HC Deb 14 July 1884 vol 290 cc1076-81

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. BLAKE

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he should not occupy much time, as the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) had dropped his opposition, and his own constituents would be benefited by the Bill. It affected Ireland very largely, and would be a great boon to anglers, by removing restrictions on trout fishing and also restrictions on the trawlers of Sligo and Gal way which worked very unjustly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Blake.)

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he looked on the Bill with a considerable amount of doubt. He came from a county where the fishing was in the hands of one great proprietor. This was worth thousands of pounds a-year, while in the upper waters there was a lot of rod fishing. He believed this Bill would operate injuriously upon a great number of people in Galway, and he should oppose it on the present oocasion; but if he got some more satisfactory explanation that might affect his position.

MR. GIBSON

said, there were a great many Notices of opposition from different parts of the House, and therefore he would move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Gibson.)

The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 37: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 161.)

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

asked whether he could not move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months?

MR. SPEAKER

It is not competent to the hon. and gallent Member to do so; having spoken on the Motion for the second reading.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he had not spoken on that Motion.

MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. and gallant Member says he did not I will accept his word.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, this was a Bill which, he did not think the Government intended to allow to be read a second time, and which proposed to upset a question which was carefully debated and dealt with in that House in 1868. In that year the salmon fisheries in Ireland were reduced to a very low ebb, and after considerable debate the present Act was brought in. Since that time the fisheries in Ireland had increased in value nearly 10 times; and the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) was perfectly aware that what he was stating was substantially correct. The statement that the salmon fisheries in Ireland were overstocked was a ridiculous statement; and as to poor fishermen being injured by the present Act and benefited by this Bill, he held that the fact was exactly the reverse. The Bill was simply a proposal to upset the Act, which had increased the value of the salmon fisheries in Ireland ten-fold. He did not think he had ever seen a Bill more absolutely ridiculous and more decidedly not wanted. From every quarter he had received communications—from poor and rich alike, conservators, anglers, and net-men—on this question. He had received instructions to move the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "this day three months."—(Colonel King-Harman.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. SEXTON

said, he would point out in one sentence why this Bill should be passed. He represented a sea-board constituency, and had received the strongest appeals from fishermen on the coast of Sligo to support the Bill. These men wanted to have a chance of fisting on Saturdays; and he submitted to the House that their desire was a very natural one, and one which should be acceded to, both for social and moral reasons. At present, not only were the men deprived of a working day, and of the opportunity of earning their livelihood on one day in the week in addition to Sunday, but they were kept idle on the day when there was great temptation around them, and the natural result was that they resorted to the public-houses.

MR. TREVELYAN

stated that the Government had come to the conclusion, after such consideration as they had been able to give to the Bill, that the system which had been in force during recent years, and which had been productive of so much good to the fisheries of Ireland, should not be altered without very careful inquiry. They considered that it would be very dangerous to do so. The Government would be unwilling to consent to the Bill being read a second time, unless it were decided to refer it to a Select Committee; because the last time the matter was gone into the conclusion was arrived at that a close time, at least of a longer period than that in force, was requisite, and a Bill to that effect passed into law. The result of that Act on the fisheries of Ireland had been gradually to raise them from a state of decadence, and to place them in a much improved position. To undo that work without a fresh inquiry into the probable effects, not on the fisheries, but an inquiry of a collateral kind, into the feeling existing amongst the classes interested in the fisheries, would certainly be open to objection. He thought that some such inquiry as this was a necessary preliminary to such a change as that proposed. For these reasons the Government had made up their minds to consent to the second reading, upon the understanding that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. O'SHEA

said, that if the Government proposed the appointment of a Select Committee probably hon. Members would agree to it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that he felt himself to be in a certain difficulty as to this Bill between opposing authorities. He, of course, attached a great deal of importance to the opinions of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who represented a constituency deeply interested in this question, and, of course, he entertained great respect for the judgment of the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill (Mr. Blake)—the hon. Member having had such a large and familiar acquaintance with the merits of the fisheries question. On the other hand, he found it necessary to pause when he heard the Chief Secretary offering opposition to the Bill. He should like to ask for enlightenment from another portion of the House, as his Leader (Mr. Parnell) was not present. They had the advantage amongst them that evening of the presence of a right hon. Gentleman who had filled, not with satisfaction, but with a considerable amount of fame, the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was favourable to the Bill, because on the Question of Adjournment a little while ago he had voted against the postponement of the consideration of the measure. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be much influenced in the course he should take in the conduct of the Bill by anything that might come from the right hon. Gentleman; and therefore he thought that he was speaking the sentiments of hon. Members around him, when he said that the very keenest desire existed on their part to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.

MR. KENNY

said, that the question of referring the Bill to a Select Committee was one of great importance. He did not think the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) at all approved of such a course; and he thought that if the Government could not see their way to reading the Bill a second time—a Bill which was supported by the vast majority of those engaged in the fishing trade in Ireland, and only opposed by a few of those who were interested in rod fishing in the higher waters—without referring it to a Select Committee, it would be well to give it up altogether. The Bill was notoriously for the material and moral benefit of the fishermen, to afford them more time to work, and to keep them out of the way of certain inducements to dissipation which at present were thrown in their way. He thought it was the duty of Irish Members to force the Bill to a Division.

MR. HEALY

said, that if the Irish Members accepted the proposal of the Government, would they give them a Select Committee again next year, supposing the Government to be in Office next year? The period remaining of the present Session was very short, and very little could be done by a Select Committee.

MR. GIBSON

said, that the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had met the proposal of the Government by a dignified silence, for he had said nothing. The position of things was this. The Chief Secretary had made up his mind that the Bill was one which should not have a second reading, and therefore they had put the hon. Member in charge of the Bill in the locus penitentiœ of referring the Bill to a Select Committee as a condition of its being read a second time. This showed clearly that the view of the Government was against the measure. ["No, no!"] Yes; clearly so. That was the reason why the hon. Member had voted for the adjournment. The Government said they would give the Bill a second reading if it were referred to a Select Committee. If the hon. Member for Waterford would accept that, that triumph would be secured to him by his own forces and those of the Government. But would the hon. Gentleman get a promise from the present Government that if they were in Office next year they would repeat the Select Committee? That would raise the question of the Autumn Session; and they were told that the Autumn Session was to have nothing to do with Select Committees.

MR. TREVELYAN

I mean the real Session.

MR. GIBSON

Oh, then, this Committee is to sit in the "real" Session of next year, and not in the interlude of the present year?

MR. BLAKE

said, that as he could do nothing better, he would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He would take the second reading, on the understanding that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."

MR. HEALY

I presume the right hon. Gentleman means a Select Committee with power to send for Papers and correspondence, &c.

MR. TREVELYAN

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER

That Question will be put when the names are called.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I object to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

MR. HEALY

Is it not a disorderly practice, Mr. Speaker, when such a Motion as this is made, for the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin to object to the Motion?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must object by challenging a Division.

Question, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee" put, and agreed to.