Lords Sitting of 19 June 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Commissioners of Bankrupts; Pillory Abolition; and Theatres Regulation.—Read a third time:—Public Works (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM, from a place in Scotland, against the Scotch Municipal Reform Amendment Bill; and from the Vestry and Householders of St. Luke's, Middlesex, in favour of the plan for the abolition of Church-rates; and a second, to the same effect, from a Dissenting congregation.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
Viscount Melbournepresented a petition from the city of Bristol, to which he begged leave to call the attention of their Lordships. The petition was agreed to at a public meeting held in that city, and had 7,386 names attached to it. The object of the petition was to call on their Lordships to pass the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. The petitioners took that opportunity of denying the accuracy of the statements contained in a petition presented on a former evening by a noble and learned Lord opposite, which went to impugn the correctness of certain observations made by him (Viscount Melbourne) as to the working of the Municipal Reform Bill in Bristol. The observations which he had made were not founded on any feeling that might be supposed to exist in the city of Bristol generally, nor were they connected with any expression of feeling that might have emanated from a public meeting, but were based on evidence which had been carefully obtained with respect to the working of the Municipal Corporations Bill. His object was to give his opinion as to the actual work-

1541
ing of that Bill, so far as he had been able to collect evidence with respect to its operation. The petition which had been presented from other parties in Bristol, contained statements opposed to the facts which he had laid before their Lordships, the correctness of which he could refute by a reference to documents. He, however, would not trouble their Lordships by noticing them all, but would merely press on their attention one of the points actually in dispute. That point had relation to the efficiency of the police system in checking and preventing crime under the new Municipal Bill. He was now prepared to show, that what he had formerly said, was perfectly correct; and in doing so, he should rely on an authority which he was certain would have great weight with their Lordships. The present Recorder of Bristol (Sir C. Wetherell), was the authority to whom he referred. He had the concurrence of that learned personage in support of the fact, that the Municipal Corporation Bill had operated most beneficially in introducing an efficient police into Bristol. As the opinion of that learned Gentleman on this subject was very important, he could not refrain from alluding to it. At the quarter sessions held in July, 1836, the learned Recorder stated, that though the population of the city had increased, in consequence of the extension of its ancient limits, yet crime had diminished. At the quarter sessions held on the 8th of October, the same learned person stated, that it was true misdemeanor had increased, but that, considering the great increase of population occasioned by the Municipal Reform Act, crime had decreased. In January, 1837, the learned Gentleman stated similar sentiments; and at the same quarter sessions the grand jury said, that they felt it to be their duty to express their approbation of the improved state of the police. Finally, in April, 1837, the learned Recorder expressed great satisfaction at the efficiency of the police, observing, that taking all circumstances into consideration, the town had benefitted by the new system of police. Such evidence as he had adduced would, he thought, answer every objection that had been raised on the subject of police; and as for the other points, he would not trouble the House by referring to them.
Lord Wynfordhad every reason to believe, that the statements contained in the
1542
petition presented by him, were perfectly correct. He hoped that the noble Viscount would move for a Committee to inquire into the subject. If the noble Viscount took that course, he pledged himself to prove that the statements contained in the petition were accurate.
Petition laid on the table.

IRISH FISHERIES.
The Earl of Glengallpresented a petition from certain landowners on the banks of the river Suir, complaining of the encroachments on the rights of fishing. He took this opportunity of calling the attention of his Majesty's Government and the House, to the importance of the subject of the Irish Fisheries; both the deep sea fisheries, and the in-shore fisheries. The deep sea fishing was a question vitally interesting to the poor of Ireland, and one which could not be avoided whenever the subject of Poor-laws was discussed. "It is notorious (continued the noble Earl) that the coasts of Ireland abound with fish in greater quantities than the coasts of any other portion of the globe; yet so great is the poverty of the people, that they are unable to avail themselves of the blessings which Providence has so liberally placed within their reach; hundreds of thousands might be employed in this trade—yet what is the case? In 1822, there were 7,655 boats and 36,000 men employed; in 1830, there were 13,119 boats and 64,000 men; this increase was the consequence of the bounty given by Government. After that period, the bounty was withdrawn; and in 1836, the boats had decreased to 10,761, and the men to 54,000. I shall not argue the propriety of bounties; but the facts here detailed, speak for themselves. The greatest destitution prevails among the fishermen on the north-west and south-west coasts—those are poor countries, but it is the same in more favoured districts; near Dublin, great distress prevails; at Dungarvon, also on the south-east coast, the case is the same. The people have not the means of procuring boats or implements for fishing. He was glad to find that the Board of Public Works were intrusted with the interests of this trade, as he was sure that that most intelligent officer, Colonel Burgoyne, would assist them to the utmost of his power, as there was still about 12.000 l. of the money appropriated by Parliament for their use,

