HC Deb 03 July 1863 vol 172 cc166-73

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

Clause 18 (Appointment of Commissioners under Sign Manual).

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, he would move to add to the clause certain words, the effect of which would be to provide that after a vacancy the new Commissioner should be of the same profession as the Commissioner in whose room he was appointed.

MR. O'HAGAN

proposed another Amendment with the same object.

SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE

said, he trusted that able and independent Gentlemenun connected with Ireland would be appointed by the Government to discharge the delicate and difficult duties of Commissioners.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he could assure the Committee that it was the desire of the Government that the first three Commissioners should be men, not only of high character, but men who would discharge their duties in a thoroughly independent and impartial manner.

MR. HASSARD

said, he thought it would be better to follow the example of the Alkali Bill, and appoint Inspectors who should go before the proper legal tribunals, instead of investing Commissioners with powers and duties foreign to the law.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he was quite content to leave the uncontrolled nomination of the Commissioners to the Government. He believed that not a single Irish Member had approached the Government on the subject of the nomination of these Commissioners.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 27 were also agreed to.

Clause 28 (Power for Commissioners to state case for Court of Law or direct issue of Law).

MR. LONGFIELD

said, that the clause was useless for the protection of the public, and he should therefore move its omission. It would enable the Commissioners to shift the responsibility from themselves and involve the public in litigation. It would be much better to give the Commissioners a summary jurisdiction than to allow them to take a poor man into Chancery.

MR. O'HAGAN

said, he could not see the force of the objection. They intrusted the Commissioners with great power, and he thought it was not too much to give them the power, if they thought proper to exercise it, to take the opinion of a high legal tribunal on some of the litigated questions connected with the Act of 1842.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, that the clause was introduced to save time, trouble, and expense to all parties. When the Commissioners found that some difficult point was sure to be litigated, the clause provided that they might state a case, and name the parties to it, as a quicker and surer way of getting a decision.

Clause negatived.

Clause 29withdrawn.

Clause 30 (Power of Commissioners to compromise).

MR. HERBERT

said, that as the Committee had respected the rights of the owners of stake weirs, it was only fair that they should also respect the rights of the owners of bag nets. The Act of 1842 allowed the use of these bag nets, but by this Bill they would be abolished, in order that those neighbours of those proprietors who might be owners of stake nets should be enabled to catch more fish. As a compromise, he would move an Amendment giving the Commissioners power to allow bag nets to continue for a period not exceeding ten years, provided that the nets were legal under the Act of 1842, and that the owners did not possess in the same district any other nets, weirs, or fishing rights.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, that the Government did not propose to press the clause, the powers of which were too large and too loose. He was disposed, however, to agree to an Amendment declaring that the Commissioners might allow bag nets to continue for a limited time, not exceeding ten years, provided the owners had no other nets or weirs in the neighbourhood. He did not believe his Amendment would meet with much favour, because some hon. Gentlemen appeared to think that the ideas of justice and salmon ought to be altogether dissociated. He would appeal to the generosity of the Committee to agree to this Amendment. In every other case, if the Committee had inflicted some injury, they had done some good to the parties who might complain. In the case of the owners of stone weirs, it was thought that the Bill would confer a benefit upon them against their will. The stake weirs put down were only those existing contrary to law. When persons owned bag nets who had also stake nets, they would receive some compensation in the increased take of fish by the stake nets. Therefore the class of bag net owners who would benefit by the extension of time would be very small, not more than half a dozen or a dozen, and they were persons upon whom the Bill would otherwise inflict an injury without any compensation. He would again repeat that, in his opinion, the Irish Act of 1842 trenched on the general rights of the public; but Parliament had allowed vested interests to be established under that Act, and bag nets for twenty years had been permitted. The effect of his Amendment would be, that the Commissioners would have the power of granting an extension of the time, and might also impose restrictions and regulations in case the nets or weirs were carried too far into the stream.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he strongly objected to give the Commissioners a discretion to allow bag nets to continue for ten years. [Mr. H. A. BRUCE: Where the owners have no other means of fishing.] An appeal had been made to the generosity of the Committee; he appealed to their justice, and asked them to consider the rights of the poor. In 1846 the draught net fisheries on the coast of Ireland gave employment to 100,000 persons; now the number was reduced to 50,000, the fishery being monopolized and injured by bag nets. If the Amendment were agreed to, the extension would be for ten years in every case, because the Commissioners would not be likely to give one proprietor two years and another ten years. He called upon the Committee not to act like children, and showing compassion to the proprietors, forget the compassion due to the poor and the public. He believed that before the bag nets could be abolished under the Bill the proprietors would get a very good slice of the fishing of 1864. They would be able to get the fish until the month of April or May next year. That was a greater extension of time than the proprietors of these bag nets deserved, either on the ground of law or justice. However, as an appeal had been made to the generosity of the Committee, he would consent to give the proprietors of the bag nets the whole of the season of 1864, which would be dealing very handsomely with them.

