[BILL 17.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 November 1884)

§ MR. PARNELL
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a Bill to enable the salmon fishers on the estuaries of some Irish rivers to fish on Saturdays. He understood they were prevented by the existing law from fishing during some portion of Saturday. The Bill had been prepared by the late 1505 Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), who always took a very great interest in the question of the Irish Fisheries, and who knew more about them than any other Member coming from Ireland. The Bill was recommended to their care by that gentleman when he retired from the representation of the county, and he trusted it would be accepted by the Government without very much difference of opinion.

§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN
said, he quite recognized the importance of the subject. The Bill proposed to repeal certain changes introduced about 20 years ago in the law with respect to Salmon Fisheries. The result of these changes had been to effect a most marked improvement in the Salmon Fisheries of Ireland. Everyone would agree that they ought only to alter the law affecting that industry with great care and deliberation. In this Bill there were various provisions of great importance with regard to which there was a considerable difference of opinion among the highest authorities whom they could consult. The Fisheries Board were divided in their opinion as to the effect of the changes introduced in 1863, and which were so introduced as the consequence of an inquiry. In his opinion, therefore, this subject was one calling for an inquiry to ascertain whether such changes as the Bill proposed were required; and he did not think it would be right for the Government to assent to the principle of the Bill without some inquiry which would furnish them with the basis upon which to proceed. He was not anxious to pronounce an opinion either for or against the proposals of the Bill. He would suggest to hon. Members in charge of the Bill that the Motion for the second reading should either be withdrawn or adjourned for a considerable time. In that case, the Government would be willing for a Select Committee to be appointed to consider the question of the Salmon Fisheries, and the changes that might be required.

§ MR. TOTTENHAM
said, the Bill was one drawn exclusively in the interests of one class of fishermen—namely, those who fished by boats or other movable contrivances, to the detriment and injury 1506 of the owners or lessees of fixed nets and weirs. It proposed to limit the close time for this class to practically half the existing close time, as it threw open to them 12 hours of the daylight of the closed 48 hours. The Bill might be more accurately described as one for the more effectual destruction of breeding fish, which, in the interests of the consuming public, required all the protection they could be given rather than additional facilities for their capture. As a proof of the decline in the supply, he took the returns of Billingsgate Market, one of the principal markets for Irish salmon, and it would be seen that in 1882 the number of boxes arriving there was only two-thirds of the average of the preceding 10 years; and in 1884—the returns for which were not yet complete—he was informed the number of fish taken was considerably lower than any of the previous years. The latter part of the Bill might be called the "Poachers' Facilities Clauses," as one of the provisions of the Bill was to make different close seasons for trout and for salmon fishing in inland waters, under which it was quite possible that a man might be caught in the act of fishing, and assert he was fishing for trout and not salmon, although, as soon as he was alone, there was nothing to prevent his pulling a salmon into his boat instead of a trout. Another provision enacted that there should be a different close time in different parts of the same water. This would enable a man, who was caught in the possession of fish in the close season, to say—"Oh, this fish came from the other water in which the close season does not exist." The same argument would apply to the estuaries. The last provision was one for legalizing during a certain period the most destructive engine that could possibly be used in fishing—he referred to the half-trawl net. Therefore, he thought the Government should not only ask for time to enable them to secure full information, but that the House should resolutely refuse to read the Bill a second time now.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he was not surprised that the hon. Member (Mr. Tottenham) had spoken as he had, since he was anxious to prevent Irishmen enjoying free means of living by fishing. The Irish Members fully agreed with the Chief Secretary that it was not material that the second reading should be taken 1507 now; and on the understanding that a Select Committee would be appointed at the beginning of next Session, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, he thought the course suggested by the Chief Secretary was the right one; but he feared the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed in several particulars.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord; but I have to ask you, Sir, whether he is speaking to the Motion for Adjournment?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The noble Lord must confine himself to the Question of adjournment, and not go into the merits of the Bill.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
Then I will support the Motion for Adjournment, and say that I have no doubt that if a Select Committee is appointed they would get some valuable information.