HC Deb 08 July 1878 vol 241 cc1031-7

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Mundella.)

MR. FAWCETT

said, he did not wish to offer the slightest opposition to the Motion; but he must confess that the Bill was extremely difficult to understand. Being a fisherman himself, he was very anxious that anglers should fully understand the Bill. He had read the Bill for an hour that morning, but must admit that he could not understand it; for when he asked his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) if his interpretation was correct, he was informed that he entirely misunderstood the Bill. Therefore, he could not but ask the House what would be the position of those who would have to obey this Act, if passed? If Members of Parliament with their experience were unable to comprehend the measure, what probability was there that hundreds and thousands of fishermen who would have to obey the law would be able to understand it? It seemed to him that the Bill had a radical defect, for it could not possibly be understood without referring to some 10 or 12 other Acts of Parliament. There was one point upon which he should like some explanation—namely, Clause 7, which related to licences. At the present time, when a body of Conservators managed a river, they had power to charge for a licence to all who fished for salmon. As he understood the Bill, that power was extended so as to include fishing for trout and char. Therefore, any person—even a school boy—who had a day's trout fishing must get a licence from the Conservators. And the Bill placed no limit upon the amount of the licence, so that under the Bill, persons might be made to pay 10s. or £1 for a single day's fishing. He would also like to have some explanation of Clause 11, which provided that any person should make himself liable to summary conviction, if, between March 15 and June 15, he should catch, or wilfully intend to catch, any fish, except trout and char. Now, it was absolutely impossible, while fishing in a stream in which were trout and grayling, to tell which would be caught. It could not be intended that any person who thus accidentally, and with out the possibility of avoiding it, caught a grayling between those months, should be liable to punishment. Another clause required elucidation—that giving an extraordinary power of search to the police. The police were to be permitted to search in anyone's house they pleased, if they suspected that fish was concealed there. In principle, he was in favour of the Bill, and had done all he could to understand it. But, although he had done his best to comprehend the Bill, he required an explanation to remove his doubts on the points he had mentioned. The Bill was printed and circulated only on Saturday, and there had been no time for hon. Members to place Amendments on the Paper with regard to it.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that when first introduced, the Bill simply proposed to give a close season to freshwater fish. A Bill for that purpose was passed for the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk; and it seemed desirable, in the interests of promoting a healthy sport, and of increasing the food of the country, that that Bill should be extended to the whole country. At the time he introduced the Bill, he had no idea that so much interest would be expressed in it throughout the country. He was really surprised at the amount of interest in the Bill evinced by people in all parts of the country, and the offers of assistance he received on all hands. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary desired the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry, and a Committee of 15 hon. Members taken from both sides of the House was appointed. The Report was unanimously agreed to, all parties being in favour of the increase of a healthy and national sport. It was quite true the Bill was made double or treble its original size in Committee. The Committee found that there were a great many regulations for salmon, but that trout were only preserved in salmon rivers. As the Bill did not deal with trout, it was necessary to frame some regulations, the evidence showing that something should be done for trout and char in the English lakes, which were fast being destroyed. The House could form no idea of the waste of fish by taking them in tons during the close season; the rivers of the country would soon be denuded of fish if this wasteful process continued. The Bill had been re-drawn, so as to protect every kind of fish, by giving it a close season of three months. With respect to the hon. Member's objection to the incorporation of sections of the Salmon Acts into the Bill, he might say that they had simply availed themselves of clauses of those Acts as they required them. That might account for the difficulty experienced by the hon. Member; for, of course, it was no use setting out over and over again provisions of Acts of Parliament already passed. With respect to the 11th clause, it was said that if a person, while fishing for trout, caught a grayling, he would be liable to summary conviction under the Act. His answer to that was, that no justice would ever fine a man for taking a grayling under such circumstances, if he threw it back into the water. With regard to the power of search, it was directed against persons who caught from one to two tons of fish at night. It was necessary for the police to be able to prove that the fish was concealed in the houses of those persons, when they had reliable information that it was so secreted. He should be glad if the Home Secretary would give some explanation with respect to that matter, and he would also take that opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very excellent management with respect to the Bill. This was a matter in which all parties took great interest, and he hoped the hon. Member for Hackney would not stop the Bill at that stage. If he would point to any Amendment, or show anything omitted, when the Bill came up upon Report, he (Mr. Mundella) would be happy to consider it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Provisions as to licences).

MR. FAWCETT

said, that although he did not wish to propose any Amendment unnecessarily, he should like to have from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department a precise explanation of this clause. Was he right in supposing that under this clause any body of Conservators would be able to compel persons to take out a licence for a single day's fishing, and that the Bill contained no limitation as to the amount of charge for the licence?

