I desire to draw attention to a matter that arose on Monday night, the 24th June, or early on Tuesday, 25th June last Three motor launches, manned by inspectors and bailiffs, employees of the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company, and in command of a Captain Kinnard, who is the manager of the company, seized from Inishowen fishermen on Lough Foyle two nets in the vicinity of Tune lighthouse, on the Inishowen side. Havelin, the owner of one of the nets seized, states that a gun or riflo was presented at him by a member of the crew of one of the motor launches before he gave up possession of his net. A second net was seized from James Sharkey, who was fishing in the same area. The seizure of these nets was made in the most ruthless and high-handed manner. These men were fishing in Lough Foyle on licences issued by the Moville Conservators, who are subject to the control of the Department of Fisheries, and for which they paid £3 each. It is unnecessary for me to explain the geographical position. One side of the Lough is in County Derry and the other side is in County Donegal. The Inishowen side is what we are interested in. It appears that the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company derive their so-called right as lessees from the Irish Society, who claim to have a grant from King Charles the Second of a several fishery in Lough Foyle. The question now arises, is this grant from Charles the Second to this London Company, known as the Irish Society and Ulster Plantation Institution, sound in law in the altered circumstances with Inishowen and Tirconaill part of the Saorstát? What are now the rights and privileges of Inishowen licensed fishermen in Lough Foyle, under both the Treaty and Constitution? I submit the Minister for Fisheries and the Executive Council ought at once to ascertain and have determined the rights of their subjects to the territorial waters of Lough Foyle. Meantime every protection and assistance should be afforded to these men to pursue their calling. I suggest that a detachment of the military now stationed at Bunerana should be ordered to Moville and Quigley Point to afford these men reasonable protection while they are carrying on their work of fishing in Lough Foyle. These are humble, hard-working men who have no capital or resources at their command, and I believe it is the bounden duty of the Government to assist them in obtaining their rights as fishermen on Lough Foyle.
In Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Seizure of Fishing Nets on Lough Foyle.
There seem to me to be three points involved in this. The first point is in connection with the ownership of a several fishery in inland and tidal waters around the shores of this country—Ireland as a whole. Those several fisheries were granted for the most part by Kings of England for something that had been given to them either in cash or in kind, or for some work done by people to whom they gave the grants. Those who work on the charters—those chartered, parties— hold that they are still entitled to the several fisheries which were covered by the grant given by monarchs like Charles the Second. Whether it would be held that their title was good in law or not in the present circumstances and, taking into consideration the circumstances under which the charters were granted, should be tested with all the vigour and all the resources that are at the disposal of the Minister for Fisheries. When a several fishery is owned by a chartered company the fishermen in the area in which the charter operates are prohibited from fishing. They and their families must of necessity depend on some other form of fishing, which takes place outside the area covered by the charter, or starve, as most of them are doing at the present time. Those who are operating the charters have certain boats fishing. They have certain weirs or traps in operation, and they take large quantities of salmon yearly, which are sold either in this country or exported to the London and Scottish markets. The total amount must come to some hundreds of pounds per annum, and that money, with the exception of a very small percentage, is being spent in England or on the Continent. In one particular case—I will not give the names of the people who hold the charter, because I think the case is sub judice—there is only one member of the company resident in Ireland. He lives in the Six Counties. Portion of the waters over which their charter operates is situated in the Free State, and it means that thousands of pounds that should be made and spent by fishermen in the Saorstát are being made by people who are working under a charter and spending all the money that should be in circulation in this country in England or on the Continent. Therefore, as long as those people continue to hold charters for the several fisheries in this State so long will the genuine fishermen of the State be compelled to seek a living elsewhere.
