COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 12 June 1863)

§ COLONEL VANDELEUR
expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) who had charge of the Bill would make some statement as to its provisions.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that he intended to have made a statement on the introduction of the Bill, but be was prevented by the lateness of the hour. At that moment he thought it would only be a waste of time to enter into such a statement, as the number of Amendments of which notice had been given would afford ample opportunity for discussing minutely every portion of the Bill.

§ MR. SCULLY
said, that an Act of Parliament, which he would admit to be bad and unjust, was passed twenty years ago. That Bill, however, conferred rights that ought not to be taken away without compensation. The difficulty was to provide a sufficient compensation fund. He thought that the Commissioners under the Bill might ascertain the existing incomes and profits of those having interests under the 798 Act of 1842. Let these parties produce their books and show the value of their fisheries, and then the House might determine whether they should be bought off at twenty years' purchase or by annuity, whenever a compensation fund could he provided. A common fund might be created by a percentage on the takings in the various rivers, and every obstruction might be thus gradually removed, beginning with those obstructions nearest the sea. Perhaps a tax of so much in the pound might be laid upon the takings of individual anglers. He thought that the Secretary for Ireland ought to have made a statement as to the object and provisions of the Bill before moving the House into Committee. The measure would enormously increase the value of the fisheries in the upper waters, and the proprietors of those fisheries ought not to receive the whole benefit of the Bill.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
said, it seemed to be the general opinion that a Salmon Fisheries Bill was necessary, but he was not of that opinion. He should, however, offer no opposition to the measure, if care was taken to protect adequately the vested interests in the matter. He believed, although the Bill was the result of a compromise, yet it would have the effect of destroying the sea fisheries and the fishing by bag nets, and that merely for the benefit of the proprietors of the upper water fisheries. He contended that the anglers were the great destroyers of fish, and not the nets in the sea.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, the Bill did not interfere with the nets in the sea unless they were within three miles of the mouths of rivers.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
said, that sea salmon could only be taken near the mouths of rivers, and therefore the Bill would practically destroy the sea salmon fisheries.

§ MR. COX
said, he wished to ask why, if the hon. Baronet's sea fishery was of so little use to him he should oppose the Bill He believed that the bag nets destroyed hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of small fry. Why should people in London pay 2s. or 3s. per pound for salmon, when, if the fish were properly protected, it might be had for half the money? He would agree that compensation ought to be given when the legal rights of persons were taken away.

§ MR. CONOLLY
asked, why the Secretary for Ireland had given no explanation of the objects of the Bill?

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he had abstained from saying anything on the Motion for going into Committee, in order that some progress might be made with the clauses. The measure was introduced by the Government because it was clear that the Bill of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. M'Mahon) could not pass. A meeting of proprietors and parties interested, representing the upper and lower waters was held in one of the committee-rooms. Some independent Members were also present, and a fair compromise, it was thought, was arrived at. The Bill made no alterations in the existing law except in four matters: it prohibited all new fixed engines; it prohibited existing bag nets in estuaries; it provided for an extention of the weekly close time; and lastly it increased the licence duty payable on fixed engines. It was proposed, with the consent of the Treasury, to appoint three Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Act forthwith; and it was of great importance that the passing of the Act should not be delayed. The mouths of the rivers would be defined by the Commissioners. In Scotland no fixed engines were allowed within five miles of the mouth of the Tweed, and why, he would ask, should there be exceptional legislation in Ireland? He implored the House to go into Committee on the Bill.

§ MR.WHALLEY
said, he would strongly urge upon the House to go into Committee on the Bill, which was of the utmost importance to the preservation of the fisheries in Ireland.

§ MR. CONOLLY
said, that he should give the strongest opposition to the proposition for prohibiting the erection of any new fixed engines, which appeared to savour of despotism, and was at variance with the principles of the constitution.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
What constitution?

§ MR. CONOLLY
I am not so well acquainted with that subject as the hon. Member. It is said that a little learning is a dangerous thing. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who know a little of everything.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
Drink deep.

§ MR. LONGFIELD
said, be would move as an Amendment that "no fixed engine or net should be used in tidal waters unless the same shall have been erected or used under grant or charter." He wished the Commissioners to ascertain what rights existed under grants or charters, and to abolish all fixed engines erected under colour of the Act of 1842.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, the Amendment would strike at the principle of the Bill, and would have the effect of confiscating a large extent of property. It would, in fact, abolish every fixed engine in Ireland, because there were none there established by Royal Charter. Nearly all those in existence were created under the Bill of 1842, and none were of older date than 1809. He could not, therefore, consent to the Amendment, which would not be in accordance with the compromise which had been come to on the subject.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, that the effect of carrying the Amendment would be to leave the fisheries of Ireland in their present condition. The Bill would confer enormous benefit on the Irish fisheries, and he should be sorry to see it withdrawn.

LORD NAAS
said, that the Amendment simply raised the question between the Bill of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) and that of the Government. He thought it would be better to take the measure as it stood.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, the only chance there was of getting a measure passed on the subject was by accepting the Bill. Now, the Amendment of the hon. Member would in reality destroy the present Bill. He thought that some provision should be made in the Bill with regard to the cod-fishers. They destroyed an immense amount of fish, and therefore something ought to be done with regard to them.