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said, that the hon. Member was perfectly right in thinking that this clause gave power to a body of Conservators to issue licences for rivers whore there were trout and char; nor was there any limit in the Bill as to the amount of the licence. The matter was carefully considered by the Committee, and it did not seem to them desirable to put any limit on the charge for the licence; but it was clear that only a small sum would be charged. If the hon. Member made any suggestions of a practical nature, they should be considered.

MR. FAWCETT

observed, that after the extremely fair statement that had been made, it would, perhaps, be better that he should not bring forward any Amendment with out Notice. He thought, however, that a provision should be introduced, limiting the charge for these licences to one-third of the charge for salmon licences.

THE CHAIRMAN

inquired, whether the hon. Member intended to make any Motion? The Question had been put, that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

MR. FAWCETT

said, his difficulty arose from there not being time to put an Amendment on the Paper.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member would be quite in Order in moving a new clause, after the clauses of the Bill had been disposed of.

MR. DODDS

observed, that sufficient protection would be afforded to the public in the matter of the licences, from the Conservators being under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.

MR. WHITWELL

hoped opposition would not be pressed.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Close season for freshwater fish).

MR. FAWCETT

said, every angler knew that, when trout fishing, it was often impossible to avoid catching grayling. It was not always easy, at first sight, to say what was grayling and what was trout. It was necessary, in order that persons should not be regarded as offending, where they were simply doing that which could not be avoided, that they should have some very clear understanding upon the clause. He should move the omission of the word "catch" from the clause.

MR. MUNDELLA

remarked, that the same objection would apply to salmon; and in the hon. Gentleman's view of the clause, a man who, fishing for grayling, caught a young salmon, would be held to have committed an offence contrary to the measure. Such an interpretation might be put upon the clause; but the answer was simply this, that no magistrate would ever think of fining a man brought before him upon such a charge.

MR. KING-HARMAN

Would the Bill prevent pike or jack being killed in fresh water in which they were obviously doing harm?

MR. MUNDELLA

The Bill would not apply at all in such cases. In a stream where the owner found it necessary to protect the trout from the pike or any other predatory fish, he could take the necessary measures. He was quite entitled to destroy such destructive fish.

MR. ASSHETON

The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Mundella) seems to deserve the credit of having invented a new kind of fish. I want to know what the "pollan" is?

MR. MUNDELLA

There are many tons of pollan taken in Ireland every year.

MR. FAWCETT

wished to know how the Bill dealt with eels, which were said by naturalists to be migratory, and which were certainly found many hundreds of miles away from the sea in freshwater ponds and lakes? Was it simply a theory upon the part of naturalists that eels were migratory, and were they in all respects excluded from the operation of the Bill?

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he was not sufficient of a naturalist to give the hon. Member an assurance as to the migratory character of eels; but the evidence given before the Committee which considered the subject was in confirmation of the theory. Mr. Frank Buckland and Mr. Walpole said it was quite unnecessary to include eels in this Bill, inasmuch as they were migratory. The Bill did not apply to eels at all.

MR. FAWCETT

asked, if there were already in existence an Act which referred to eels in such a way as to bring them distinctly out of the operation of this Bill, because he understood it was never intended that they should be included. If there were no such Act, he should insert some definite words in the Bill excluding eels.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

was not aware that there was an Act in existence which defined eels as migratory; nor, indeed, did he think that such an Act would make them migratory if they were not so already. In the course of the inquiry of which the Bill was the outcome, a number of gentlemen who had made a special study of this department of natural history, gave evidence that eels were migratory, and would not come within the operation of the Bill, and therefore they were not brought within the Bill.

MR. DILLWYN

had seen eels migrate in great numbers, and believed that in this country, at all events, they were migratory.

MR. MONK

, in answer to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) said, that, in 1876, he had brought in a Bill, which passed into an Act, referring to eels as migratory. It was based on the fact that elvers, or the fry of eels, did migrate to and from the sea.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

objected to this legislative interference with fish. They ought to give the fish two or three years to consider what they thought proper to do. As for the philosophical researches of Mr. Frank Buckland, he treated them with the utmost contempt; for fish would follow their own instincts, search and reason as they liked. Fish was a very expensive article of food in this country, and there was no reason why it should be so, if the fish were left to their own agencies. But Parliamentary agency was brought into the account, and it would be far better for the poor people if it were not so. If the fish were allowed to have their own way, he was certain that in this country they would soon have salmon for 2d. a-lb. As for this philosophical fishing, he treated it with contempt.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

MR. FAWCETT moved a new clause, to the effect that the licences issued in compliance with the measure should not exceed one-third of the charge for licence in the case of salmon fishing.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said, the Bill fixed no limit; but the condition was the same as that laid down with regard to salmon—namely, that the scale of licences must be approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The proposition of the hon. Member, he was bound to point out, was rather indefinite, as it did not say what salmon licences were, and, as a matter of fact, they varied in different parts of the country.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at two of the clock.