[BILL 244.] THIRD READING. (Hansard, 16 June 1886)

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S. W., Newton)
said, he had received remonstrances from several Fishery Boards against the manner in which this Bill was being rushed through the House. These Fishery Boards feared that under the Board of Trade the interests of the Freshwater Fisheries would be prejudiced through their being subordinated to the larger interests of the Sea Fisheries. The Bill either went too far or did not go far enough, and it would have been better to have postponed legislation until it could have been undertaken with more deliberation and discussion.

§ SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK (Norfolk, E.)
said, he concurred in the remark that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman that the measure did 1653 not go far enough. A distinct pledge was given by the President of the Board of Trade early in the Session that there should be a Central Department for dealing with these matters, if he could not see his way to the establishment of a Fishery Board for England and Wales as was proposed by his (Sir Edward Birkbeck's) Bill. That Central Authority, it was promised, should have the control not only of all the fisheries, both inland and sea, but also of the police of the sea—namely, the cruisers. It was also understood that the very important question of statistics should be provided for, and that a practical man should be appointed to the Department who really knew what the wants of the fishermen were. On the occasion of a very important deputation of delegates from all the fishing ports to the Board of Trade, the President distinctly promised the fishermen that there should be established elected Councils at the various fishing ports, who should be in direct communication with the Fishery Department of the Board. It was a matter of great regret that those promises had not been carried out, and great disappointment would be felt by the fishing industry. He feared that the subject had suffered because the President of the Board of Trade had been prevented by ill-health from devoting that amount of attention to it which it would otherwise have received from him. He earnestly hoped that the Government would see their way to withdraw the Bill with a view to its re-introduction in a much better form in another Session.

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE (Plymouth)
said, that as one who had seconded the Resolution when the discussion took place which resulted in this Bill being introduced, he would like to express his regret that the Bill had been brought forward at all, as it did nothing to fulfil the pledges given by the Board of Trade. There did not appear to be any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who could explain what the Bill was, and he was afraid the fact of its being passed would only be used as an excuse for delaying larger and more important legislation.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND) (Cornwall, Launceston)
explained that the object of the Bill was simply to transfer the jurisdiction over the Salmon Fisheries 1654 from the Home Office to the Board of Trade, so as to secure unity of administration over all fisheries.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)
said, he was in favour of the Bill so far as it went, although, as; his hon. Friend had said, it only carried out part of the pledges given by the Government.