HC Deb 14 March 1834 vol 22 cc190-1
Mr. O'Connell

presented a Petition from the fishermen of the salmon fisheries on the rivers Barrow and Nore, signed by about 1,000 persons, complaining of great distress. They stated that they obtained a good livelihood until about five years ago, when a company was formed in Scotland to fish on those rivers with stake nets. That company was, in his opinion, perfectly illegal, by two Statutes, namely, the 28th Henry 8th, cap. 22, and the 10th Charles 1st, cap. 14. Some time ago a private individual prosecuted a party for using those nets on the Shannon, and a verdict of 40s. damages was obtained, thereby establishing the illegality of the use of stake-nets. As, however, the Statutes did not give costs, the plaintiff was put to the expense of 400l., and, consequently, persons, particularly in the condition of poor fishermen, were deterred from further prosecuting. The former Statute empowered the Sheriff and his officers of the three counties of Kilkenny, Carlow, and Waterford, on notice being given to them, to destroy weirs. The petitioners had applied to the Sheriffs, and on their refusing to act applied to the Government, who, however, postponed any reply until a case between the Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Smith, which was then pending in the ourt of King's Bench, was decided. The Court of King's Bench did decide in favour of the noble Duke, and thereby again established the illegality of the weirs. They applied to the Lord Lieutenant again, and were informed that the Government would not interfere. What was the consequence? Two Statutes were distinctly violated by a wealthy company, who could easily contend against a poor man, as the notion of a poor fisherman going to law, who never in his life, perhaps, could scrape together as much money as would pay for the first process, was as wild as to dream of paying off the National Debt. He submitted to the House whether this was not a case in which the prayer of the petition ought to be attended to? They might proceed against those who violated the Statute by indictment, and in the present case there could be no difficulty. Though he had not the honour to be the legal adviser to the Irish Government, yet he had no hesitation in stating, that, there was no lawyer who saw the Statutes but would tell them at once that there was a distinct mode of proceeding, and an easy remedy.

Petition laid on the Table.

Back to