GOVERNMENT HOUSE JERSEY,

26th December 1883

Sir,

I have great pleasure in transmitting to you, herewith, copy of a letter from the Home Office in reply to one from me of the 8th instant, covering a copy of the note addressed by Earl Granville to the French Ambassador in England, on the 24th October last, on the subject of the Ecréhos Islets, and I shall be obliged by your laying them before the States at their next meeting, as requested by the Secretary of State.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Signed) HENRY WRAY,

Major-General, Lt.-Governor.

EDWARD MOURANT, Esq.,

Lieut.-Bailiff of Jersey.

6177 [Copy]

A——B.

38 WHITEHALL, 21st December1883

Sir,

I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, suggesting with reference to previous correspondence that some communication should, if possible, be made to the States of the Island of Jersey by way of reply to the prayer of their Deputation which waited on the Privy Council early in June last, on the subject of the Ecréhos Rocks. And, in accordance with your suggestion, I am to transmit, herewith, a copy of the note addressed by Earl Granville to the French Ambassador in this country, on the 24th October last, upon the subject in question, with a view to the same being brought before the States of Jersey at their next meeting.

I am, Sir,Your obedient Servant,

The Lieut.-Governor of Jersey.

(Signed) A. F. O. LIDDELL

EARL GRANVILLE TO M. WADDINGTON. .

M. L’ AMBASSADEUR, FOREIGN OFFICE, October 24, 1883.

Since I had the honour to acknowledge the receipt of M. Tissot’s notes of 25th April and 26th May last on the subject of the claim of French fishermen, under the Convention of 1839, to fish within 3 miles of the islets called the Ecréhos, near Jersey, Her Majesty’s Government have fully considered the representations of the French Government therein contained, and I have now the honour to communicate to Your Excellency the conclusions at which they have arrived.

In the first of M. Tissot’s communications above referred to, complaint was made that the States of Jersey were about to pass an Act prohibiting to French fishermen access to the Ecréhos, in violation of the existing usage, and of the Fishery Convention of 1839, and hope was expressed that Her Majesty’s Government would recognize the justice of the of the protest of the French Government, and take steps to prevent any disturbance of the existing state of things.

Before proceeding further, I desire to correct a misapprehension which appears to have arisen as to the supposed legislative measure of the States of Jersey. It was not a "Projet de Loi" in the sense understood by M. Tissot, but only a Petition presented to the States by the Jersey fishermen, praying that steps might be taken to protest the exclusive right of fishery which they claim within 3 miles of the Ecréhos under the Convention of 1839.

In his second letter of the 26th May, M. Tissot, while complaining that the supposed "Projet de Loi" had been since voted by the States of Jersey, reiterates the hope that Her Majesty’s Government will not permit a departure from the status quo of 1881, which Her Majesty’s Government had then decided conditionally to leave undistubed.

His Excellency insisted on the character of neutrality which he held to be impliedly imposed on the Ecréhos by the Conventions between the two countries, thus suggesting for the first time the fact that those islets are neutral territory, a proposition which I may be permitted to observe has no foundation in any convention or correspondence between the two Governments.

I can hardly believe, M. l’Ambassadeur, that M. Tissot intended seriously to call in question the right of the British Crown to the sovereignty of the Ecréhos. These islets have always been treated as a dependency of Jersey; the soil belongs entirely to Jerseymen,—chiefly fishermen who have dwellings and own small tracts of land there—and the islets for administrative purposes form part of the Parish of St. Martin’s in the Island of Jersey.

Moreover, when, in October 1875, as stated by M. Tissot, the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury issued an Order constituting the Island of Jersey a Channel port, and mentioning the Ecréhos as being included in the limits of that port, the Earl of Derby, then Secretary of State for this Department, in reply to a representation from the French Ambassador on this subject, and after consultation with the Law Advisers of the Crown, furnished his Excellency with a statement of facts which in the view of Her Majesty’s Government, presented conclusive evidence of the title of the British Crown to the Ecréhos as dependencies of Jersey, and those statements the French Government did not attempt to controvert.

Her Majesty’s Government therefore, do not consider it necessary to discuss the question of the sovereignty of Great Britain over those islets; and the only question which arises is whether the Ecréhos being British territory, French fishermen are entitled, under the terms of the Convention of 1839, to participate either in the oyster fishery or in the general fishery within 3 miles of these islets.

