Commons Sitting of 25 March 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee — Wear Navigation and Sunderland Docks (Stamp Duties on Proxies).
Committee—Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) [Bill 1], Debate (March 4) resumed, and again adjourned.
Select Committee—Partnership Law Amendment [Bill 26].
Third Reading—Inclosure [Bill 58], and passed,

SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [4th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add: the words "the Bill he committed to a Select Committee,"—(Lord Fermoy,)—instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he acknowledged some legislation was still required on this subject, but he conceived that there was no ground for the sweeping measure proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) and he trusted the House would refuse it its support. He conceived that the Act of 1842 was judicious and effective, and he believed that no case had been made out for repealing it—for that, in fact, was the object of the hon. and learned Member's Bill. The marrow of this measure lay in two clauses. The object of one of those clauses was to prohibit certain engines for taking fish, and among them were those going under the description of fixed engines. The prohibition of those fixed engines in all the tidal waters of Ireland would, in fact, amount to the confiscation of property yielding £100,000 a year, although the right to the engines producing that large revenue had been legally established by the Act of 1842. He certainly did not think that the House would at once, and without grave reason, accept a clause of such a sweeping nature. It appeared from official Returns, that under the Act of 1842, which the present Bill sought to repeal, the progress of the salmon fishery had been, from 1852 to 1862, one of gradual improvement, with the exception of the two years

  1897
  1860 and 1861. The Report of the Commissioners for 1862 was not yet on the table of the House; but he was able to say, from his own knowledge, that the decline manifested in the two late years had now very much ceased, and a decided recovery had taken place. Still he was not prepared to deny that there had been an over-catch of salmon, and that some legislation was needed to check the abuse; but he did deny that there was any necessity for this measure. Indeed, it appeared from the Returns that the fishing on the part of the cotmen, who constituted the interest which the hon. and learned promoter of the Bill stood forward to defend, had increased in a greater ratio than that of any other interest. While admitting that legislation was desirable, he objected to the subject being dealt with by a private Member, for he thought it was one that should be taken up by the Government. The other clause, which he had before mentioned as forming an important part of the Bill, referred to chartered weirs or milldams. He had obtained information which showed that the rivers best stocked with salmon were those fished under ancient charters. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not sanction any interference with those rights. It was the duty of the Government to regulate and restrain over-fishing, but they ought not to countenance the sweeping confiscation of existing rights.
  MR. DAWSONbelieved that it was desirable to legislate on this subject, but that the present Bill would be neither satisfactory in regard to public, nor just to private interests. He must protest against the confiscation of property on which large sums of money had been spent, and the overthrowing of arrangements on the faith of the durability of which leases had been granted. He held that compensation must form an essential element in any settlement of this question, and regretted that no provision was made for it in the Bill. In his opinion, however, the Government would alone be able to accomplish any effectual reform of the Irish fisheries; and the best way of meeting the case would be to issue a Royal Commission, which would take evidence on the spot, would inquire into the validity of private rights or quasi-rights, the interests involved, and the compensation which ought to be given in each case. The assertion that salmon were on the increase in Ireland, could only apply to the mouths of rivers. In the upper waters there was a
  1898
  lamentable deficiency of fish, and in some places the breed had become almost extinct. For instance, at Lough Neagh, which, with the exception of the Lake of Geneva and a Russian lake, was the largest sheet of fresh water in Europe, and was fed by thirty-six streams, it was only at the month of the Bann, and within three or four miles of the sea, that fish were caught. In the upper waters, on the other hand, the fish were found, rari nantes in gurgite vasto, and the sight of one was quite a novelty. The deleterious matter which was introduced by the flax manufacturers into the rivers had a very injurious effect on the salmon. A Royal Commission ought to be appointed to inquire into the various questions at issue in this matter; but, in the mean time, he should support the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone.
