HC Deb 06 March 1884 vol 285 cc787-810

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Fishery board may make bye-laws for determining mesh of nets).

MR. BIRKBECK

said, that in moving the first Amendment which stood in his name, it might be convenient that ho should explain to the Committee that his object in moving the Amendments of which he had given Notice was to increase the powers of this very useful Bill. He felt that if the Committee sanctioned the increase of powers which he proposed they would give to the Boards of Conservators, if appointed, the very powers which were required in a great many districts of England. The Act of 1878, which was introduced by the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), had been a great success; but time had proved that Boards of Conservators ought to have more powers than the Act of 1878 gave them. The proposals he had to make to the Committee proceeded very much upon the lines of the Norfolk and Suffolk Act of 1877, which had been successful in its operation; the chief object of his Amendments was to provide for the appointment, in certain districts, of Boards of Conservators. He wished the Committee to clearly understand that if the very extensive powers which he suggested were given there would always be the safeguard against any abuse of those powers that no Board of Conservators could be appointed unless the Quarter Sessions sanctioned the appointment, and that any bye-laws that might be drawn up would have, in the first instance, to be publicly advertised for one month, and then to be submitted to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for his confirmation. He begged to move the first Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the word "bye-laws," to insert the words "for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say."—(Mr. Birkbeck)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HIBBERT

quite agreed with the Amendments proposed by the hon. Gentleman. They were all framed in accordance with the object of the Bill, and there was no doubt they would greatly improve the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the word "catching," to insert the word "freshwater."—(Mr. Hibbert.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "in freshwaters."—(Mr. Hibbert.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "one," and insert the words "half an." The object of the Amendment was to make the minimum mesh half an inch instead of one inch, as proposed in the Bill. He should be glad if his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert), who had charge of the Bill on behalf of the Government, would inform the Committee whether the minimum mesh was fixed in accordance with the Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries; if not, in accordance with what information was the size of the mesh fixed? He was bound to say that when he put down his Amendment he was under the impression that the minimum mesh of one inch would hardly be small enough in the case of nets for catching bait; but he had since obtained the information from the Board of Conservators who had charge of the rivers in the borough (Christchurch) for which he sat that a minimum mesh of one inch was not too large for bait catching. He thought, however, that if a mesh of no smaller size than one inch was allowed eel fishing would be almost ruined, because there was scarcely any eel who would not find his way through a one-inch mesh. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) intended to accept the Amendment which stood upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings). That Amendment would possibly meet his (Mr. Horace Davey's) objection; therefore he should be pleased if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) would say at once whether he was prepared to accept it. In the meantime, he begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "one," and insert the words "half an."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Clause."

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. The Bill had been drawn upon the scale of a one-inch minimum mesh; therefore it would be unfair if they were to reduce the mesh now. It was his intention to accept the Amendment respecting eels standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings); therefore he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the present Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, after the second word "knot," to insert "measured when wet."—(Mr. Hibbert.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, after the word "inches," to insert the words "from knot to knot."—(Mr. Hibbert.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BIRKBECK

proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "three." The object of this Amendment was to increase the maximum size of the mesh from two to three inches. He would not press the Amendment if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) saw any objection to it; but he urged the Government to seriously consider whether the power he suggested ought not to be given. For seven years the three-inch mesh had been adopted in Norfolk with the greatest success.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "three."—(Mr. Birkbeck.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."

MR. WARTON

, while expressing no opinion in favour of, or adverse to, the present Amendment, pointed out that any regulation as to the size of the mesh, however well considered, might be evaded by men fishing with two nets so close together that, in reality, the size of the mesh would be much smaller than three inches. He did not know whether there was anything in the Bill to guard against a resort to such a proceeding.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he thought an Amendment to be proposed subsequently by the hon. Member (Mr. Birkbeck) would meet such a case as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) contemplated.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. He had been in communication with the people who got their living by fishing, and with the Chairman of the Stour and Avon Conservancy Board; and they had informed him that for the purpose of catching bait a net of two-inch mesh would be very proper; but a net with a three-inch mesh would be too large.

Question put, and negatived.

Word substituted.