M. Tissot, in his letter of the 25th April, argues that the question must be governed solely by the terms of the Convention of 1839, that three distinct "zones" were established by Articles I, II, and III of that Convention; the first being reserved exclusively to French fishermen, the second to British fishermen, and the third, or intermediate zone, to the fishermen of both countries; that, apart from any territorial question, the fishery in the intermediate zone was, by Article II of the Convention, declared to be common to the subjects of both countries; that the limits of the British zone are fixed by Articles II, at 3 miles from the Island of Jersey, and not 3 miles from the Ecréhos; and that, the latter islets being more then 3 miles from Jersey, they are within the intermediate zone, and therefore within the common fishery.

M. Tissot further argues that if the limit of the British zone were taken from the Ecréhos, instead of 3 miles from Jersey, it would entirely absorb in that locality the intermediate zone provided for in Article III of the Convention.

It is manifest that the above arguments cannot apply to the general fishery, but only to the oyster fishery, the limits of which are, as stated by M. Tissot, regulated by Articles I, II, and III of the Convention; and that even if the French claim were admitted as regards the oyster fishery, it would be clearly untenable as regards the general fishery, for the limits of the general fishery are regulated by Article IX of the Convention, and the British limit within which British fishermen have the exclusive right of fishery is fixed by that Article at 3 miles from low-water mark, not "from the Island of Jersey," but " along the whole extent of the coasts of the British Islands."

I may observe also that Article 65 of the fishery Regulations agreed to by the British and French Governments in May 1843 (and which are carried into effect, so far as British cruizers are concerned, by the Act 6 and 7 Vic., cap. 79, sec. 18) provides that "the Commanders of cruizers of both countries shall "exercise their judgment as to the causes of any transgressions committed by British or French fishing-"boats in the seas where the said boats had the right to fish in common," and the Article 85 of those Regulations enacts that "the fishing-boats of the one country shall not approach nearer to any part of the "coasts of the other country then the limit of 3 miles specified in Article IX of the Convention of 1839."

These very positive and unambiguous declarations could not be affected by the circumstances that the British and French zones described in M. Tissot’s letter happened, at one particular point, to overlap one another. But His Excellency would seem to be in error as to the fact, as the Ecréhos are situated about 5¾ miles from the coast of Jersey, and 8¼ miles from the coast of France; consequently the zones could not overlap.

In the same letter M. Tissot refers to the Fishery Convention of 1867, which has not yet come into operation, and the terms of which are rendered still more precise and conclusive by the definition given in Article XXXVIII of the words "British Islands," as including the Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, with their dependencies. His Excellency deprecates any argument being drawn from that provision adverse to the French claim; but it would be impossible, in the discussion of this question, to leave out of consideration the terms of the Convention of 1867, which did not purport to make any change in the fishery limits, and must be considered, therefore, as containing a more precise exposition of the meaning of the Convention of 1839 as regards the limits of the general right of fishery reserved to each nation. Indeed, as observed by M. Tissot, the British and French Commissioners in 1866 declared that there was no occasion to make any alteration in the Chart attached to the Convention of 1839. With reference to this Chart, however, His Excellency states that it reproduces as precisely as possible the limits of the British and French "zones," and notably those of the intermediate zone; but a reference to the Chart will show that the only limits delineated on it are those of the French oyster fishery, that is to say, the French zone. Neither the British zone nor the intermediate zone are delineated on the Chart, and therefore the question whether the Ecréhos are in the "Mer Commune," or within the exclusive British fishery limits, cannot be solved by reference to the Chart, but depends entirely on the construction of the Convention.

As regards the oyster fishery, Her Majesty’s Government consider the words in Article II of the Convention of 1839, "within 3 miles of the Island of Jersey," should be constructed as indicated in Article XXXVIII of the Convention of 1867, that is to say, as including the Ecréhos, which are "dependencies" of Jersey. It appears to them that notwithstanding the language used in Articles II and III of the Convention of 1839, as compared with that of Article IX, the intention of the High Contracting Parties on this point was precisely the same in 1839 as it was in 1867.

As regards the right of general fishery within 3 miles of the Ecréhos, Her Majesty’s Government consider that the terms of Article IX of the Convention of 1839, and of the Fishery Regulations above refereed to, admit of no doubt as to its being reserved exclusively to British subjects. The claim of French fishermen to participate in it appears to put in question the sovereignty of Great Britain over these islets, and I trust, therefore, M. l’Ambassadeur, that your Government will appreciate the difficulty felt by Her Majesty’s Government in making any concession on this point consistently with the territorial rights of this country.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) GRANVILLE