  COLONEL WHITEsaid, he had a proposal to make on this subject, which he hoped would be accepted. He, for one, was sincerely anxious to improve the fisheries in Ireland; but so long as the question remained in the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, that object would not be accomplished, because the lower proprietors would never submit to be deprived of their property by a Bill introduced by a private Member, though in the hands of Government some chance of an ultimate agreement existed. What be would suggest was, that the debate should be adjourned, and that ten Gentlemen—five representing the lower and five the upper proprietors, with a member of the legal profession as assessor—should meet in the tea room for the purpose of endeavouring to frame a Bill which should be satisfactory to all parties, and which the Government should be asked to introduce and pass into a law. He was persuaded, that if his suggestion were agreed to by the promoters of the present Bill, the lower proprietors would meet them in the fairest spirit, and would be ready to make great sacrifices in order to insure the passing of a well-considered measure. He would move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. BAGWELLseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he could hardly believe that the hon. and gallant Member was serious in the proposal he had made. The indifference of the Government, as

  1899
  manifested by the state of the Treasury benches, on a subject involving so largely the interests of Ireland, showed that nothing could be expected from them, and warranted any private Member in trying to legislate to the best of his ability. He maintained that the present Bill was called for, that it was just and necessary, that it; did not interfere with private property in any way, and that there was no occasion to refer it to a Select Committee, or to have an inquiry by a Royal Commission. At one time the upper and lower proprietors had nearly the same rights, but the latter soon evinced a disposition to grasp at what did not belong to them; and about two centuries ago, an Act was passed to check their "greedy appetites and insatiable desires." Up to 1841, stake-weirs and bag-nets were clearly illegal; and a decision given in that year to that effect rendered some new legislation necessary for the stake-weir owners, and hence the Bill of 1842. Great praise had been bestowed upon the Select Committee to which that measure was referred, and of which the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone was a Member; but he contended that it entirely disregarded the rights of the public, attending exclusively to those of private individuals. The Members were guided solely, not indeed corruptly, but naturally, by their own interests, from which they never deviated in a single instance, and at once decided, without evidence of any kind, that the erection of stake-weirs was thenceforth to be allowed. No wonder that the effect of the Bill, when converted into an Act, was to give an unlimited latitude to the erection of stake-weirs and bag-nets everywhere. In 1851 a long correspondence took place between the Fishery Commissioners and the Board of Admiralty, complaints having been made against the former for not putting into operation the powers with which they were vested in respect to the erection of weirs. The result was, that an Inspector was sent down to examine the state of two estuaries, the Bride and Black water. The Inspector ultimately reported that those rivers were actually studded with weirs, all of which were illegal; and the Board of Admiralty was called upon to interfere. It appeared, however, that neither the Fishery Commissioners nor the Board of Admiralty would interfere in the matter, although it was proved that those weirs were wholly illegal, and had seriously impeded the navigation of the livers in
  1900
  which they were erected; so that those two bodies, who were paid largely to watch over and protect the public interests in such matters, wholly ignored their duty on that occasion. The same was the case with the river Shannon. In that noble river a number of powerful individuals—such as the hon. and gallant Member for Kidderminster and Lord Monteagle, and many others — had for their own private purposes erected these illegal engines, to the general prejudice of the rights of the public, and to the great injury of the navigation. He had great respect, but no compassion, for the hon. and gallant Member for Kidderminster (Colonel White), who possessed what were called rights of property in some of these weirs. That gallant Gentleman, who was connected with the Treasury, as well as other Members of both Houses of Parliament who were owners of these nuisances, were admirably taken care of, but the interests of the public and the poor were sacrificed. The influence of these powerful individuals prevailed, while the duty of protecting the general community was bandied from one Department to another, and, of course, in the end wholly disregarded. The fact of the King's turnspit being a Member of Parliament had once prevented a reform in the Royal Household, and in that House they had now many turnspits, whose resistance to improvement was seriously felt on the present question. The supporters of this Bill had been recommended to intrust the matter to the Government; but when he looked to the empty Treasury bench, and saw not a single soul there, save the hon. and gallant Member for Kidderminster himself, he could hardly think that a very safe and impartial tribunal to which to appeal. The Select Committee of last year which examined this question included three ex-Secretaries of Ireland (Sir W. Somerville, Mr. Herbert, and Lord Naas) besides the present acting Chief Secretary, who was not now in his place. The stake-weir and bag-net proprietors were also well represented on that Committee, whose decision was arrived at after hearing witnesses of the highest experience on both sides, and after looking carefully into all the evidence and documents collected on the subject between the years 1842 and 1862. The present Chief Secretary was chosen a Member of the Committee in order that he might bring to the inquiry the weight, if not of his official experience, at

  1901
  least of his official position; but the right hon. Baronet had neglected to attend its sittings, and declined to avail himself of the means of information there afforded to him on the subject on which he now came forward to legislate. The hon. and gallant Member for Kidderminster followed him as his shadow, and the right hon. Baronet, knowing that his friend was in peril, rushed to his rescue. Hence those well-known clauses proposed by him as amendments, but which were a repetition of the Act of 1842. The Committee of 1862 came to the conclusion that it was fair and right to legislate as was proposed to be done by this Bill, abolishing all stake-weirs and bag-nets not sanctioned by Act of Parliament, or by express grant of the Crown, on the ground that they had become an absolute public nuisance which, if continued, threatened soon to extinguish the breed of salmon in the rivers of Ireland, as had been proved by experience in the case of England and Scotland. These obstructions had nothing like the legal rights of property, and ought to be swept away. The making of gaps in weirs for the sake of navigation, leaving full and free access to the upper waters of the rivers, had been found greatly to multiply the quantity of fish, and thus to benefit those who had mistakenly resisted it. The framers of this Bill wished to legislate for the interest not of any one class, but of the entire public; they had not sought to minister to the greed and avarice of the few, but to the real advantage of the commonwealth, and he earnestly hoped that the House would ratify their principles.