MR. MONSELL

said, that the principle enunciated by the hon. Member for Mallow would extend to many clauses which had been already passed. He thought that some consideration ought to be extended to persons whose rights were about to be confiscated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause negatived.

Clause 31 (Provision on the Determination of the Office of the Commissioners).

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

proposed, as an Amendment, that the Inspectors should be appointed by the Home Secretary instead of the Lord Lieutenant.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 15, to leave out the words "Lord Lieutenant of Ireland," and insert the words "one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State."—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he must protest against the Amendment. The Lord Lieutenant was the proper person to possess that sort of patronage, and every Bill for Ireland gave it to him. When the House thought proper to abolish the Lord Lieutenancy, it would be right to give such appointments to the Home Secretary, but not before.

LORD NAAS

said, he concurred in thinking that all the Irish departments ought to be under the Irish Government.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, that to give the appointments to the Home Secretary would be to remove them from a focus of jobbery and party influence.

MR. SCULLY

did not wish to take a single feather out of the tail of the English peacock (he did not speak of the present Lord Lieutenant), who was usually sent over to govern Ireland. He should vote for giving the patronage to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because the country was likely always to have a decent and respectable Home Secretary, but was not always equally secure in regard to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who might be some "shave beggar" sent over to learn his trade, and thereby to rise to eminence as a statesman afterwards.

MR. O'HAGAN

said, that if it were wished to get rid of the office of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, it ought to be done by a direct Motion, and not by a side wind like the present Amendment.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, the Committee were, it seemed, about to rob the Lord Lieutenant of one of the brightest jewels in the Irish Crown—namely, the appointment of two fishery Inspectors. According to the hon. Member for Cork, the views of the Lord Lieutenants ought to be retrospective, because peacocks had eyes in their tails. He should vote for the Amendment, because the control of the English and Scotch Fisheries Acts was in the hands of the Home Secretary, and why should Ireland be excepted? To give this appointment to the Home Secretary would only be a proper compliment to the Home Office, by which the Bill had been so ably drawn up and introduced to the House.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 11: Majority 51.

LORD NAAS

said, he would recommend that the names of the Commissioners should be inserted in the Bill on the Report. It would give greater weight to their decision if they were named in the Bill.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he could not agree with the noble Lord. If the Commissioners were named in the Bill, disputes would arise as to the appointments, and the result would be the loss of a great deal of their influence. The appointments would only be for about two years.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he was glad the Government had declined to accede to the suggestion of the noble Member for Cocker-mouth.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 32 and 33 were also agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation Clause), which had been postponed.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he considered it was unnecessary, and he should therefore move its omission.

MR. O'HAGAN

said, he was of the same opinion.

Clause omitted.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) he would move that a new clause be added after Clause 8, inflicting a penalty of £50 on any person keeping a weir after notice.

MR. BUTT

said, he objected to the clause, but he would withdraw the objection if his hon. Friend would consent to add a provision that no such action should be brought under the section, when the proprietor or occupier had obtained the certificate of the Commissioners under the Act.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he would then move a clause in substitution of Clause 9, relative to the construction of free gaps. At their last sitting the Committee determined that there should be a free gap in all weirs, and the present clause, which was copied from the English Fisheries Act, would carry out this wish.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he thought that the Commissioners ought to have the power of fixing the situation of the free gap. He therefore proposed to add the words "that the gap should be in such a situation as the Commissioners should direct."