MR. BIRKBECK

proposed, in page 1, line 14, after the word "wet," to insert— (2.) For determining the length and size and description of nets for catching freshwater fish, which may be lawfully used within the district of such board, and the manner of using the same; and (3.) For prohibiting the use of any mode and instrument of fishing for freshwater fish within the district of such board, where such mode or instrument appears to be prejudicial to the fisheries.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HASTINGS

proposed, in page 1, line 14, after the last Amendment, at end of sub-section (1), to insert— Provided, That no bye-law made under the authority of this section shall apply to any fixed nets for taking eels, or a landing net used as auxiliary to angling with a rod or line. He was afraid the Bill, as it stood, would cause serious damage to eel fishing in the Severn and Avon. That part of his Amendment which related to angling with a rod or line was intended to prevent the inconvenience which would probably arise to private anglers from the operation of the measure. He had no doubt that the different Boards of Conservators would make different bye-laws for their respective districts; and, therefore, it might happen that a man fishing one day within the district of one Conservancy Board would find his net came within the Board's regulations; while the next day, fishing within the district of another Board's jurisdiction, he might find his net was of an unlawful size, and he might possibly be fined for using it. Now, such a state of things would be inconvenient to everyone, and to a poor man it might be very oppressive. He hoped, therefore, his Amendment would meet with the approval of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert).

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, after Mr. Birkbeck's Amendment, at end of sub-section (1), insert "Provided, That no bye-law made under the authority of this section shall apply to any fixed nets for taking eels, or a landing net used as auxiliary to angling with a rod or line."—(Mr. Hastings.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. DODDS

said, he hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment. It was one which he had already brought under their notice at the suggestion of one of the oldest anglers in the North of England.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BIRKBECK

then moved the next Amendment which stood in his name. Its provision had been of great use under the Salmon Fisheries Act, and he was quite sure it would be of great use under this Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 16, after "bye-law," insert "and provide for the seizure and for the forfeiture, on summary conviction, of nets, instruments, and devices used in contravention of any such bye-law, and of fish found in the possession of a person contravening any such bye-law, and of fish caught by any such means, or in any such manner, as is contrary to any such bye-law, and such fish shall be deemed to be illegally caught, and any such forfeiture may be enforced by a court of summary jurisdiction."—(Mr. Birkbeck.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Short title and construction of Act 41 and 42 Vict. c. 39).

MR. BIRKBECK

proposed to exclude Scotland and Ireland, and the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and the county of the city of Norwich, from the operation of the Act. The words he proposed to insert were the same as in the Act of 1878, and he understood the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) had no objection to their insertion in this Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 24, after "1878," to insert the words "and shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland, nor to the counties of Norfolk or Suffolk, or to the county of the city of Norwich."—(Mr. Birkbeck.)

MR. HIBBERT

said, he did not think these words were necessary; but if his hon. Friend wished to have them inserted he would consent to the Amendment.

MR. WARTON

was of opinion that the Amendment ought to form a separate clause, instead of being tacked on to Clause 2.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that perhaps the hon. Member (Mr. Birkbeck) would, before the Report stage, consider whether these words were really necessary. If the hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that they could not do without these words, no doubt the House would accept them, and incorporate them in the Bill in the proper place, wherever that might be.

MR. BIRKBECK

said, he really thought the words were indispensable; but he would be very happy to consider the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), to insert them in the Bill in the form of a third clause.

MR. HIBBERT

The hon. Member, then, will bring up this Amendment in the shape of a new clause?

MR. BIRKBECK

I will.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he wished to add a sub-section to Clause 2, to the effect that the expression "freshwater fish" meant any fish living permanently or temporarily in fresh water, exclusive of salmon.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 26, at end, insert the following sub-section:—" In the construction of this Act, the expression 'freshwater fish' means any fish living permanently or temporarily in freshwater, exclusive of salmon."—(Mr. Hibbert.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. BIRKBECK

said, he wished now to move a new Clause, giving power to form Boards for coarse fish districts. The clause would supply a want which had been for a long time very largely felt throughout England. It would effect a very important object, and would apply to a great many counties—including Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, Middlesex, Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Oxfordshire, Suffolk, Sussex, Hampshire, Kent, and Gloucestershire, and portions of other counties. The clause would give the power requisite for the purpose of protecting most important fisheries which had been, up to the present time, neglected. Without further words, he would move the Clause on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, after Clause 1, to insert the following Clause:— (Power to form board for coarse fish district.) Fishery districts may be formed, and conservators appointed, for water frequented by any freshwater fish, and section six of 'The Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878,' shall apply as if 'freshwater fish' were therein substituted for 'trout or char,' and 'salmon trout or char,' and section twenty-seven of 'The Salmon Fishery Act, 1865,' shall apply as if 'freshwater fish' were therein substituted for 'salmon,' and any conservators so appointed shall have the powers conferred on conservators by 'The Salmon Fishery Act, 1876.' "—(Mr. Birkbeck.)