The second point is in connection with the issuing of licences. In this particular case referred to by Deputy White, if the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company are justly entitled to operate under the charter that they pretend to hold from the Irish Society—if it is a right and proper thing in law—the conservators who are working under the Fisheries Board of the Free State have simply no right to grant licences for the fishing of salmon. In granting those licences they conveyed the impression to these fishermen that they had a right to fish on the licences granted to them. Point number 3 is distinct from the cases of the several fishery, inasmuch as, if the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company have a title to the several fishery they are still not entitled to import gunmen from the Six Counties to operate even in the waters over which they pretend to hold a charter for the purpose of seizing gear from citizens of the Free State. There is a question of the territorial waters being invaded by an armed party from the Six Counties. I should be the last to try and differentiate between the Twenty-six Counties and the Six Counties, but what rights we have we should hold. We have few enough rights, and what we have we should make our best of. The question then arises: Do we own the territorial waters of the Free State or do we not? If we do not own them, then we should say so bluntly and promptly. If we do not own them, we have no right to pretend we do, nor have we a right to expend money on a patrol boat which protects, or is supposed to protect, the fishermen of the Free State and still is not empowered to do so. If we do own the territorial waters of the Foyle, then, granted even that the charter held by the Foyle and Bann Company is a right and good one, the Foyle and Bann Company have no power to import men from another State—the Six Counties—to protect their own property in the several fishery of Lough Foyle. Granted that they are entitled to hold the waters there, they cannot invade territorial waters and bring in men with guns from another State. No other country in the world would allow their territorial waters to be invaded in such a manner. If we do own the territorial waters I would suggest to the Minister that he send the patrol boat around and the first patrol boat belonging to the Foyle and Bann Company that comes along armed from the Six Counties, or anywhere else, for the purpose of penalising the fishermen, should be told to "heave to" and surrender, and if it does not surrender it should be sunk promptly. We have to protect what we have got. We have got little but what we have we should protect. We should decide here and now, definitely, whether or not we own the territorial waters. If we do not, let us cut off the mask of hypocrisy altogether and say we do not own them. If we do own them, then let us protect our property with all the resources that are at the back of the Minister for Fisheries and at the back of the State as a whole.
The matter brought before the House to-day by Deputy White raises very important issues. In the first place, it raises the question of the rights of the Free State in regard to the territorial waters of Lough Foyle. In the second place, it raises the very important issue of the rights of the fishermen in Tirconaill to earn their livelihood as fishermen on Lough Foyle. I might mention that a somewhat similar incident took place in 1923. In that year an attempt was made by representatives of the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company to seize the nets of the fishermen fishing on Lough Foyle. I might mention that these fishermen were fishing in a legitimate manner. They had their licences from the Moville Board of Conservators. In the year 1923 the matter was brought before the Moville District Court. At that time District Justice Walsh expressed the view that the whole of Lough Foyle was Free State waters, as Lough Foyle was mentioned statutorily as being the boundary of Northern Ireland. When that decision was given the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company did not pursue their prosecutions. In that connection I may read a brief extract from a judgment given by District Justice Walsh in Moville on October 9, 1923. He said:
I have to consider the Irish Society's title to this fishery. They claim under grant from King Charles II., but before I proceed to discuss that grant it might be well to make clear that at present the King of England, as such, has no rights whatever in the soil or waters of the Irish Free State. By Article 11 of the Constitution it is enacted: "All the lands and waters, mines and minerals, within the territory of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) hitherto vested in the State or any Department thereof or held for the public use or benefit and also all the natural resources of the same territory (including the air and all forms of potential energy) and also all royalties and franchises within that territory shall, from and after the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution belong to the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) subject to any trusts, grants, leases or concessions then existing in respect thereof or any valid private interest therein..."
As Deputy White and Deputy Carney have pointed out, the Free State have certain rights in regard to Lough Foyle. The action which has been adopted by the Six-County fishery company is a direct violation of those rights. They came in to the waters of the Foyle as Deputy White pointed out, at dead of night and endeavoured, at the point of the gun, to terrorise these fishermen and prevent them earning their livelihood. I hope the Minister for Fisheries and the Executive Council will not take this matter lying down. I hope they will take a stand in regard to this matter. I would certainly urge on the Executive Council that they should stand up and maintain their rights in regard to the territorial waters of the Foyle. They should not allow their rights to be filched from them, nor should they allow the rights of the fishermen of Lough Foyle to earn their livelihood in a legitimate manner to be filched from them. I join with Deputy White and Deputy Carney in urging that the Government should take action in this matter and that they should take action without delay.