§ MR. CONOLLY
said, that in the estuary of the Suir especially the evil to which the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) referred, existed. The cod-fishers were a set of marauders, who acknowledged no law. He had seen ten nets at a time sweeping in that estuary, so that it was impossible for a single fish to escape.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he had never expressed a wish that the Government should bring in the Bill, for he had no confidence in any measure they were likely to propose. 801 He did not believe that persons who owned fixed engines in tidal waters had any legal rights under the Act of 1842.

§ MR. FENWICK
said, that bag nets had existed in England for many years, and they had been a source of considerable re venue, yet the use of those bag nets was not only abolished by the English Salmon Fisheries Act in rivers and estuaries, but also in the sea itself. It was, however, understood that the Irish measure was to be a compromise, and he would recommend the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, if the hon. and learned Gentleman went to a division, he should be bound in consistency to Vote with him.

§ MR. BUTT
said, that the English Act did not sweep away stake nets and fixed engines that were in existence at the time of the passing of the Act.

LORD NAAS
said, the hon. and learned Member was entirely in error, for he could give him the instance of the Derwent in Cumberland, where there were many fixed engines and nets in which property had been acquired, and they were all swept away by the English Bill.

§ MR. SCULLY
said, he did not see why, if an injustice had been done in England, it should be extended to Ireland.

§ MR. LONGFIELD
said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, he had been no party to a compromise.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, he could corroborate what had been said by the hon. Member (Mr. Bernal Osborne) as to the injury done to the salmon fishery by the cod-fishers in some of the Irish rivers.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he would see if any provision could be framed to meet the case.

§ COLONEL VANDELEUR
said, he wished to move, in line 17, after the word "bag net" to insert the words "extending more than thirty fathoms from low water." The Bill proposed that no bag net should be placed in any estuary, and he thought that the Bill ought to define where an estuary ended and the sea commenced.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he thought the Amendment inexpedient, and that it might be left to the new Special Commissioners to make the definition.

§ MR. BUTT
said, he could not see why bag nets were to be confiscated without compensation any more than stake nets. 802 A friend of his (Mr. French) had bag nets in Cork Harbour, which did not in any way interfere with the navigation, and which produced about £300 or £400 annually. Now, by the Bill, those nets would be entirely confiscated.

§ SIR RORERT PEEL
said, that fixed engines had almost annihilated the fishery in various parts of Scotland and Ireland. The Duke of Richmond stated that, since fixed engines had been abolished in the liver Spey the fish had enormously increased. The stake net was subject to tidal influences, and was not always at work, but the bag net was always destroying and capturing salmon.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, he would admit that where the proprietors of bag nets were not also the proprietors of stake nets, some hardship would be inflicted under the Bill, and that the claims of these parties to compensation might fairly be entertained. He trusted that the Commissioners might be able conscientiously to lay down such a definition of an estuary as would exclude the bag nets in Cork harbour from the operation of the Bill.

§ MR. LONGFIELD
said, he was sorry to hear the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department express a hope that consistently with their conscience the Commissioners would be able to preserve the bag nets of Mr. French in Cork Harbour, while they were to abolish those in the Shannon. Out on such legislation! He had now lost all confidence in the Bill. He would deprive the Commissioners of making any such absurd distinction as that between preserving the bag nets in Cork Harbour and sweeping away those in the Shannon. Such a distinction was not only absurd, but unjust, and almost incredible.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that all that his hon. Friend intended to convey was, that if Mr. French had a case for compensation, the Government were ready to consider it. It was for the Committee to determine whether the Commissioners should have the power of defining what constituted an estuary. For himself, he believed that these bag nets were most pernicious to the fisheries. That principle was the basis of the Government Bill; but, at the same time, if the Committee desired to modify it, the Government were ready to consider the matter in a liberal spirit.

§ MR. LONGFIELD
said, that the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department had expressed a wish that it might be pos- 803 sible for the Commissioners conscientiously to distinguish between the bag nets of Mr. French and those of other persons. Of course the Committee knew what view the Commissioners appointed by the Government would be likely to take of any given subject after such an expression of opinion.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, the clause under consideration was an important clause, and the Government intended to strictly adhere to it, but he did not think there was any chance of passing it at that sitting. They had been sitting three hours and three quarters, and had not made much progress; and as there were no less than sixty-six Amendments on the paper, he proposed to have another morning sitting on Tuesday, when he hoped that some progress would be made with the Bill.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, he would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to fix the next consideration of the Bill for a Government evening. He was very much afraid, from what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) had said, that the Government were not going to adhere firmly to the Bill as it was brought before, the House. The people of Ireland would be better pleased with the rejection of the Bill than to see some of the Amendments adopted by the Government. If the Bill were in consequence defeated or withdrawn, he should move on the first night of next Session for leave to bring in a Bill of a single clause—namely, that the provisions of the English Fisheries Act be extended to Ireland.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, that a morning sitting on the following Tuesday would be inconvenient, because the Holyhead Committee sat on that day.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he could only repeat that he intended to propose a morning sitting for Tuesday, when he hoped it would be convenient for hon. Members to attend. That was the only way of promoting the progress of the Bill, and he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Wexford that the Government would not have given half the time they had done to drawing up and preparing the Bill if they had not been in earnest in their intention to proceed with it.

§ COLONEL VANDELEUR
said, he would withdraw his first Amendment.

§ MR. BUTT
said, he would move that the Chairman should report progress, in the hope that before Tuesday the clause might be so amended as to go through Committee without discussion.

LORD NAAS
said, he objected to that course.

§ MR. REDMOND
moved in clause 4, line 17, after "12," to insert "no bag net now placed shall be."