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. BIRKBECK

said, he wished also to move a new Clause dealing with powers of water bailiffs.

Amendment proposed, (Powers of water bailiffs—28 and 29 Vic. c. 121; 36 and 37 Vic. c. 71.) In substitution for section Right of 'The Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878,' which shall be repealed, it is hereby enacted that section thirty-one of "The Salmon Fishery Act, 1865,' and sections thirty-six, thirty-seven, and thirty-eight of 'The Salmon Fishery Act, 1873' (which sections relate to the powers of water bailiffs), shall extend to all waters within the limits of this Act in like manner as if those sections were re-enacted in this Act, with the substitution of 'freshwater fish' for 'salmon,' and of 'waters frequented by freshwater fish 'for' salmon river,' and with a reference to 'The Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878,' and this Act, in substitution for the reference to the Salmon Fishery Acts, 1861 to 1873, or any of them."—(Mr. Birkbeck.)

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said, he had a new Clause on the Paper with regard to the limitation of exemptions of the Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1878. The Act of 1878, it would be remembered, exempted from its operation all persons taking during the close season freshwater fish for use as bait. His Amendment proposed that no person should enjoy that exemption unless he was fishing in private waters. The proposal expressed the sense of a Resolution adopted on the 27th of June, 1881, at a meeting which took place in the Society of Arts Rooms, at which there were present upwards of 400 delegates and representatives from the various Angling Associations of the United Kingdom. The Resolution in question, he was informed, had been submitted to the Angling Association, and had received their approval. He had been requested to bring forward this proposal by the Angling Association of Sheffield; and he, therefore, moved that the words on the Paper be added to the Bill in the form of a new Clause.

Amendment proposed, (Limitation of exemptions in Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878.) Sub-heads (c.) and (d.) of sub-section three, of section eleven of 'The Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878,' shall be read and construed as if, after the word 'taking,' in each of the said subheads, were inserted the words 'in any several fishery, with the leave of the owner of such fishery."—(Mr. Stuart-Worthy.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was very sorry he could not accept the proposed new Clause. He felt bound to oppose it, because, in the first place, it would interfere with a compromise entered into at the time the Fisheries Act of 1878 was passing through the House. Sub-section 3 of Section 11 of the Fisheries Act was agreed to as a kind of compromise. He did not know that there would be any objection to the new Clause if it applied to public as well as private fisheries—if, in fact, in addition to the words proposed, the hon. Gentleman added, "or any public fishery with the consent of the Conservators." There were numerous cases in which it would be necessary to take fish for scientific purposes in public fisheries; but if the Clause were adopted in its present form there would be no right of doing that during close time.

MR. MUNDELLA

, said, he would recommend his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Home Office. The Committee would remember that the Fisheries Act of 1878 had been very carefully considered by a Select Committee, and that before that Committee, amongst other authorities, the late Mr. Frank Buckland was examined. It was on the evidence of that gentleman that the Clause that it was now sought to amend was inserted. There were several interesting animals in the Zoological Gardens which it was necessary to feed with live fish, even during the breeding season of fish. For that reason, therefore, Sub-section (C.) was inserted; and in consequence of that provision divers and many other wild fowl were provided with food which would be impossible without this Clause. If it was desirable to limit the Clause he should be very glad to do so. As to what had been done by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck), he must express his thanks for the able manner in which Amendments had been proposed. If the hon. Member (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) would bring up his Clause on Report, amended so as to include public fisheries as well as private fisheries, it would be probably desirable to include it in the Bill.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said, he should be happy to consider the matter as to whether the Clause could not be brought up on Report. He should not have proceeded at all in this business had it not been for the fact that before he put down his Amendment there were very few Freshwater Fishery Boards in the country. The Amendment, however, of his hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck) having been accepted, a great many more of these Boards would spring into existence—the condition of affairs would be very different now to what it had been.

