SECOND READING. (Hansard, 20 June 1861)

§ MR. BARROW
said, he must object to proceeding with the measure at that late hour, and he should, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, if the House would agree to the second reading the Government would have no objection to remit the Bill to a Select Committee.

MR. HENLEY
said, he hoped the Bill would be greatly altered before the Select Committee. It was a great misfortune that it dealt with trout as well as salmon. Unless the Committee came to their relief, the Bill would impose upon magistrates the necessity of possessing a very minute knowledge of natural history; or when they came to carry out the Bill they would be very much puziled by the definitions in it. Some fifty different things were described as "salmon," and it was stated that "trout" was to include all fish of 1375 the trout species not comprehended under the term "salmon." He thought also that the common law remedy against nuisances in rivers would be sufficient without the stringent provisions in the Bill. Considering that the boards to be appointed were to deal to a great extent with private property, he thought the proposed constituency, which was to include those who paid 5s. for a licence, rather a strong one, and that very arbitrary powers were Tested in the boards. He also deemed it very hard that people should be taxed for leave to fish in any river where trout or salmon had once been seen, and objected strenuously to the payment out of the public funds of an unlimited number of inspectors, who would be always putting their noses into everybody's face and their hands in everybody's pocket. There were other objections he had to urge against the measure, and if they were not obviated by the treatment the Bill received from the hands of a Select Committee, to which he was glad to find it would be referred, he should advance them strenuously when the opportunity offered. But as they were all matters that could be dealt with in Committee he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he should vote for the second reading, but he thought that some further protection should be afforded to millowners.

COLONEL PENNANT
said, that one of the clauses would seriously affect rights in tidal waters, however long they had existed; such rights, for instance, as that of putting fixed nets in streams. It would be a bad precedent to enact such a provision. The constitution of the fishery boards also might be extremely objectionable in certain cases, as interfering with the rights of persons having property in rivers.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he hoped the Select Committee would be composed of Members who had some knowledge of the subject.

§ MR. CLIVE
said, he agreed that there were exceptional cases which might be provided for specially. As to permanent nets, he thought they would be found to be almost all of recent introduction, and he doubted whether any prescription could be established in regard to many of them. Where there was prescription it might be specially dealt with. As to poisoning rivers, it was not the intention to deal hardly with those cases in which the evil 1376 had resulted from manufactures. As to the right of the bailiffs to go upon the adjoining land, he thought that was necessary to prevent the fish from being unfairly dealt with.