HC Deb 16 June 1863 vol 171 cc967-73

Bill considered in Committee (Progress 12th June).

(In the Committee.)

Clause 4 (Prohibition of Bag Nets in certain Places.)

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he had given notice of an Amendment to leave out the words, "or in any other waters except in the open sea at a distance of more than," and to insert the word "within;" but he would take the division on the Motion to omit the words "or in any other waters."

Amendment proposed in page 2, line 18, to leave out the words "or in any other waters."

MR. M'MAHON

said, it was important that the clause should remain unaltered. It provided simply that bag nets should not be allowed "except in the open sea." That was a clear and intelligible definition, but nobody could tell where the mouth of a river began. The Amendment of which the Under Secretary had given notice was clearly proposed to save the interests of Mr. Sampson French. [Mr. H. A. Bruce: No.] Then, it was to save interests which might be represented by the word "Sampson-Frenchism." If they saved the interests of one Mr. Sampson French, they must do the same for a dozen other Sampson Frenches. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert) had also given notice of a Motion to save the interests of some Sampson-French. He trusted that the Committee would reject the Amendment.

MR. HERBERT

said, as he had been pointedly alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, he might say that on looking over the Bill he saw that it would injuriously affect some friends of his, and he had given notice of an Amendment in order to prevent their being injuriously affected.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, that the effect of the Amendment of which the hon. Under Secretary had given notice would legalize all bag nets in all rivers and estuaries, except those within three miles of the mouth. It would be much better for hon. Members to give in the names of their special friends to the clerk at the table, so that a clause might be framed expressly protecting the interests of Mr. Hector, Mr. Little, and other gentlemen who had friends in that House.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he would admit that his Amendment was a departure from the main principle of the Bill. The bag nets were put up legally under the Act of 1842, the framers of which evidently did not know what they were doing in legalizing these destructive engines. The Committee would be justified in refusing to legalize bag nets, because what did a bag net do? It might be run across so as to intercept the progress of all the salmon up a river. At the same time, the Committee would not be right in ignoring the rights that had grown up under the Act of 1842. It would be an act of harshness to sweep them away without allowing time to carry out the necessary arrangements. The case of Mr. Sampson French was one which he would admit had been considered by the Government, and they came to the conclusion that a limited proposal to be moved hereafter by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert) was a very fair one. The Bill would, however, still confer great advantages on the fisheries of Ireland,

MR. LONGFIELD

said, that if the proprietors of fisheries who were to be conciliated were named, he would vote for the Amendment; otherwise, as the Amendment would work a very important alteration in the meaning of the clause, and was intended to save the property of certain gentlemen, he would oppose it.

SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE

said, be wished to know whether they were legislating for public or private rights. The hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department had admitted that the bag nets might be so placed as to intercept every fish. Then, why did the hon. Gentleman ask the House to pass a Bill that gave to private individuals the right to intercept and kill every fish that attempted to go up the river? Talk of confiscation Could there be a more complete act of spoliation? He was now in favour of the Government Bill, and he thought it very hard to have to get up and defend it against the Amendments by which the Government now wished to destroy the efficiency of their own measure.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, that by the Amendment he proposed they did not legalize any bag nets whatever.

MR. BUTT

said, by the clause as pro- posed to be amended bag nets would be prohibited in river estuaries and within three miles from the mouths of the rivers.

LORD NAAS

said, he hoped that they would retain the words "other waters," as he knew waters which could not be defined as estuaries, but in which by bag nets they might catch every fish that came up.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, he should oppose the Amendment. On the west coast of Ireland, there were waters in which they might take every fish by bag nets.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 33: Majority 2.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he would move to strike out the word "three" and insert the word "five." The effect of the Amendment would be to prohibit bag nets, except at a distance of more than five miles from the mouths of rivers.

COLONEL VANDELEUR

said, he should oppose the Amendment. A great many persons might be injured if it were adopted.

Amendment negatived.

MR. REDMOND

moved, after the word "rivers," to add "estuaries."

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he saw no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in line 20, after the word "rivers," to insert the words "or estuaries."—(Mr. Redmond.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 8: Majority 68.

MR. BUTT

said, he would move an Amendment to the Clause, to the effect that no person should be allowed to erect a bag net within three miles of a river, "save any person having an exclusive right of taking salmon in any such river." It was manifest that in the case of an exclusive right to both banks of a river, from its source to its mouth, no injury could be done to any other party by leaving undisturbed the power of erecting bag nets.

LORD NAAS

observed that a person holding such a property might by means of bag nets erected within three miles of a river inflict an injustice on parties possessing rights of property over contiguous streams.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he had no objection to the principle of the Amendment; but he thought that they ought to exercise great caution in adopting it, lest they might thereby interfere with the rights of other parties. If the Amendment was not then pressed, he was ready to undertake that the Government would consider the subject, and endeavour to introduce a provision on the bringing-up of the Report, for the purpose of attaining the object contemplated by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal.

MR. BUTT

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. M'MAHON

said, the Amendment was so dangerous that the Committee ought not to allow it to be withdrawn, but they should negative it.

MR. O'HAGAN

said, that he could not approve of the Amendment, because it appeared to go beyond the purpose for which it was intended, and would enable a proprietor not only to preserve the bag nets already established, but to create new bag nets. All he could say was, that he and his right hon. Friend (the Chief Secretary) would give their best consideration to the subject.

LORD DUNKELLIN

said, he trusted than any further consideration given to the Amendment would lead the Government to oppose it on the Report.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Penalty on new fixed Nets).

SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE

said, that he was a Member of the Select Committee to which the Bill of 1842 was referred. He felt quite certain, that if that Committee had foreseen the operation of the clauses of that Act, it would not have received the support of a single Irish Member. It was proposed on the responsibility of the Government; and though he was a consenting party to it, it was because he was ill-informed; and it had ever since been a matter of deep regret to him that he had assented to the passing of a law which had most materially injured not only the fisheries of Ireland, but also the poor of that country. It had, indeed, perpetrated an act of spoliation and confiscation. Parliament took away from one man and gave to another, and, what was worse, took away from the poor and gave to the rich. But the clauses of the Act of 1842 were proposed on public and not on private grounds—not to enable the proprietors of the lower fisheries to make money, but because it was alleged that new and destructive engines had been invented for taking fish, that the public markets were ill-supplied, and that fish would be more abundant if that Act were passed. The Committee were now told, with truth, that the operation of the Act of 1842 had been most destructive to the fisheries, and that it had deprived the poor of their daily bread. Were they also to be told that the Act conferred vested rights upon particular individuals, to enable them to fish in a particular manner, and that the House of Commons must look on while all the river fisheries of Ireland were being destroyed? He trusted the Committee would not believe that rights conferred in such a manner, and for such objects, ought to stand in the way of more beneficial legislation. They had heard of nothing but the Shannon during the debates on the Bill before them; but what had become of the fish in the small and beautiful rivers of Ireland? They were absolutely destroyed, and the fish were gone. He was told that it was an angler's question. Well, he was in favour of protecting the rights of anglers, for an angler's success represented the stock of fish in the water. But year after year the stock of fish in the Irish rivers had diminished; He had supported the Bill as a compromise; but he could not find any compromise in the present Bill on the part of the weir-owners. The clause proposed that no fixed net not legally in use for catching salmon at the time of the passing of this Act should be used in any inland or tidal waters. He would propose as an Amendment to leave out the words "at the time of the passing of the Act" for the purpose of inserting "on January 1 1848." He proposed that Amendment, because in 1848 he brought in a Bill, which became law, by which he did not attempt to repeal the Act of 1842, but which remedied some of its defects. He did not recognize by that Act any of the vested rights supposed to be created under the Act of 1842, and the effect of his Bill was to increase the supply of fish in the rivers. The proprietors in many districts, however, took advantage of the increased stock of fish, and put up fixed engines. They thus took all the fish which his Act had been the means of preserving. The result was that the fisheries were again destroyed. His object now was to prevent those who took advantage of the improvement to be effected by the Bill before the Committee from setting up any claim of vested interest in consequence of what they did in 1848. Those parties ought not to be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong; and if his Amendment were agreed to, the clause would only recognize the fixed engines put up prior to the Act of 1848.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, that the right hon. Gentleman asserted that the Bill before the Committee was no compromise at all. [Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE: Not as to stake nets] Was it nothing to prohibit all new stake nets? Was it nothing to appoint a commission to carry put the Act, with larger powers than any commission had ever had before, to inquire into the rights of parties, and overrule everything contrary to those rights? He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the rights and interests which had sprung up since 1848 had no claim upon the consideration of the Committee. If the Amendment were carried, it would be for the Government to consider whether they would proceed with the Bill. It was opposed to every principle on which the Bill was brought forward.

MR. CONOLLY

said, he also must express his disapproval of the, Amendment. He denied that the salmon fisheries of Ireland had declined under the existing law. There certainly had of late years been a great increase in the quantity of fish forwarded from Ireland to the markets of Liverpool and London since 1842.

MR. MONSELL

said, that the construction of railways had no doubt facilitated the transmission of fish from Ireland to this country, but he believed, at the same time, that the salmon fisheries of Ireland were being gradually destroyed by the existing state of the law. He should add, however, that he thought it would not be wise for them to adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Canterbury, inasmuch as by pursuing such a course they would in all probability render impossible the passing of the Bill.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, that the Amendment would open the door to a vast amount of litigation. There was no certain record of the fixed engines in existence on the 1st of January 1848. It was most desirable that the Bill should pass in the present Session, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he approved of the Amendment as an abstract proposition. But he thought it was not desirable that they should by its adoption endanger the success of the Bill. The measure as it stood would at all events be productive of considerable advantage. Out of 138 fixed engines in the Shannon it would remove 77, that number of the fixed engines being bag nets.

MR. BLAKE

remarked, that the only fault he found with the right hon. Gentleman was that his Amendment did not go half far enough. There were, he believed, only three rivers in Ireland containing bag nets. In all the others the stake nets were retained just as they were left by the Bill of 1842.

SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE

said, he perceived that the general sense of the committee was opposed to the Amendment and he would therefore not persevere with it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BLAKE

said, he wished to move an Amendment in the clause to the effect, that "in no case should any stake weir, stake net, or fly net be allowed to extend beyond the low-water mark of ordinary neap tides." He believed that the Bill as it stood would be productive of little or no benefit of any kind, while it would be attended with one great disadvantage, that it would render any future amendment of the law entirely hopeless.

MR. MONSELL

said, it would be better to get rid of stake nets by a direct Motion than by a side-wind of the kind proposed. If the Amendment were agreed to, the stake nets on the Shannon would be entirely useless.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CONOLLY

said, he would divide the Committee against the clause.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—

Mr. Conolly was appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes; but no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the Noes, the Chairman declared the Ayes had it.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday, at Twelve of the clock.