HC Deb 02 May 1860 vol 158 cc536-9

Order for Committee read.

(House in Committee.)

Clause 1 (Prohibiting fishing for Trout, &c., by means of Nets, &c., in any Rivers, &c., in Scotland).

MR. BUCHANAN

expressed his belief that the clause would impose an excessive restriction on the amusements of the people, and more especially of the poorer classes. It imposed very severe penalties.

MR. BLACK

said, he thought that words should be omitted so as to make the provisions of this clause applicable to all persons fishing with a double rod or nets, and he would move an Amendment to that effect.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

supported the clause, as he deemed it most desirable that this illegal system of fishing should be put an end to.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, he had brought forward this Bill entirely in the interest of the public, to protect them in their sports, in opposition to the number of persons who were in the habit of coming from Glasgow at night, and, by means of lines and other means, exhausting the rivers of large quantities of fish for the purpose of sale.

MR. BAILLIE

said, the object of this clause was to punish a man for stealing-fish—a power which did not at present exist.

MR. STEUART

said, he would support the clause.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that when the whole of a stream belonged to a single individual no one could wish to interfere with his right to fish in any manner he might please; but in those cases in which the entire stream did not belong to him, he ought to be prevented from having recourse to practices which would put an end to fishing along the whole of its course. He would suggest that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh should be adopted, and that a provision should be introduced at the end of the measure securing the rights of proprietors to whom the whole of a stream belonged.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BUCHANAN moved to omit from the clause the words "set lines;" and he did so in the interest of the children of the rural population, who were in the habit of setting lines from time immemorial. To attempt to prohibit this would be about as reasonable as to prohibit football.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, no one could wish to interfere with the amusement of children, but, as he believed as much damage could be done by set lines as cross lines, he must say "No" to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan).

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, these set lines often had dozens of hooks, and, being put in the best parts of the river, were most destructive to the fish.

MR. CAIRD

said, as this was an attempt to put a stop to the amusements of the people, he hoped the hon. Member would persevere in his Amendment.

MR. LONGFIELD

opposed the setting of these lines in every direction, as it was poaching in a river in the most mischievous manner in which it could be carried on.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

believed that they ought to put down the practice of fishing by these lines.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, that by the last clause of this Bill children were not prevented from fishing by single lines, but fishing by cross lines was not the act of children, inasmuch as they were only put in at night, and by means of boats.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to, as was also

Clause 2.

Clause 3 struck out.

Clause 4 (Power to seize fishing implements in the possession of unqualified persons).

MR. BUCHANAN

proposed as an Amendment, to insert, after the word "person," at line 19, the words, "having the authority of the proprietor of the land."

MR. CAIRD

objected to the clause as too stringent. It would come to this, that the gamekeeper was to be the judge of the intent of a person travelling over the country.

MR. JOHN LOCKE

said, the power given under this clause was even more stringent than that given under the game laws, which only gave power to seize suspected persons by night.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Locke) that such a stringent power did not exist under the Game Act, and he should move the rejection of the clause.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, that they could only be seized if their owners were caught in the act of committing an offence.

Amendment agreed to. Clause agreed to.

Clause 5,

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he objected to the justices having jurisdiction. It would be better to vest it in the sheriff of the county. The justices in many cases would be the complaining parties.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

said, he thought the justices would be glad to be rid of such a troublesome jurisdiction.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Appeal).

MR. BUCHANAN

moved to omit the words—"or any justice of the peace."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 28, to leave out the words "or any justice of the peace."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 41: Majority 87.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

proposed, as an Amendment, to the effect that two witnesses should be necessary to convict for this class of poaching.

Amendment agreed to; Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining Clauses.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.