The Newfoundland Fisheries: To the Editor of the Standard: Sir, – Permit me to thank you for your able article in the Standard of Tuesday, upon the Newfoundland Fishery Question, and to indulge in the hope that the Government will strenuously oppose French pretensions as to the right to erect lobster factories on the so-called “French shore” of Newfoundland, and that it will afford better protection to the Newfoundland fishermen in the coming season. I notice also the arrival in England of the Assistant Judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Mr. Justice Pinsent, who appears in his usual position as “standing counsel” for the French. Mr. Pinsent overlooks the fact that, according to his interpretation of the Treaty, the French could claim possession of the shoreline of any bay or harbour as “necessary for the prosecution of their cod fishery,” even if they have abandoned its use for years. A few French fishing craft could make their appearance in any of the settlements, and forbid Newfoundlanders to fish at any time. According to Mr. Pinsent’s opinion, this is perfectly legal: consequently the “grants” of land issued by the Newfoundland Government are worthless, as that Government has no power to protect them. Some friends of mine, interested in some lobster factories on the west coast of the island, propose to protect their property during the coming season against any interference by the French, and to arm their men with good repeating rifles and plenty of cartridges. In the event of any troubles occurring, it is to be hoped they may not come into Mr. Pinsent’s Court, as in spite of his learned “opinions” and his protestations of patriotism in your columns, he will fasten the fetters of his idolised “Treaty” around them, for lawyers have no sentiment, and Mr. Pinsent can look coolly on while a French man-of-war cutter cuts Newfoundland nets, and most of French fishermen destroy poor men’s boats, or permit them to gain a precarious living, while French rum is smuggled in, and the efforts of Christian minister are paralysed, schools remain closed, and the great mineral and forest wealth of the fairest portion of the island remains untouched. Suppose the position was transferred to the coasts of Yorkshire or Devonshire, would Mr. Pinsent talk about “the dirty work of repudiation”? Are the outrageous conditions under which nine thousand British subjects live to be perpetuated forever? France is about to repudiate her Commercial Treaties. The United States repudiated the late Treaty at six month’s notice, and even Mr. Pinsent would not dare to call that “dirty work.” If Newfoundland is not to be developed, because “she is among the humble relics of the old French Empire in America,” as Mr. Pinsent has said elsewhere, hers is a hard lot indeed! Let us appeal to a higher Court than Mr. Pinsent’s – the British House of Commons and the British people. I am, sir, your obedient Servant, G. Allen, 46 Queen Square, Bristol, 21st January.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0747 Hennock: Robert John Pinsent: 1834 – 1893