SECOND READING. (Hansard, 5 March 1873)

§ MR. DILLWYN,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained its origin. In consequence of statements made in Parliament in 1865, a Committee was appointed on the Salmon Fisheries, and in 1869 an Act was framed on the Committee's Report; but so many defects were found in this Act that the Commissioners of the Tyne River introduced a Bill to supply the deficiencies. The Government opposed the Bill, and said that if it were withdrawn they would 1374 take up the question of salmon fisheries themselves. Accordingly, the Bill was withdrawn, and the Government introduced another. This, however, was a somewhat crude measure; it met with considerable opposition, and that also was withdrawn; and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the whole question. The Committee was presided over by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds)—in 1871 they reported; and, in that year, the hon. Member for Stockton introduced a Bill purporting to be founded on the recommendations of the Committee. It varied, however, in some essential particulars from their recommendations. This Bill was opposed by the mill-owners, by those interested in the lower waters, and by those interested in the upper waters. The hon. Member for Stockton did not conciliate all parties, he met with opposition, and this Bill also was withdrawn. Last year, the Tyne Conservators drew up a Bill, and at their request he introduced it. The Bill was read a second time, without a division, on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill was then thoroughly and fully discussed. It was too late to pass it last year; and this year he had hoped that the Government would take up the question. They declined to do so; but he believed that they were in favour of the Bill which he now proposed should be read a second time. The Bill was simply a repetition of the Bill of last year. The hon. Member for Stockton had brought in a Bill on the same subject; but they had endeavoured to reconcile their differences, which were rather in detail than in principle, and to join in support of the present Bill. [Mr. HERMON: Are both Bills identical with the Bills of last year?] No. That being the case, he would not trouble the House further. He proposed that the Bill should be read a second time that day, and committed pro formâ on Monday for the purpose of having some Amendments printed.

§ MR. STEVENSON
said, that within a few years the salmon fishery at the mouth of the Tyne had become a very valuable industry; and the fishermen had taken £40,000 worth of fish in a year. These salmon were caught in the German Ocean, so that they ceased to be regarded as a river fish at all. This new source 1375 of supply was looked upon with great jealousy by the owners of the up-river fisheries; but he hoped that the House would not interfere with the salmon fishing in the German Ocean. Experience in the neighbourhood of the Tyne did not support the fears of those engaged in the up-river fisheries, that sea fishing would destroy the river fisheries altogether; yet the clauses restricting the size of the mesh and length of the net to be used would make sea fishing impossible.

§ MR. WALSH
objected to clauses from 17 to 27 as a cumbersome method of electing a Board which would not work. He also objected to the powers given by Clauses 28 to 31 to the water bailiffs and conservators, who very frequently were old poachers, and were appointed on the principle of "set a thief to catch a thief," and should oppose those clauses to the utmost of his power at future stages of the Bill. He thought the Salmon Acts sufficiently stringent, and believed that the reason why they did not fulfil the expectations of their promoters was that the upper proprietors had no interest in seeing their provisions carried out.

§ MR. ASSHETON
rejoiced at the prospect of passing a Salmon Bill this year. He considered some regulation with respect to the lengths of the net absolutely necessary. With respect to the water bailiffs, he believed the regulations could not be efficiently carried out, unless the laws were acted upon throughout the entire river down to the sea; and that could not be done without the aid of the water bailiffs and the conservators, who ought to have power to examine into the proeeedings along the whole river.

§ MR. W. N. HODGSON
said, he would not offer any opposition to the Motion for the second reading, though many clauses of the Bill were open to strong objection. He condemned the clause in particular which would prevent fishing at night. In that part of the country with which he was connected (East Cumberland) night was the only time at which the fishing could be carried on successfully, as the salmon would not strike the net by day. He trusted, however, that the Bill would be amended in its objectionable parts, and thus that the House would be able to pass a satisfactory measure this year.