  MR. MACDONOGHsaid, that this subject, being one of deep importance to the interests of Ireland and the empire at large, ought to be discussed in a calm and judicial spirit, and not in a spirit of personality and prejudice. He therefore regretted the acerbity of tone which had marked the speech of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield) who seemed to be dissatisfied with every tribunal which had examined this question, save the Committee of 1862. The generality of his censure took from it its chief sting. For his own part, he did not look to the personal interests of the lower, the middle, or the upper proprietors, but to the improvement of the salmon fisheries of Ireland and the interests of the public at large; and having listened to the able statement of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord
  1902
  Fermoy), he felt hound to vote for his proposal as to a Select Committee, thinking that inquiry should precede legislation. He had been astonished to hear it said that this Bill did not trench on private lights, because its fourth and fifth sections taken together enacted that there should be an open gap in every stone weir—a provision clearly invading the vested rights in weirs, founded on Royal charters granted from the earliest times. The Sovereigns of England had a right to make these grants, because those fisheries were vested in the Crown prior to Magna Charta. There being, then, clearly vested rights in these weirs, it became the House to approach the question with calm temper and judgment, such as would enable them to arrive at something like a just and fair compromise of the matter. There being, as he contended, vested rights in these weirs, it followed that any gaps created in them by subsequent legislation was a violation of those rights. The 5 & 6 Vict. prohibited the opening of any such gaps unless the proprietors had been compensated, and that was a just principle of legislation. Then as to the rights more recently acquired, he did not go the length of asserting that the 5 & 6 Vict, conferred rights of property as indefeasible as the titles given by the Incumbered Estates Court; but it conferred certain rights in weirs, stake-nets, and bag-nets under certain circumstances, and those rights, having been confirmed by subsequent statutes, had been bought and sold and made the subject of settlements. From the best sources of information he was enabled to state that there never was before a larger supply of salmon than existed at this moment in Ireland; and there was clear evidence that the export of salmon from Ireland had greatly increased since the passing of the Act 5 & 6 Vict.; but as most contradictory statements had been made, further inquiry was needed before adopting any fresh legislation. The Report of the Commissioners in 1852 recommended a consolidating statute to be brought in by the Government. No such statute had been passed, but he hoped even now that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland would take up the subject, and deal with it, instead of allowing it to be dealt with by private Members. The advocates of the Bill had talked of statistics justifying such legislation; but the statistics had never been produced, and if such did exist they should be submitted to a

  1903
  Select Committee who would fairly inquire into their accuracy. The hon. and learned Member for Mallow had thought fit to impugn the conduct of the Committee of 1842, which was a subject of regret, as the introduction of personalities into debate was very objectionable. But he did not believe that the distinguished men who formed that Committee had been influenced by selfish motives, and no ground for such a charge had been shown to exist. There was no doubt that the Committee which sat last year had acted according to what they conceived to be their duty, but the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Colonel Vandeleur) had told the House that he wished to examine several important witnesses, but the Committee refused to adjourn for a single day to enable him to produce them. How could English Members be expected to decide upon a question respecting which such conflicting statements were made, without a preliminary inquiry before a Select Committee? He believed that the balance of testimony was in favour of the success of past legislation, but he did not desire to determine that point himself, and therefore urged the necessity of obtaining further information.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, a noble Friend of his (Lord Stuart de Decies) had been spoken of as an innovator upon the river Blackwater, and he had been requested by that noble Lord to state that not a single weir upon the Black water was in his hands, and that of those in the hands of his tenants not one, he believed, could be regarded as an encroachment. With regard to the question before the House, he supported the Motion for adjourning the debate, not because he wished to cause delay, but because the lower proprietors desired to have inquiry before legislation, and they had not been heard before the Committee of last year. He thought, too, that this was a subject which the Government should undertake to deal with, as they had done in the case of the Scotch fisheries. He objected to the description of the Bill as being intended to assimilate the laws relating to salmon fisheries in England and Ireland, because in England rights that had existed from time immemorial had been respected. In the English Bill provision was made for compensating those rights which were interfered with or prejudiced in its operation; whereas by the present Bill, while existing rights were swept away, the question of compensation was altogether omitted. The Committee
  1904
  which sat last year had refused to examine some witnesses, and therefore he was of opinion that another investigation of this subject should take place.