1543
untouched and unavailable. Surely, it would be well for Government to encourage this trade as a nursery for seamen for future exigencies, instead of inducing so valuable a class to emigrate. He strongly urged this point on the consideration of the Government. Now, as respects the in-shore fishery, the state fishery is one of deep importance as regards property in one sense, and the tranquillity and moral habits of the peasantry on the other. Dreadful outrages have been the result of the defective state of the laws, arising from the undefined rights of parties to the strands and wastes at the mouths of the rivers. Last month, a vast body of individuals, above 1,000 persons, armed with guns and scythes, attacked the weirs of Mr. Hector, of Kildoney, near Ballyshannon, in the county of Donegal, destroyed his boats and nets, and endeavoured to seize Mr. Hector, and murder him. Only a few days ago, a second attack was made on his property. The noble Earl then read the following statement:—
"County of Donegal.—On Friday night, or Saturday morning last, between 200 and 300 of the peasantry assembled at Kildoney, within three miles of this town, armed with guns, swords, scythes, and pikes; and after firing into several windows, where they suspected Mr. Hector and Mr. Kelly (his assistant) were concealed, they proceeded to Mr. Hector's store, from which they took his nets and other fishing tackle, and placing them in a pile, set fire to and completely consumed them. They then got boats and proceeded to where he had other nets set, which they also destroyed, and broke his boats in pieces. They thus openly set at nought the Lord lieutenant's proclamation (issued last week), offering 40 l. for the discovery of any of the persons concerned in the previous outrage, as stated in our last. Shots were fired, after which they quickly separated. About 10 o'clock that night some person came to Mr. Kelly's house at the Abbey, and desired him to get up and conceal himself, or he would be murdered, which he did just in time to save his life, for he was not long out when an attack was made on his dwelling, but, finding he was not there, they decamped after firing some shots. Mr. Hector was so alarmed at their formidable appearance, that he resolved on coming into this town; and having taken up his abode in the house of Mr. Wilson, a Scotchman, the house was attacked on Saturday night, and the windows smashed."
This is the state of things in the north. In the south, a few years ago, vast bodies collected from the counties of Tipperary, Kilkenny, and Waterford, and destroyed
1544
all the Scotch weirs in Waterford haven. On the 6th of June only, an immense concourse of persons destroyed the weirs between Waterford and Duncannon Fort. The noble Earl read this extract:—
"Terrible Conflict.—Waterford. An immense concourse of persons went down the river in cots on Tuesday, for the purpose of destroying the weirs between this city and Duncannon, which have been illegally erected, and are destructive, in a great measure, to the salmon of the Suir. They proceeded vigorously in their work of levelling until they had been seen by the county of Wexford people, who assembled in great numbers to the banks, and succeeded in restraining them from further devastation. A fight immediately commenced between the adverse parties, the cot-men flinging stones at an awful rate, they being replied to by as thick vollies from the shore. We regret exceedingly to record, that two of the country people, of the names of Walsh and Doyle, fell in the conflict, having received such injuries as deprived them of existence."
Surely this is a state of things which ought not to last. Allowing the country people to take the law into their own hands is productive of most serious results, especially in a country like Ireland, unfortunately too prone to disturbance; all this arises from the uncertainty of the rights of erecting Scotch weirs on the strands. Suits at law have frequently been tried, and generally gone against the proprietors of these weirs. The 10th of Charles 1st, in the Irish statutes, "enacts and secures to the public a right to the use of the strands and wastes on the shores of Ireland for fishing purposes, and confers a complete freedom of fishery to all British subjects." This act is not repealed; it would be well that it was more distinctly defined, as it is the cause of all these scenes of outrage. Higher up these rivers, especially this very river, which runs into Waterford Haven, all species of illegal means are resorted to to destroy the fish; in the town of Clonmel, where there is a mayor and county and stipendiary magistrates, the law is daily violated by the millowners in the most unblushing manner; the consequence of this is, the country people, imitating the example of their richer brethren, do the same; they collect in bodies and proceed at night to poach; these parties generally end in sheep-stealing expeditions and carousals in unlicensed whisky houses, and a general demoralization ensues. Frequently, under pretence of fishing, predatory parties meet, and, as the police are by the Constabulary Bill

1545
not allowed to interfere in fishing matters, they are allowed to molest the country unrestrained. This law requires revision. I should beg to recommend, as there are seventy-nine statutes on the subject of the Irish fisheries, that they be consolidated into one plain act, the construction of which I consider to be well worthy the attention of his Majesty's Government. "I move that there be laid on the table of this House the constabulary reports of the attacks on Mr. Hector's property at Kildory, in the county of Donegal, and that on the weirs between Arthurstown and Duncannon Fort, com-
1546
mitted in the months of May and June ult."
Motion agreed to.