MR. DODDS

also urged the Committee to allow the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), with the alteration proposed by the Government, to be put in the Bill. He trusted that those in charge of the Bill would consent to its being re-printed with the Amendments, and to a little time being allowed to elapse before the next stage was again taken. The Amendments were of a very important character, and it was desirable that the public out-of-doors should have time to consider them. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) should certainly be introduced into the Bill before Report, so that the measure might be sent down to the country for the opinion of those interested in it to be as complete as possible.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said, the hon. Member had made a suggestion which he should be glad to comply with; but would he suggest how it was to be done? Impromptu drafting was a very dangerous matter.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he would propose to add the words—"and in any public fishery with the leave of the Conservators." If the Amendment with that alteration were inserted in the Bill it could be reconsidered on Report, and, if not approved of, struck out.

MR. HEALY

asked whether the Bill applied to Ireland?

MR. HIBBERT

No.

MR. HEALY

desired to know why it was not stated at the end of the Bill that it did not apply to Ireland?

MR. HIBBERT

said, that it would be absolutely clear, from the text of the Bill, that it did not apply to Ireland.

Clause read a second time, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add "in any public fishery with the leave of the Conservators."—(Mr. Hubert.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. HEALY

said, that the people of Ireland were very deeply interested in this question of River Conservators. He himself had attended an inquiry into the subject at Slaney, and he and his friends were opposed every inch by the Conservators, who, it was found, were the persons who paid the licence duty along the river. If the law were the same in England as it was in Ireland he thought these heavy powers given to the Conservators was iniquitous, and that something should be done to alter it. The Conservators, as a general rule, were the gentry of the district, who were all in favour of rod-fishing. [Mr. MUNDELLA. dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) might shake his head; but he (Mr. Healy) could speak with certainty on this subject, particularly in regard to Ireland. At present, there was nothing in the Bill to show that it did not apply to Ireland.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he could assure the hon. Member that the Bill did not apply to Ireland, and would not apply to Ireland if left in its present form. At the same time, if the hon. Member was anxious to have assurance doubly sure, he (Mr. Hibbert) should be quite prepared to put in words setting forth that the measure did not apply to Ireland. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Birkbeck) was prepared to put in words to exempt Scotland and Ireland, the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and the county of the city of Norwich; and it was the fact that before anything was done under the Bill persons interested would be able to give evidence, either for or against the proposal, to the Home Office. He did not think there was any danger of infringing the rights of the poor, any more than the rights of any other class.

MR. HEALY

said, this question of river fisheries was one which ought to be dealt with with the utmost care. In Ireland, for some extraordinary reason or other, the unfortunate fishermen had been deprived of Saturday for fishing; and it appeared to him that when they had a Bill of this kind before them they were presented with an opportunity, which otherwise would not occur, of endeavouring to amend the Fishery Laws, which, at the present moment, were all in favour of the swells. In his country the right of fishing on Saturday was taken from the fishermen, in order to give the gentry the privilege of killing fish on that day—the gentry had the right of killing also on Sunday if they chose. He did not know why legisla- tion of this kind should be proceeded with in such a hurry, particularly when, if a day or two were granted, hon. Members might be able to bring forward Amendments which would have a very beneficial effect upon the industrial classes of Ireland. They should not deal with fisheries in this way—they should not, with indecent haste, adopt a measure which would affect the country at large; but they should give hon. Members an opportunity of putting down Amendments dealing with any part of this great question of the preservation of rivers; they should remember the case of the Blackwater. In that case the Duke of Devonshire alleged he held the river under a patent before King John from Lismore down to the sea. He (Mr. Healy) intended, at a convenient time, to bring in a Bill to meet this robbery by the noble Duke, the father of the Secretary of State for War—["Order!"] To his mind, it amounted to a theft of the people's rights by the Duke of Devonshire—["Order!"] He insisted upon using the expression. It was a robbery, under an old alleged patent, to deprive 400 or 500 men of their free rights of fishing—which rights they had possessed before 13 years of litigation and 11 trials with the Duke of Devonshire. Because the noble Duke had a long purse he had been enabled to deprive these unfortunate fishermen of their rights. Here they had a Bill brought in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) and the hon. Gentleman opposite the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert) dealing with fisheries; and the Bill gave Members from Ireland an admirable opportunity of moving Amendments dealing with fisheries in their country—an opportunity they had every right to avail themselves of. He would, therefore, move that the Chairman do report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Healy.)