§ MR. DODDS
supported the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, which was in the shape in which it passed the Select Committee last year. The subject was an extremely complicated and difficult one, and a combination of forces was necessary to secure the most valuable portions of the Bill, which he trusted would eventually lead to the best results. The meeting at which the arrangements referred to had been agreed on, had been attended by the promoters of the two rival Bills, as well as by other Members, and a considerable amount of attention had been bestowed upon the subject. The points of difference between the hon. Member for Swansea and himself were few and inconsiderable, and the points upon which they were agreed were very numerous. Indeed, many of the clauses in the present Bill were identical with the clauses of the Bill which he (Mr. Dodds) had introduced. There were three points which he regarded as of cardinal importance in all attempts to improve the Salmon Fishery Laws—first, with reference to the constitution of Boards; second, with reference to the power to make by-laws; and, third, with reference to the powers to place compulsory fish-passes over every weir or dam of whatever description. All the improvements wanted in the Salmon Fishery Laws might be classed under those three heads. The constitution of the Boards was unfortunately an extremely tender point, and an immense amount of opposition was created against the Bill he introduced, solely, he believed, because he sought to alter the present constitution of the Boards. The scheme of his hon. Friend with respect to this matter was rather illusory, so far as it professed to give an elective character to the Boards. The Select Committee over which he presided, and which inquired into the subject during the Sessions of 1869 and 1870, recommended that the Conservancy Boards should have an elective character imparted to them, and that the Boards should have power to make by-laws, &c. He said his hon. Friend's scheme was illusory, and he said so judging from his own experience in connection with the Tees. He had the honour to be a member of the Tees Board and the honorary secretary to it ever since its formation, and he knew what effect the change proposed in the Bill would have. He 1377 was bound to say that the present Tees Board worked very satisfactorily indeed; and he did not think any change was required there, unless it was rendered necessary in connection with increased powers. From what he could gather, the change proposed in the present Bill would affect the Tees Board in a very slight manner. By this Bill three representatives would be elected, whilst 80 members were nominated by the magistrates in quarter sessions; and there were 25 ex officio members, so that out of a Board of 108 members, there would only be three representing one interest, whilst 105 represented another. The hon. Member for Radnorshire (Mr. Walsh) said that in his neighbourhood the change proposed by his (Mr. Dodd's) Bill would have a different effect; but he thought that the rivers there must be of an exceptional character. Having had to encounter such an enormous amount of opposition last Session, he had this year kept from his Bill all reference to any change in the constitution of the Boards, but he was on no account less anxious that these clauses in his hon. Friend's Bill should be considered. He was satisfied that to meet the requirements of those who paid licence duties, the clauses as to representation must be made much more liberal than they were at present. With regard to the power to make by-laws, the two Bills were almost identical; but then the question arose—and he had no doubt it would receive due consideration from the House when the Bill got into Committee—as to how far power to make by-laws should be given to Boards, unless the constitution of them was made satisfactory. The two subjects were very closely connected with each other, and it was of great importance as regarded representation that all the various interests should be fairly and properly represented. The third point was with regard to the power to construct fish-passes over mill weirs and other obstructions. He regarded that question as being one of the utmost importance. The case of the Tyne had been referred to. He had occasion to refer to the removal of the Bywell weirs on the Tyne last Session, and he thought that if ever there was a case which showed clearly how important it was that these obstructions should be removed, the case of the Tyne would point it out to all time. He 1378 was extremely desirous that Boards should have compulsory powers to place fish-passes over weirs and other obstructions. What had been done within the past few years showed beyond the possibility of a doubt that passes could be constructed without interfering in the slightest degree with the milling interest of the country. He hoped his hon. Friend, in revising his Bill, would incorporate Clauses 24 and 25 of the Bill which he (Mr. Dodds) had introduced, and which bore on the subject. There were a few other points on which he regretted to say the Bill was defective, but ho thought it could be amended in those respects in Committee. The last point to which he wished to refer was with reference to constructing gratings across the head and tail-races of milldams. At certain seasons, of the year young fish got into mill-dams and were destroyed by the mill-wheel, or illegally captured. Gratings constructed at these races would be the means of saving a great number of fish. His hon. Friend proposed that all these powers should only be granted by the Home Office, but in his (Mr. Dodd's) Bill he proposed that the powers should be vested in the Conservancy Boards themselves. He did not think that the Home Office need be troubled on such minor questions as constructing a grating, although it was desirable that there should be a central authority to deal with more important questions. If the Amendments which he (Mr. Dodds) suggested should be accepted, the Bill might be made a good working measure. In the hope that these Amendments would be acceded to by his hon. Friend, he had consented to defer the second reading of his own Bill. The object of all was the same—to increase the supply of food for the people; and provided that were done by his hon. Friend's Bill, he should have great pleasure in helping to pass it through the House.

§ MR. PEASE,
in supporting the Bill, called attention to the engineering evidence before the Select Committee, which was of the most interestingly practical as well as scientific character. He hoped that in Committee some compromise might be effected between the two sets of interests represented by the two hon. Gentlemen who had introduced measures on the subject. Unless Members representing the various interests concerned 1379 were content to give and take, this Bill, as a Private Bill, under the present regulations of the House, would necessarily fail. As to the question of the water bailiffs, which had been raised, he might say that, in his own district, the water bailiffs were chosen from the police force, and were men of high character, and did not belong to the reckless class of poachers which had been described.

MR. BRUCE
congratulated his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) on the support his Bill had received from his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, who, after presiding most laboriously over a Committee upon this subject for two years, had introduced a measure of his own, and now, in the most generous and self-sacrificing spirit, was willing to withdraw that Bill, and give the benefit of his labours and experience to render this rival measure entirely satisfactory. If any question was ripe for legislation, we might fairly suppose that the subject of salmon fishing must be so, for he believed no single Session since he was in Parliament had passed without the introduction of some Bill in relation to it either in connection with England, Scotland, or Ireland. There were, doubtless, many difficulties connected with the question, and as had been justly stated, they could only be successfully met in a spirit of forbearance and compromise. There were many conflicting interests such as those of the upper and lower proprietors; but he believed, when looked at with fairness, it would be found that what was good for one class of interests was good for all. It was the business of the Government representing the public to see that proper measures were taken in respect of salmon fishing with a view to the supply of food, and also to encourage the employment of the people. In that spirit they were prepared to give their support to this Bill, which, after incorporating the valuable suggestions derived from the experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, he hoped would be produced in a form which would meet the approval of the House.