  MR. GEORGEthought the measure of his hon. and learned Colleague was one of spoliation and destruction of existing rights guaranteed by Act of Parliament, without the slightest approach to compensation in favour of the injured parties. He deprecated the personal allusions made by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield) to men as high-minded and as honourable as himself, and as free from the suspicion of improper motives or personal considerations when adjudicating upon questions affecting the interests of their fellow-countrymen. It was monstrous to say that those weirs were contrary to Act of Parliament. He insisted that they were fully warranted by Act of Parliament. If those weirs were illegal, he asked why they were allowed to exist from 1847 up to the present moment without any order or authority from the Irish Judges, before whom the question had repeatedly come, to abolish them. He could not help thinking that the representatives of the Government in Ireland were guilty of a grave dereliction of duty in allowing an important question like that before the House to be discussed without their intervention, or any attempt on their part to correct the confusion in which the House was placed upon this subject, a confusion arising from the discordant opinions that had been expressed as to the interests of the one party or the other involved in this matter. The subject was of sufficient magnitude and importance to be dealt with by the responsible advisers of the Crown, and he therefore trusted that Her Majesty's Government would take it up, and introduce a Bill which, while it would meet existing evils, would protect existing rights.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he rose to defend the course he had adopted as a Member of the Committee of 1842. The Members of that Committee had been attacked by the hon. and learned Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield), who had attributed corrupt motives to them; but he thought that a mention of their names would be considered a sufficient refutation of the charge. It included the late Judge Jackson, the present Irish Chief Baron, the Recorder of Dublin, Mr. Conolly, Mr. O'Connell, Sir Robert Ferguson, and other Members from Ireland. The Bill was not hurried through Parliament. It

  1905
  was printed in 1841, and, after the country had had time to consider it, it was, in 1842, referred to a Select Committee. The first vote he (Lord Fermoy) gave in that Committee was directly opposed to his personal interest. Mr. Conolly and Mr. Jackson had introduced a Bill to abolish stake-nets and weirs, and in the Committee a compromise was arrived at, whereby those stake nets and weirs were legalized, with limitations. The Bill itself was a compromise, and as such the Committee regarded it. None of the fishing interests asked to give evidence, such was the confidence entertained by all parties in the impartiality of the Members of the Committee, who had ample information before them. The Committee of last year had heard evidence; but their policy was not such as entitled them to the confidence of the country; for they had not heard the evidence on one side as fully as they had heard that on the other. Surely a Committee which had taken some evidence was entitled to more confidence than a Committee which had taken no evidence at all. This was a case for compromise. If the stake-weirs and bag-nets were illegal, why did not the Government put them down? The House was asked to prejudge the legal question, for the Bill before them declared those engines to be illegal. He did not believe that the effect of this Bill would be to increase the number of salmon or to benefit the upper proprietors. In his opinion, its effect would be to quadruple the property of the owners of certain lax-weirs in Ireland. He was in favour of a principle which would give every one a fair supply in the first instance; but when a good general supply had been obtained, be would then allow those persons who were entitled to fish for salmon to catch them in the best way they could for a certain time. Proper precautions should, of course, be taken for keeping up the breed. Enormous quantities of fish were destroyed by millers. Why was there no outcry against that by the promoters of the Bill now under consideration? On the upper waters every man's hand was against the salmon, and there was no one to protect them. The little that was done in the way of protection was under an Act of 1844. He hoped the question would be taken up by the Government; for by them only could the necessary compromise be effected. He believed salmon might be increased a hundredfold in Ireland within ten years. If the Government gave him a pledge that
  1906
