§ Bill considered in Committee:—
§ COLONEL FRENCHsaid, a period of the Session had now been reached at which it was hopeless to expect that this measure could be carried. Even if it passed through all its stages in the House of Commons, it would have to be submitted to the other branch of the Legislature, whose sanction it could not possibly hope to receive in the present year. It therefore was clearly useless to press the measure on the attention of the House; but he wished before taking any final step in reference to it, to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he would undertake, on the part of the Government, to introduce a Bill dealing with the question of Irish fisheries? The subject was one of so much importance, and affected such large and varied interests, that it ought really not to be left in the hands of a private Member. The salmon in the Irish rivers ought, under proper management, to form an important element in the food of the people; but, if the present system were persevered in much longer, it must end in the extirpation of that fish, which had already disappeared from an important area of the Irish waters. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to give a distinct assurance that a Bill would be brought in by the Government next Session; or, if he was not prepared to go that length, that the attention of the Government would be directed to the subject during the recess. There was nothing to deter them, but, on the contrary, everything to encourage legislation on the subject. The principles of this Bill had already been sanctioned in England and Scotland, and all that was sought was to assimilate the law in the various parts of the United Kingdom.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, he was anxious to say a few words before the noble Lord at the head of the Government answered the question which had just been addressed to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French). He could not agree with the description of the Bill given by his hon. and gallant Friend. The Bill went much beyond a mere assimilation of the law of England and Ireland. On the contrary, it was proposed to do in Ireland that which had never been attempted in England, and which, he believed, in that country would 1196 not be tolerated. The English Bill preserved all existing rights; the Irish Bill, on the contrary, proposed to extinguish them, although they had been secured, if not created, by an Act of Parliament. He had no wish to enter into a discussion of the general subject, but the noble Lord ought clearly to understand that this Bill was strongly opposed by a large section of the Irish Members, and by a still larger proportion of the Irish people. If Government wished to consolidate the fishery laws, or to make any regulations for the better preservation of fish, he should offer no opposition to any measure intended for the general benefit; but he hoped the noble Lord would not think of giving a direct pledge on the part of the Government to legislate in the partial and oppressive spirit of the present Bill, or to give any support to a measure embodying such mischievous and unjust provisions.
§ SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEfelt compelled to express dissent from the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt). Legislation was not only desirable, but imperative, if the supply of fish was to be kept up in Ireland, and if, instead of continuing to be a monopoly, the public were to enjoy the benefits of that article of food. It must be remembered that there were public as well as private rights, and the latter were sometimes acquired at the expense of the general community. Such, in fact, had been the case in 1842, when the Act of Parliament which had been referred to unjustly created and endowed a new body of proprietors with privileges previously belonging to the public at large. He ventured to say, that if the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had been in the House at that time, he would not have been able to give his adhesion to a measure so diametrically opposed to the public interests.
§ LORD FERMOYcriticized the constitution of the Select Committee to whom the Bill had been referred. With possibly one or two exceptions, the Members were all enthusiasts in favor of this scheme of spoliation; they hurried over the inquiry, taking just as much evidence as favored the views of the majority, and refusing to hear either arguments or testimony on the other side. He felt bound to oppose any measure which might have been sent down embodying such foregone conclusions.
§ COLONEL FRENCHdefended the constitution of the Committee, asserting that 1197 it had been impartially chosen, that the various points of controversy were fully discussed in the course of the fourteen sittings which had taken place, and the earnestness with which the Committee devoted themselves to their labors was evident from the fact that they even adopted the unusual course of sitting upon Saturdays. No one could allege that they had been in any degree taken by surprise, as the measure was introduced at an early period of the Session.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was very obvious that the Bill could not pass this Session; he therefore concurred in the propriety of the course proposed to be adopted. He could not pledge himself as to the course which the Government might adopt next Session; but it was a very proper one for discussion, and one upon which hon. Gentlemen seemed to entertain widely different views.
§ COLONEL FRENCHasked the noble Lord at least to promise that the subject would be considered during the recess. It was a measure to which great importance was justly attached in Ireland, and the statement that Government would have its attention directed to the subject would be attended with beneficial results.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhad no hesitation in stating, that the matter should be considered by the Government.
§ COLONEL FRENCHthen moved, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
§ Motion agreed to.
§ [No Report.]