MR. LONGFIELD

said, that no such discretion was given to the Commissioners in the English Act. The gaps might be so placed as to be rendered inoperative, and he could not consent to intrust the Commissioners with such a power.

MR. F. L. GOWER

said, he must repeat the assertion he had made at the last sitting—that the Act confiscated property to which the owners of these weirs were as much entitled as the owners of land to their estates. They had therefore a right to ask for compensation in the event of loss. It was asserted that there would be no loss, but in that case no compensation would be wanted.

MR. MONSELL

said, that if the Bill were the means of increasing the number of salmon, it would give compensation to the owners of weirs. If it were a measure of confiscation, it was no more so than the English Bill. That measure had been found to work well for England, and so would the present measure for Ireland.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he must admit that the English Act manifested as flagrant a disregard of chartered rights as that now proposed. Inasmuch, however, as the unanimous feeling of the Committee seemed to be against granting compensation, the Government had not deemed itself called upon to withdraw the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE

said, he should support the clause. It would never do to leave the Commissioners the choice of the part of the river where the gap was to be made. The owners of the stone weirs claimed compensation in case of loss; but in that case, if the Act worked well, and if there were gains over the present average, the amount of the excess must be paid over to the public. ["No!"] Oh, yes! the public would have a right to this set-off against the losses of bad years. The consequence would be that the owners would be losers by such compensation clauses, whereas if they accepted the Bill without them, they would be the gainers.

LORD NAAS

said, that the limit of 40 ft. inserted in the clause as the width of the free gap was enough for the English rivers, which were much narrower than those of Ireland. He thought that a gap of 60 ft. would not be too large for some of the Irish rivers, and he should therefore propose an Amendment to that effect. He had no wish to conceal that the object of his Amendment was to apply only to the great lax weir at Limerick.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he had no obtion to the Amendment where the river was 600 feet wide.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, he should support the proposition, though it would only be applicable to one weir in Ireland.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the provision would be applicable to five of the weirs of Ireland. He would propose that the width should be fixed at 50 feet.

MR. Longfield's Amendment agreed to.

MR. F. L. GOWER

said, he wished to propose an Amendment, to add that all expenses incurred by the Commissioners should be paid by the conservators of the districts in which the weirs were situate out of the funds placed at the disposal of the conservators. It was most unjust that these expenses should fall upon the owners; and it was no apology for such injustice to say that it was part of the English Bill.

MR. MONSELL

said, he would support the proposal, but he feared the conservators might not always have funds at their disposal. He proposed that the expenses should be borne by the grand juries.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, that he could not accede to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. F. L. Gower). The money in the hands of the conservators of the rivers was no more than sufficient for the protection of the fisheries, and would be quite inadequate to defray the expenses of making gaps in weirs. The proprietors of these stone weirs would have to pay, as in England, for the making of the free gaps.

MR. F. L. GOWER

said, he was willing to add to his Amendment the words, "if they have sufficient monies for the purpose."

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, he would suggest the postponement of the matter till the bringing-up of the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. BLAKE

said, he would move a new clause to follow Clause 15, providing that no fixed net, save bag nets, should be allowed to extend "beyond the mean level of ordinary spring tides, and the low water of ordinary neap tides."

MR. MONSELL

said, he would appeal to his hon. Friend not to press the clause.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, that if the hon. Member pressed and carried his clause, he would upset the Bill.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he trusted that the hon. Member would not attempt to impede the working of the Bill by pressing the clause.

Clause negatived.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

proposed to substitute for Clause 17 a clause providing for payment of additional duties on fixed engines.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he had hoped the Committee would have got through all the clauses that morning. As it was, they must either go on with the Bill next Friday or that evening. [Several hon. MEMBERS: To-night.] It was the only choice they had, and he should be glad if they could pass the Bill through Committee at the evening sitting. [An hon. MEMBER: Up to what time?] Up to any time.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.