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not insist upon the Motion for reporting Progress—that he would give attention to the circumstances under which the Bill was introduced. The Act of 1878, which he had had the honour of conducting through the House, had been passed with the sole object of protecting coarse freshwater fish during the breeding season. It had been promoted by the working class anglers of England, and had given them very great satisfaction. It had improved their sport and enjoyment; and he was sure the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would be one of the last persons in the world to deprive working men of that. The object of the present Bill was merely to extend the benefits of the Act of 1878, which was the first Act that ever dealt with coarse fish. It prevented the undue destruction of the fish, and was, in that way, of advantage to the community, especially the poorer classes; and, therefore, as the present Bill was to render it more perfect, the measure before the Committee should receive the support of all those who sympathized with the working classes. If the hon. Member would turn to the 2nd clause of the Act of 1878, he would there find that the 3rd section said that the Act should not apply to Scotland or Ireland; and as the present Bill incorporated that Act, this measure, when it became law, would also not apply to Ireland. The hon. Member evidently had not the Act of 1878 before him, or he would see at once that there was no danger of any Irish fishermen being interfered with by the Bill. In this matter there was no question as to the fishing of the gentry—the Bill was intended solely for the purpose of improving the poor man's fishing—it was for the purpose of extending the benefit of an Act which was valued and appreciated by hundreds of thousands of working men.

MR. O'SHEA

said, the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) and himself had a Bill, which they intended to bring in, dealing with the objection the hon. Member had brought forward with regard to Saturday close time in Ireland. He had happened to speak about the present Bill to the hon. Member for Waterford—who, as the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was aware, was one of the best authorities in the House on the subject of fishing—and the hon. Member assured him that he had no objection to this measure, as he believed it would be attended with great advantage to the poor fishermen of England.

MR. HEALY

said, with great respect, he would point out to his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Shea) that his object was not so much to give opposition to this Bill, as to endeavour to include in it clauses that would be to the advantage of the Irish fisheries. They had an extraordinary state of things in Ireland; and, with all respect to the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), he would point out that for two or three years he (Mr. Healy) had been anxious for an opportunity to do something for the fishery classes in his country; a private Member, however, had no kind of a chance of being able to make progress with a measure on such a subject as this. Here, however, they had a Bill brought in by the Government dealing with fisheries, and that gave them some slight chance of being able to effect something. For two or three years he had represented a fishing community, and, thanks to one of the Irish Fishery Inspectors, Mr. Brady—than whom no better Government official had ever lived—he had been able to obtain considerable advantages for the fishermen, although he had not been able to do all that he required. They had held an inquiry for two or three days into questions affecting the fishing industry; and he did not think it was too much to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to give them a day or two to look into the Bill, in order that they might take advantage of the information that they had obtained in that inquiry. At all events, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed further with the Bill than this 2nd clause, which had been passed, so that they might have the opportunity of debating the question of Irish fisheries—["Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen might be a little impatient; perhaps it was natural they should be. Irish questions were always troublesome—they were disgusting to Englishmen, just as English questions were disgusting to Irishmen. Let the Government give them until Monday to investigate the subject; that was not too much to ask. The Bill could not be blocked now, as they had got their second reading. He thought he could make out a case, and he should be delighted to have an opportunity of doing so, in favour of Irish fishermen. The Committee should remember this—that in Ireland they were altogether in the hands of three gentlemen—namely, Mr. Brady, Major Hayes, and another whose name he would not mention, not because he had any complaint to make against him, but because he did not take the same interest in the subject. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) knew perfectly well, the unfortunate fishing population of Ireland were not properly looked after. They had Ireland at their mercy in that House—there were 500 Englishmen to 20 or 30 Irishmen in it. What possible objection could there be to giving them a day or two? He put it to the Vice President of the Council to give them further time, if only till Monday. Let them pass the 2nd clause, but do not let them get out of Committee; that was all he asked.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he should be glad to meet the views of the hon. Member if he thought the result could be in any way satisfactory. He did not object to consider the case the hon. Member proposed with reference to Ireland; but the Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1878, and all the Acts incorporated in the present Bill, referred solely to England. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member would allow him to explain. The Bill referred to the Conservators who had been established all over England and Wales; arid if the hon. Member wished to introduce any legislation in reference to Ireland in it, it would not be possible to introduce clauses or to carry them with any certainty that they would have the desired effect, seeing that the whole question had been dealt with upon a system which was solely applicable to England. In Ireland they had their own Salmon Fishery Acts and other Acts applying to fisheries. He should be glad to listen to the appeal of the hon. Member if he thought he could do it with any satisfaction; but he was sure that the hon. Member, after this explanation, would not press them. They had gone through all the clauses of the Bill; they were now on the last new clause but one, and in a few minutes the Bill should pass through Committee.

