§ House in Committee (according to Order.)
§ Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Duties of Commissioners).
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to leave out the 4th paragraph, which proposed to authorize the Commissioners to fix a point on each river above which the proprietors should be considered upper proprietors, and below it lower proprietors, on the ground that it would create antagonism between the upper and lower proprietors. If the paragraph was left out, he intended to move other words in its stead.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that if the paragraph were left out, and the noble Duke's Amendment substituted for it, the essence of the Bill would be destroyed.
§ On Question, Whether the said Paragraph shall stand Part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 63; Not-Contents 25: Majority 38.
132| CONTENTS. | |
| Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) |
| Granville, E. | |
| Cleveland, D. | Grey, E. |
| Newcastle, D. | Harrowby, E. |
| Somerset, D. | Mansfield, E. |
| Romney, E. | |
| Breadalbane, M. | Russell, E. |
| Saint Germans, E. | |
| Airlie, E. [Teller.] | Shaftesbury, E. |
| Camperdown, E. [Teller.] | Yarborough, E. |
| Clarendon, E. | Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) |
| De Grey, E. |
| Eversley, V. | Gardner, L. |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) |
| Stratford de Redcliffe, V. | Lovat, L. |
| Strathallan, V. | Lyveden, L. |
| Sydney, V. | Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.) |
| Abinger, L. | Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.) |
| Ashburton, L. | |
| Aveland, L. | Mostyn, L. |
| Boston, L. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) | |
| Portman, L. | |
| Broughton, L. | Ravensworth, L. |
| Camoys, L. | Rivers, L. |
| Chesham, L. | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Churchill, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin & Claneboye.) | Stratheden, L. |
| Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) | |
| Cranworth, L. | |
| Crewe, L. | Taunton, L. |
| Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.) | Truro, L. |
| Wenlock, L. | |
| De Tabley, L. | Willoughby de Eresby, L. |
| Dunfermline, L. | |
| Foley, L. | Wodehouse, L. |
| Fortescue, L. (E. Fortescue.) | Wynford, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Richmond, D. [Teller.] | Chelmsford, L. |
| Churston, L. | |
| Bath, M. [Teller.] | Clarina, L. |
| Salisbury, M. | Colville of Culross, L. |
| Amherst, E. | Congleton, L. |
| Bantry, E. | Conyers, L. |
| Derby, E. | Gray, L. |
| Desart, E. | Lilford, L. |
| Ellesmere, E. | Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.) |
| Lonsdale, E. | |
| Lucan, E. | Polwarth, L. |
| Malmesbury, E. | Redesdale, L. |
| Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) | |
| Dungannon, V. | |
| Melville, V. |
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Annual and weekly Close-time).
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed that the annual close-time should be reduced from 180 to 164 days, an alteration which he said would be in accordance with a clause in the Report of the Committee which sat two years ago.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the period named in the Irish Act was 177 days. He would consent to making the time in the present Bill 168 days.
§ Clause amended accordingly.
§ LORD RAVENSWORTH moved an Amendment, that the weekly close-time should be from twelve at noon on Saturday until six o'clock on Monday morning, instead of commencing at six o'clock on Saturday afternoon. He believed, that if their Lordships agreed to this Amendment, 133 and thus lengthened the weekly close-time by six hours, it would have a most important effect in increasing the supply of salmon. It had been said that this was an anglers' Bill; but he must remind their Lordships that the interests of the angler were identical with those of the public in this matter; for if anglers were permitted to catch a few fish, they would do their best to protect the water. The angler took a few individual fish, whilst the nets swept them up by hundreds at the mouths of the rivers. His opinion was, that the main cause of the diminution of salmon in all the rivers of the kingdom was the illegitimate mode of fishing adopted at the mouths of rivers; and next, the poaching of the upper parts of rivers during close-time. If they proceeded much longer in this way, they would utterly destroy the breed. Experience showed the important effect which the lengthening of the close-time had upon the productiveness of a fishery. The value of the fish caught in the Tay in 1828 was £14,574. In 1852, in consequence of the Act of 1828 allowing the close-time to be from the 26th of August to the 11th of December, instead of from the 14th of September to the 1st of February, thus diminishing the close-time, the value fell to £7,973. In consequence, the proprietors themselves came to an agreement to limit the time for fishing, and in 1857 the value rose to £10,199. In 1858 a private Act restored the close-time to what it previously was, and the value became £14,085. The result was that salmon had never been so abundant as they were this year. He could not understand by what combination among fishmongers it happened that salmon was charged at the rate of 2s. 6d. a pound. His firm conviction was, that if their Lordships increased the annual and weekly close-time, the quantity of fish would so increase that many of the other regulations would become comparatively unimportant.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDopposed the Amendment. The noble Lord had begun by bewailing the almost extinction of the salmon, but he concluded by saying that he had never seen the fishmongers' shops so well supplied as they were now. For his own part, he thought that the weekly close-time ought rather to be diminished by three hours. The only effect of lengthening it was simply to transfer fish from the lower proprietors of the rivers to the upper.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the proposal in the clause was fair and reasonable, and he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion.
§ THE EARL OF MANSFIELDridiculed the idea of the noble Duke, that fish were placed in rivers for the sole benefit of the lower proprietors. Those proprietors would, under any circumstances, have a great advantage—the advantage which belonged to first coming and being first served. The fish had to pass, as it were, through a series of turnpikes, and they might therefore think themselves lucky if one in a hundred ever reached the upper waters.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he did not believe that the Amendment would save a single salmon; it would merely take the fish out of Peter's pocket and put it into Paul's. At the same time there was no doubt that it would be a great boon to anglers, and he could not help thinking, therefore, that his noble Friend (Lord Ravensworth) had been saying one word for the fish and two for himself.
§ THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsupported the clause.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 8, 9, and 10 agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (Penalties for Offences).
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed that the penalty provided in this clause for certain enumerated offences—namely, five pounds, should be made not less than two pounds, nor more than five pounds.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYopposed the Amendment.
§ After a short conversation,
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 29 (Certain Provisions of Act 24 & 25 Vict., c. 109, applied to Solway Firth).
§ THE EARL OF LONSDADE moved an Amendment to the effect that these provisions should come into operation in 1863 instead of 1865, as proposed by the clause.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYopposed the Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, who was most indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he resided within 300 or 400 yards of the Solway, and from his windows he could see across the water, a distance of nearly fifty miles. He did not think that the principles applicable to rivers were 135 at all applicable to this case. The clause would confiscate property which had been enjoyed for centuries. He disputed the accuracy of the statement that stake-nets had a pernicious effect upon rivers. Stake-nets had been in use for centuries; and if their use had been injurious, it must have been discovered long ago. The public would suffer from the operation of this clause, for they would be deprived of the best quality of fish—namely, that which was just out of salt water. When rain fell abundantly, streams became rivers, and then the fish got up the rivers in spite of all the obstructions. He admitted that there was a great diminution of salmon, but it was begging the question to say this was owing to the stake-nets. The greatest damage was done in the upper parts of the rivers. Many of the fish that went up were confined in immense numbers in ponds till they were out of season; and then those which were not poached were carried off in carts and waggons, and, being unfit for sale in this country, were manufactured and sent abroad. This was a serious matter.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 30.
§ Clause 31 (This Act not to apply to River Tay, with certain Exceptions).
§ THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved that the clause be struck out.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYassented.
§ Clause disagreed to.
§ Clause 32 (Repeal of Provisions inconsistent with this Act).
§ THE EARL OF DERBY moved that the clause be struck out.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYassented.
§ Clause disagreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next. [Bill No. 175.]
§ House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.