  they would take the subject up, he should withdraw his Amendment for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the salmon was a very interesting fish, and the object of everybody was to increase the supply of that fish, not for the purpose of preserving, but for the purpose of consuming it; but it was very desirable that the discussion should now take a practical shape, and he thought, that if the Government would take up the question, they would be able to discover a solution of these difficulties. What would be the practical effect of this debate? He thought they ought to close it as soon as possible. The point about which they were all anxious was to get as much salmon as they could, and the first thing to be done was to prevent the premature destruction of the fish. Upon the small rivers it certainly appeared that the fish were decreasing by the engines now in use. It was true that a Parliamentary title must be respected; but public rights ought also to be considered, and in doing so, perhaps, the individuals who were now so busy in agitating this question might be themselves benefited by legislation. He suggested that during the Easter recess the Government should take the subject into consideration, and that the right hon. Baronet should employ his vacation in thinking upon a matter which was of so much importance to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would bring forward a well-considered Bill, he might depend upon it receiving from that side of the House a calm and dispassionate consideration.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEagreed with those who wished that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) should take the matter into consideration, and prevent, if he could, the unseemly spectacle of what might be called an Irish row upon a subject really of national importance. He maintained that it was in the shallow waters that the great damage to the salmon was done; and until the fish were properly preserved in the upper waters, the supply would not be so abundant as it ought to be. To do away with the sea fisheries would be to do a great public injury, and would be depriving of certain employment a large number of poor persons. The proprietors of these fisheries required no unfair advantage, but based their claims on the broad basis of law, justice, and equity.
  COLONEL VANDELEURsaid, that the object of the hon. and learned Member for

  1907
  Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) seemed to be to consider the advantage not of the poor people, but of the monopolists. The name of the public was often used when some bit of a job was to be done for somebody else. He (Colonel Vandeleur) was one of the proprietors of the Lower Shannon. He did not derive much advantage from it, but there wore others who did, and he considered this Bill one of the most monstrous acts of spoliation ever attempted. He had often been astonished how an hon. and learned Gentleman, who himself had very little interest in Ireland, could volunteer to make an attempt amounting to little less than plunder. The proprietors whose rights were now attacked held under repeated Acts of Parliament, and they ought not to be exposed to these continued attacks upon interests as well established as any in the kingdom. This question of navigation had been very much strained by the supporters of the Bill. If the Admiralty interfered in Ireland, why should they not interfere in England and Scotland? He denied that the number of fish Lad fallen off; on the contrary, the statistics showed that they had increased. Of course, there were bad and good seasons. If there were a wet autumn, there was good fishing, and vice versâ. He hoped the House would not sanction any attack on the vested rights of proprietors.
  COLONEL DUNNEpointed out that the whole day had been wasted in a fruitless discussion, and expressed his opinion that they would never arrive at a useful result by continuing the debate. It would be better to accept the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for Kidderminster (Colonel White), to choose a Committee composed of gentlemen connected with both interests, and a few English Members who had no bias either way. There were great and conflicting interests at stake, and concessions would certainly have to be made on both sides. This was the only way of getting out of the difficulty, and he preferred it very much to appealing to the Government — for the Amendments put on the paper by the Irish Secretary had given general dissatisfaction, or for Irish Members making speeches for the purpose of wasting the time of the House.
  MR. MONSELLagreed with the hon. and gallant Colonel that there had been great waste of time in discussing the Bill, but did not believe that the method he had pointed out would lead to the settle-
  1908
  ment of the question. Without the assistance of the Government it was impossible that a Bill settling this question could be passed, and he appealed to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland to take the matter up. If he would do so, he and many other Irish Members would give him all the support in their power. The interests at stake were so varied that only the Government could reconcile them; and unless they undertook the duty, there would be great risk of the Session passing by without a remedy being provided for the great and proved evils which existed. By proper legislation the supply of salmon in Ireland might be enormously increased, and it would be a source of great wealth to that country, and especially to the people employed in the fisheries.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, he joined in the wish of the hon. Member for Limerick, that the Government should take the matter of these fisheries into their own hands, or nothing would be done this Session—
  And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate was further adjourned till To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. PEELmoved that the House go into Committee of Supply for the purpose of voting certain sums on account for the Civil Service.
  MR. AUGUSTUSSMITH objected to any Votes being taken when the Estimates had not been laid before the House.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.