§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked the Secretary for the Home Department, If the Government will bring in a Bill to amend the Laws affecting the Salmon Fisheries in the Solway Frith? Up to a comparatively recent period the whole of the waters in the Frith were under one law, though part was in England and the other part in Scotland. The fishery legislation of 1861–2 had, however, introduced a different state of things, which was productive of great injury to the fishery. Two attempts had been made to rectify the evil, and had failed only through accident.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYregretted that, not having been able to communicate with the Lord Advocate, who just now was very much engaged elsewhere, he could not give a definite answer to the Question. It certainly seemed to him that a great injustice existed at present, as on the English side a proper examination of the nets and fisheries had taken place, whereas no such examination was provided for the Scotch shore; and it might very well be that nets were in use on the Scotch shore which inflicted injury on the fisheries on both shores. The use of nets ought to be placed on the same footing on both sides of the Solway, and he would consult the Lord Advocate upon this point.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, that the result of the inquiries of the Fishery Commissioners and their recommendations had, he believed, been extremely beneficial. The production of salmon and the rents of the fisheries had been thereby largely increased. This being so, ought not those who benefited from these inquiries, and the Acts passed in consequence, to pay for them? If any persons asked for an in-closure or a Drainage Act, the expense was defrayed by a rate on the property benefited. Why, then, were persons who had no connection with salmon rivers to pay for that which only filled the pockets of the owners of these waters?