



of 1843, no means existed whereby a British 

 fisherman could obtain redress for an injury com- 

 mitted by a native of France. 



This was a state of matters which could not 

 continue, and it was found necessary to re-enact 

 the provisions of the Convention of 1839. This 

 was done in iSy/, 1 and fora time an anomalous 

 system of jurisdiction existed. The Conventions 

 applied only to the English Channel, and the 

 great and fruitful area of the North Sea was left 

 entirely unprovided for. Therefore, if a French 

 fisherman injured a British fisherman in the 

 Channel, he could be proceeded against ; but if he 

 committed the injury in the North Sea, redress 

 was impossible to obtain. Again, a British fisher- 

 man proceeding for compensation against another 

 British fisherman took advantage of the Act of 

 1868, but if he proceeded against a Frenchman, 

 he had to be content with the Act of 1843. 



The state of the law, then, as regards the 

 regulation of the fishing boats on the offshore 

 fishing grounds was extremely unsatisfactory, and 

 the Commissioners of 1878 drew attention to the 

 need for reform. Several inquiries were also held 

 with the object of determining the nature and 

 scope of the legislation demanded. The facts 

 brought out by these inquiries are fairly repre- 

 sented by the evidence published in the report 



1 By the Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters) Act, 40 and 

 41 Viet. c. 42 (1877). 