MR. HEALY

said, he was very loth, indeed, to say anything in opposition to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert), who was one of the most fair-minded Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench; but he would point out the position they were placed in. Several Members, for two or three Sessions, had been seeking for an opportunity of dealing with the Irish freshwater fisheries. They had not found it. When would they find it? The Irish Members on the Treasury Bench did not care twopence for anything but their salaries; and the English Members on the Treasury Bench cared only for the interests of the English people. The Irish Members of the Government only wanted to draw their salaries and to get home as early as they could.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not in any way entitled to cast such imputations upon hon. Members.

MR. HEALY

begged pardon if he had made an imputation offensive to those Gentlemen. What he had meant was that the Irish Members on the Treasury Bench had little sympathy with the majority of the Irish people, and had only their salaries to interest them in the affairs of Ireland; for if they held opinions at variance with their English Colleagues they would be crowded out. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite give a guarantee that they would bring in a Bill dealing with Irish freshwater fisheries? [Mr. DODDS: No.] The hon. Member for Stockton said "No;" and, of course, they gave his negative the full authority it was entitled to. Would hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench give the Irish Members any guarantee that an attempt would be made to meet the Irish case? It was understood in Ireland that there was a great grievance in that country on this question. The people generally saw some hope of getting the franchise. [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] He was glad he had the approval of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport on that point. The Irish people saw some hope of getting the franchise, and were beginning to take an interest in what was done in Parliament. What, then, would be said of his Colleagues and himself if they allowed a Bill of this kind to pass, dealing only with England, without an attempt to get some of their own grievances redressed in it? He perfectly recognized the fact that the Bill was one dealing with England; but why on earth should not Irish. Members endeavour to extract as much good for their own country from English Bills as was possible? What harm could there be in giving a day or two to Ireland in this matter? The Session was yet young—only a little of March had gone; and it, therefore, seemed to him that he could, with the greatest propriety, ask the Government to defer further progress with the Bill until Monday. Let the Irish case be debated on Monday—the case as to the Irish Conservators. Surely the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Vice President of the Council were reasonable men and could yield to a reasonable request.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, he could not help sympathizing with the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) in his desire to direct attention to the fisheries in Ireland. There were a large number of people interested in those fisheries—a great many of his own constituents were. The whole of the fishing was in the hands of a comparatively small number of gentry who legislated for the fisheries and constructed bye-laws, the special object of which was to obstruct the fishermen in carrying out their avocation. The circumstance referred to by the hon. Member for Monaghan, in reference to a part of the Blackwater lower down than Mallow, was one of the most appalling instances of the evil effects of the old feudal laws which could be imagined. The rights of something like 2,000 fishermen in the Blackwater had been flagrantly violated—of course, in form of law; all outrages in Ireland were committed in form of law. The Duke of Devonshire, because he had an enormous income, because he could fee an enormous Bar, and carry on a litigation from Court to Court, from year to year, against the verdicts of five Irish juries, had at last, through the instrumentality of the House of Lords, obtained a decision which practically ruined a large number of poor people—which deprived a great many people of Youghal, and a great many persons who dwelt on the lower banks of the Blackwater, of their trade, or compelled them to pay heavy sums to this great English Duke to carry on an industry which they had been engaged in for years, and their ancestors before them had engaged in for centuries. He confessed, if there were other opportunities of introducing a subject of this sort, he should be loth to interpose in the discussion of a Bill which related solely to England; but, unfortunately, Irish Members could look to no facilities for legislation for their country in that House except when it was desired to pass coercive measures. Of those measures they had had enough. Almost all the Irish Business of this Session would be, more or less, distasteful to Ireland, or more or less useless to it; and whatever attempts Irish Members made to bring on Business they had very little chance of passing anything through. Irish Members, therefore, could look for no opportunities on purely Irish Bills; and, under the circumstances, they could be scarcely blamed if, on this Bill dealing with English freshwater fisheries, they ventured to remind the House of Commons that Irish freshwater fisheries presented a subject for legislation that was quite as well deserving of its attention. To his mind, the request that a day or two should be given to Irish Members to consider the Bill and see if any provisions could be introduced to mitigate the conditions under which Irish freshwater fishermen had to carry on their business was extremely reasonable.

