267 



tlio Bristol Channel more tlian tlirec miles from tlic shoio of Olamorg^ansliire on 

 the nortli side, and more than tliree miles from Duvonsliire anc! Someraetsliire on 

 tlie south side. Cuiinin<i:liam was indicted lor a crime committed in Ghimoroanshire. 

 The place wlicre tlie vessel lay was hi.u;li up in the channel, somewhere alwut ninety 

 miles from its moulli, and yet not as far up as tlie river Severn. The (juestion was, 

 whether that was a ))art of the realm of CJreat Uritain, so that a man could be indicted 

 for a crime committed there. Now, there is a ^reat deal of wisdom in the decision made 

 in that case. The Court say, substantially, that each case is a case sui. ijenvris. It 

 depends upon its own cireumstanees. Eufjlishmen and Welshmen had always inha- 

 bited both banks of the Bristol Channel. Thousli more than ten miles in width at 

 its entrance, it still flowed up into the heart of Great IJritain; houses, farms, towns, 

 factories, churclies, courthouses, j^aols, everything on its banks ; and it seemed a pre- 

 posterous idea, and I admit it, tluU, in time of war, two forei<;n ships could sail up that 

 Bristol Cliannel and (igiit out their battle to their own coiuent, on the s^round that they 

 did not j;o within three miles of the shore. I liiink ii would have been prei)osterous to 

 say that a foreign merchantmen could liave sailed up the centre of that cliannel, and 

 defied the lleet and armies of Great Britain, and all her custom-house cutters, on the 

 ground that slie was flying; the American or the French tiafj;, and the deck was a part 

 of the soil imder that flai;. It was a (luestion of political geo<>Taphy — not of natural 

 p;eoi;rai)hy. It was a rpiestion of its own circumstances. It was decided to be a i)art of 

 the realm of Great Britain. I do not know that anybody can object to the dec'jion. 



The " I'raneonia" case, 2 Ex. 13. 159, which attracted so much attention a short 

 time ago, did not raise this fpiestion, but it is of some importance for us to remember. 

 In that case there was no tpieslion of headlands. It was a straif^lit line of coast, 

 and tlu^ vessel was within three miles of it. But what was the ship doing ? She was 

 beating her way down the English Channel against the sea and wind, and she 

 made her stretches toward the English shore, coming as near as safety permitted, 

 and then to the French shore. She was in innocent use of both coasts. She w:is not 

 a trespasser because she tacked within three miles of tlie British shore. It was a 

 necessity, so long as that Channel was open li commerce. The question wliich arose 

 was this. A crime having been committed on board that ship while she was within 

 three miles of the British coast, was it committed within the body of the county 1 Was 

 it committed within the realm, so that an English sheriflT could arrest the man, an 

 English grand jury indict him, an English jury convict him, under English law, he being 

 a foreigner on board a foreign vessel, bound from one foreign port to another, while 

 perhaps the law of his own country was entirely different from that of England ? Well, 

 it was extraordinary to see how the conunon-law lawyers were put to their wits' end to 

 make anything out of that statement. The more thoroug]d)red in the common-hiw, the 

 less did the lawyers understand it; it was the more variously trained men who s<it 

 upon the bencli wiio understood it better, and at last, by a majority of one, it was most 

 happily decided that the man had not committed an otlence within a British county, and 

 he was rehnised. That case turned not on a (piestion of natural geography, nor of 

 political geography. It raised the issue : What is tlie natiu'e of the authority that a 

 neigiil)ouring nation can exercise within the three-mile limit? 



This naturally leads to tlie <iuestion : "Does fishing go witli the three-mile line ? " I 

 have had the honour to say to this tribunal that there is no decision to tiiat effect, though 

 I admit tliat there is a great deal of loose language in that direction. 1 do not raise any 

 question respecting those lish tliat adhere to tiie soil, or to tlie ground under tiie sea. 

 But on what does that three-mile jurisdiction rest, and what is the natiu'e of it ? I suppose 

 we can go no further tlian this — tliat it rests upon the necessities ot the bordering 

 nation — the necessity of preserving its own peace and safety, and of executing its own 

 laws. I do not think that there is any other test. Then the (juestion may arist', and does, 

 whether, in the absence of any attempt by Statute of Treaty to i)r()hibit a foreign vessel 

 from following with the line or the seine, and net, the free-swimming fish witliin that 

 belt, his doing so makes him a trespasser by any established law of nations i* I am 

 confident it does not. That, may it please the tribunal, is tire nature of this three-mile 

 exclusion, for the reliiKpiishment of whieli Great Britain asks us to make pecuniary 

 compensation. It is oik; of some importance to Iut, a cause of constant trouble, and, as 

 I shall show you — as has been shown you already by my predecessors — of very little 

 pecuniary value to England, in sharing it with us, or to ns in obtaining our share, but 

 a very dangerous instrument for two nations (o |)lay with. 



I would say one word here about the decision in the Privy Council in 1H77 

 respecting the territorial rights in Conception Bay. 1 have read it over, and though 1 

 have very great respect for the common-law lawyer, Mr. Justice Blackburn, who was 



W: 