No question of territorial waters arises in this case. Let us suppose that it is not fishermen who are involved in this question. Let us suppose that a farmer, in the ordinary exercise of his profession, was using a mowing machine on land which he claimed to be his. Some persons, some of whom he knows as residents close to him, invade his property and seize his machinery. What do you think that man would do? That merely brings in a man of different occupation and it is an absolute analogy. This farmer is working in a place which he holds to be his. The fishermen are working in a place which they hold to be theirs. I am not saying whether it is or not. The implements with which he is working are seized. I wonder what would such a man do? I wonder would he go along to a Deputy and ask him to wire the Minister for Agriculture, or if he would do the more obvious thing and report the matter to the police?
If he did that in this case, what would happen?
That is not a fair analogy, because the Irish Society are resident in the Six Counties.
I have got reports, and a certain number of the bailiffs of the Foyle and Bann Company who it is alleged were present on the boats, are residents in the Free State. If certain residents of the Free State interfere with a man while exercising his rights ever his property the person who is the victim of that action has an obvious remedy. This matter is in some senses ticklish. The question of the ownership of a several fishery in Lough Foyle is a matter in which the Minister has no say. That is entirely for the courts. It is the same as ownership of any other property. If we went into the history of the ownership of land in this country, there might be a great deal of similarity in the way the ownership originally came about. If you question private ownership at all in one particular type of property, you are endangering that right in most other properties. The question of the Moville Board issuing licences to these drift-net fishermen merely amounts to this—that any person going into the Moville Board producing his £3 and asking for a drift-net licence will get it, just the same as he will get, in any other part of the country, a rod licence on paying £2. But that rod licence will not entitle him to go on to some person's private property and use his rod.
Does the Minister maintain that Lough Foyle is private property?
No. Perhaps the Deputy would wait and hear what I have to say. If it is a question—and it is a question—of a several fishery on Lough Foyle and that these persons can maintain that they have that fishery on Lough Foyle, the licence issued by the Moville Board does not give these men the right to fish there. I do not want to prejudice any case that may arise, and the less said about this matter the better. The case mentioned was tried some years ago. These men were prosecuted for poaching in a several fishery. They started to exercise that right about 1922 or 1923. They were summoned, I think, about 1924.
In October, 1923.
The solicitor, acting presumably on their behalf, said there was a question of title involved, and claimed to dispute the title of the Irish Society, who are the lessors of the Foyle and Bann Company. The District Justice decided that there was a bona-fide question of title raised.
And he expressed the view that the waters belonged to the Free State.
Unfortunately, he is not the person to decide that at all. There was a method which the Foyle and Bann Company might have taken subsequently to establish their title which they did not take. This case was tried in one of the highest courts existing some years ago and they were confirmed in their title. We must accept that until their title is quashed. It is a matter that may come before the Courts in the future. In the future it is most likely that some legal proceedings will follow from the incident of Monday week last, and for that reason, I feel that discussing the matter here in public may prejudice what may occur. I think, therefore, it might be better to let matters lie until we see what transpires in the Court.
I should like to ask the Minister: do we own the territorial waters of the Free State or do we not?
The word "territorial" means belonging to the State.
I take it then that the territorial waters belong to the Free State?
If they are territorial they belong to the State. That is the meaning of "territorial."
I presume it has the ordinary meaning—three miles from the tidal mark.
Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that his Department, or the Executive Council, is prepared to take action in regard to this matter, and will not throw the responsibility for taking action on the poor fishermen?
I am not going to give any such guarantee. Other fishermen who are in exactly the same position in the very same county found a way of taking action.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.25 p.m. until Wednesday, at 3 p.m.