MR. HIBBERT

repeated, that he should be willing to meet the views of the Irish Members on this question if he thought any good would come of it. In the Act of 1878 there was an express provision setting forth that the measure should not apply to Scotland or Ireland; and if clauses were inserted in the present Bill dealing with Ireland, they would be obliged to alter the whole of the operation of all the clauses. The Act of 1878 adopted several Salmon Fisheries Acts, which applied solely to England, and those Acts were incorporated in this Bill. If the views of the Irish Members were carried out the clause incorporating these Acts would become of a most complicated character. He should be perfectly willing to accede to a postponement of further progress if he thought it could be of the slightest use. The request of the Irish Members seemed, at first sight, to be a reasonable one; but, knowing so well the difficulties of the case, he really was obliged to refuse it.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said, that hon. Members who had spoken against the Bill, or who had moved to report Progress, would see that it must be entirely impracticable to legislate for Ireland in a Bill which did not affect that country. If they persisted in their attempt to do so, the effect could only be to diminish, and not to increase, the opportunities of dealing with the Irish freshwater fisheries which might present themselves during the remainder of the Session. "With the demand of the Irish Members for legislation on this subject there would be a great amount of sympathy amongst English Members; and it would be unwise to destroy that sympathy by unreasonably insisting upon dealing with Ireland in an English Bill.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had understood from the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) that he and the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), who, they all knew, was the greatest authority on matters affecting fisheries in Ireland, intended to bring in a Bill dealing with those fisheries this Session. Perhaps when that Bill was before the House the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) would have the opportunity he desired of raising the questions to which reference had been made.

MR. O'SHEA

said, he had no doubt the hon. Member would then have the opportunity he sought, and he (Mr. O'Shea), therefore, appealed to him to withdraw his opposition. He could assure the House that the Irish Bill which it was proposed to introduce would be considered a very drastic one by many of those who were interested in rod-fishing in Ireland. His hon. Friend and he, however, were determined to make a great effort when their Bill was brought in to improve the condition of the fishermen of whom the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had spoken. The Bill would be so much in favour of those fishermen that it would, no doubt, meet with opposition outside the House on the part of those who had the monopoly of which the hon. Member for Mallow had complained. Opportunities would, on that Bill, be given to hon. Members for speaking at considerable length; they would be able to express their views with what force they might consider necessary; and no doubt the measure would receive the support of such Members as the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck), who had the true interests of fishermen at heart. He did not think that a Bill like that the Committee were now considering—a Bill in favour of the poorer classes—should be further opposed by the Irish Members.

MR. HEALY

said, he would point out to the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) that any Bill he and the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) might bring in, if it was, as it was described, a drastic measure, would, of course, be blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and would never reach the stage reached by the Bill they were now considering. The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert) seemed to doubt whether it would be possible for the Irish Members to put down Amendments which would make this Bill applicable to Ireland. If the hon. Member would allow the Irish Members time, no doubt they would be able to show him that they could frame Amendments to the Bill, and then, when he had seen them, if he found them in applicable, he could oppose them on their merits. The junior Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) was a skilful pilot of Bills. They all knew how successfully he managed the Bill dealing with Friendly Societies last year. "Well, the right hon. Gentleman must know very well that the loss of two days in March was a matter of great insignificance. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench should be frank; they should say at once they were afraid of having the Black water Fishery case raised. ["No, no!"] Then, if they were not, if the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had no objection to having the whole of the devices of the Duke of Devon shire exposed to the House—for the Irish Members would be able to expose as clear a case of robbery as ever was committed——

LORD EDWARD CAVENDISH

I rise to Order, Sir.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must really say I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that such language, as applied to a Member of the other House, is most indecorous and improper.

MR. HEALY

As I have your ruling on that point, Sir Arthur Otway, I, of course, accept it; but I should have been glad if the correction had come from someone else than the noble Lord opposite. I think it would have been more decent in him, as the son of the Duke of Devonshire, to have left it to someone else to take exception to my language. ["Order!"] I think I am quite in Order.

MR. DODDS

I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask you whether the hon. Member is in Order in what he has done—whether he ought not to be called on to withdraw?

MR. HEALY

I am always happy to accept your ruling, Sir, and I venture to say that no hon. Gentleman in the House can point out a case in which I have refused to accept it. But I say that on a question having reference to the Black-water Fishery it would have been much more in keeping with decency if I had been called to Order by someone else than the son of the Duke of Devonshire, a Nobleman who receives thousands a-year out of the robbery of the unfortunate people——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has repeated the observation for which I called him to Order. Once I passed it over, hoping that he would see the impropriety of the observation, and once I cautioned him; he has now repeated the word. I have to say that it is out of Order, as well as being indecorous, to make such an imputation on a Member of the other House.

MR. HEALY

said, that that being so, he would withdraw the expression. He would put it in this way. Seeing that the Duke of Devonshire gained so much out of the cotmen on the waterside, it would have been much more decent if some other Member than the son of the noble Duke had risen to object to the reference which had been made to his conduct. He would ask hon. Members to remember this fact—that the Irish Members had not the smallest chance of being able to raise these questions except on an English Bill. Under the circumstances, therefore, he thought the request that an adjournment until Monday should take place on the Committee stage was a very reasonable one. They only asked for to-morrow to consider the Bill, and surely that was not an unreasonable request to make at 20 minutes past 2 in the morning. He was surprised that Gentlemen like the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Vice President of the Council, who both represented Democratic constituencies, should object to his proposal. If the Irish Members had been neglectful of the interests of their country up to this, was that any reason why they should continue neglectful of those interests?

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

remarked, that looking at the fact that there were so few Irish Members present, it would be impracticable to get those Amendments which might be considered necessary put down.

MR. HEALY

said, the Irish Members would plead guilty to having been neglectful of Irish freshwater fisheries in the past. Give them until Monday, however, so that the impractibility of putting down Amendments might be demonstrated. The Bill, if it was a good one, could not possibly suffer by the delay. He should be content to withdraw the question of the Black-water Fishery if it would please the noble Lord who was so anxious for the reputation of his noble Father. They would not raise the question of the Black-water Fishery and of the thousands gained by the Duke of Devonshire. They would simply stick to the question of the Saturday close time, and upon that point he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) what his objection was to making provision in this Bill for the removal of so great a grievance of the Irish fishermen? He did not think this grievance existed in England, and English Members could not be expected to understand Irish Law; but there was a higher law which said—"Six days shalt thou labour." And what he wanted to know was, whether the Irish fishermen were to be prevented from labouring the full number of days they were entitled to? The conduct of the English Members on the Treasury Bench was unreasonable. It might be that the Irish Members would find it impossible to put down Amendments. If that was so, though the Bill might be delayed, the delay would be so slight that the measure would not suffer, whilst a concession would have been made to the Irish Members and to an impoverished class, not one in 20 of whom had a vote—the Committee would have allowed the Representatives of the Irish people to look into the question to see if anything could be done for the Irish fishermen in this Bill.

MR. BIGGAR

considered that a more unreasonable position than that taken up by the Government could not possibly be assumed. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had said it was impossible to frame these Amendments. Well, if they could not, if the adjournment asked for were granted, on Monday the Committee would be able to dispose of the Bill without difficulty and controversy. It would not make 10 minutes difference; in fact, not half so much time would be wasted on Monday as had been wasted that night on the question. The hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) had given them a most absurd reason, so far as he could form an opinion, why the Irish Members should give way on this matter. He had told them that he and the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) were going to bring forward a Bill which would excite a great deal of opposition. If it was a fact that the Bill would excite a great deal of opposition, it seemed to him that the chances of its being passed into law that Session were very slight. What difference could it make whether this Bill passed on the 6th, or 9th, or 10th of March? The difference was of such a slight nature that it mattered nothing. The Bill, at its present stage, could not be blocked; and he must say he had never seen a more glaring instance of the determination of the Government not to yield to reasonable requests than this. If the Government did not yield, he and his Friends should certainly, when addressing assemblages of Irishmen in England on St. Patrick's Day, have to say that the Government was not worthy of the support of Irish votes, and that wherever Irish votes had any influence in deciding an election Ministerial candidates should be rejected.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. BIRKBECK

said, he would now move, as a new Clause, the words of the Amendment he had originally intended to move in Clause 2.

Amendment proposed, To add the following new Clause:—" This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland, nor to the counties of Norfolk or Suffolk, or to the county of the city of Norwich."—(Mr. Birkbeck.)

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report the Bill, as amended, to the House."

MR. DODDS

expressed a hope that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Hibbert) would delay the Report stage until Monday week and would have the measure reprinted, so that it might be circulated throughout the country with the important alterations which had been introduced that night. He believed the Government would not object to that course.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he should be happy to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member.

Motion agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday 17th March, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]