Lords Sitting of 20 July 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance * (No. 231); Companies Clauses * (No. 232); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements * (No. 233); Exhibition Medals * (No. 234).
Second Reading—Nary Prize Agents (No. 210); Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) * (No. 225); Nuisances Removal Act (1855) Amendment * (No. 226); Public Works and Fisheries Acts Amendment * (No. 201).
Committee—Fisheries (Ireland) (Nos. 211 & 229); Harwich Harbour * (No. 174); Howth Harbour * (No. 180); Vaccination (Scotland) * (Nos. 193 & 230); India Stock * (No. 223); Sydney Branch Mint * (No. 217).
Report—Harwich Harbour *; Howth Harbour *; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * (No. 220); Misappropriation by Servants * (No. 227).
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) * (No. 198); Prisons (Ireland) * (No. 195); Alterations in Judges Circuits [H.L.] * (No. 212); Greenwich Hospital (Provision for Widows) * (No. 207); Metropolitan Main Drainage Extension * (No. 208); Savings Banks Acts Amendment * (No. 221); Clergymen (Colonies) [H.L.] * (No. 228); Port Erin Harbour (Isle of Man) * (No. 169); and severally passed.

NAVY PRIZE AGENTS BILL—(No. 210.)

  SECOND READING.
  LORD CHELMSFORD LORD CHELMSFORD moved the second reading of the Bill, the object of which he explained to be to enable the captains of ships of war to appoint prize agents for the sale of prizes, for facilitating the distribution of the sums realized, and for providing for the appointment and remuneration of the agents. From 1814 to 1854 all prize matters were managed by agents appointed by the captains of the ships, and they were intrusted with the duty of selling prizes and distributing the proceeds. No complaint was ever made of the manner in which these persons had discharged their office, but in 1854 a Bill was proposed by the Admiralty by which that power was taken away from these persons, and intrusted to the Admiralty. Great objection had arisen from time to time against the operation of this measure, and the present Bill had been introduced in the other House to restore something like the former state of things as it existed from 1814 to 1854. The Bill provided for the appointment by the Admiralty of standing prize agents, with power of removal in case of dissatisfaction, the remuneration to be at the rate of 2½ per cent on the value of the prize. To the first part of the Bill he understood the Admiralty had no objection; but they did object to the latter portions of the measure, which portions, however, could be modified in Committee.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he had no objection to the principle of the Bill, which was the appointment of a standing navy prize agent; but some of the de-
  1032
  tails of the measure would require to be amended in Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

DEFENCE OF CANADA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that in the absence of the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies, he would ask his noble Friend the President of the Council the Question of which he had given notice, relative to the formation of a Militia in Canada. He would remind the House that last year the Canadian Legislature rejected the Militia Bill proposed by the Colonial Ministry. After the prorogation of Parliament last year the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies wrote an excellent despatch to Lord Monck, the Governor General, stating that it would be useless for England to attempt to defend Canada in the event of attack, unless the Canadians were prepared to defend themselves. Lord Monck replied in a despatch equally satisfactory, but enclosing a report from his new Ministry, in which they spoke of their political liberties being infringed by the formation of a three years' militia, but saying nothing about what they were prepared to do themselves. Lord Monck at the same time forwarded a proposal of his own for raising 50,000 militia at a small expense. He (Lord Lyveden) was satisfied that the people of Canada were thoroughly loyal, but at the same time it was their duty to make provision for their own defence, and not rely upon the mother country in case of war for protection. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Lord President of the Council, Whether any and what steps have been taken to raise a Militia in Canada since the date of the last Despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Viscount Monck, dated the 30th of December 1862?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was perfectly impossible for the mother country to give any real assistance in the way of colonial defence, unless she was cordially supported by the colonists themselves. He was sorry that he could not give a satisfactory answer to the Question of his noble Friend. The Bill in reference to the militia, which passed the Canadian Parliament in the last Session, was entirely unsatisfactory; but the feeling of the colonists was happily very much in advance of that of the Government of Canada. This was

  1033
  shown by the fact, that whereas the Bill only authorized the raising of 10,000 militia, 25,000 volunteers offered themselves and were accepted, and were now in a state of great efficiency. Indeed, 25,000 more volunteers tendered their services; but their offers were declined by the Colonial Government from what he considered was a false economy. The Colonial Ministry was recently in course of re-organization, and the Parliament would meet in about three weeks. It remained to be seen what measures the Government would propose, and the Parliament would adopt, in reference to this subject.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 211.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on this Bill read.
  LORD CHELMSFORD presented Petitions from certain parties, complaining that the Bill would seriously interfere with their rights, and praying to be heard by counsel at the Bar of the House. If any precedent were required for a course which was evidently required by justice, he would beg to point out to their Lordships a case which occurred in 1850, when Lord Brougham presented a Petition against the Australian Colonies Government Bill, and praying to be heard by counsel at the Bar. On that occasion, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies acceded to the prayer. He contended that the present case was of a similar character, and that as private property was being dealt with in a summary manner by the measure, the Petitioners were entitled to be heard.
  Moved, That M. A. Little and A. Clarke (whose Petition was presented this Day), and R. W. C. Reeves (whose Petition was presented on Thursday last), severally praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill, be heard as prayed.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhoped the House would proceed with the consideration of the Bill in Committee without further delay. When the Bill was before the other House, the Irish Members, some of whom were deeply interested in the measure, and whose connections would be widely affected by it, made no such proposal as that of the noble and learned Lord.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYalso presented a Petition from certain persons, who alleged that their lights would be se-
  1034
  riously affected by this Bill, praying to be heard by counsel at the Bar.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEresisted the Motion. The Bill, he said, partook rather of the nature of a Game Bill than of one affecting property in the generally accepted sense. The Petitioners would not, he added, have any salmon at all if the salmon fry were not protected by others.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLremarked that no application had been made to be heard by counsel in the case of the Scotch and English Salmon Fisheries Bills, although those measure affected the property of many private individuals.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the Bill was entirely different from one simply relating to game. He thought the practice of the House was in favour of granting the prayer of the Petitioners.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, it appeared to him to be somewhat unjust to hear the present Petitioners by counsel, and not those persons who had been deprived of their rights by the Act of 1842.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWthought it only just that the Petitioners should be heard.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 19; Not Contents 66: Majority 47.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Melville, V.

  Bath, M.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Exeter, M.

  Normanby, M.

  Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Congleton, L.

  Denman, L.

  Derby, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Hardwicke, E.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Lonsdale, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, Archbp.

  De Grey, E.

  Desart, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Devon, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Ducie, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Effingham, E.

  Sutherland, D.

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Lucan, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Abingdon, E.

  Romney, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Russell, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Cawdor, E.

  Cottenham, E.

  De Vesci, V.

  1035

  Hawarden, V.

  Methuen, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Lifford, V.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Mostyn, L.

  Overstone, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Camoys, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Seymour, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Clarina, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Gardner, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Harris, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Hatherton, L

  Templemore, L.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Llanover, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Wynford, L.

  House put into Committee.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Prohibition of Bag Nets in certain Places).
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that when the Government took up this Bill in the House of Commons, Sir Robert Peel stated it to be their deliberate judgment that vested interests and existing rights in stake nets, bag nets, and other fixed engines legally erected, should be respected; but they were unable to carry the measure in the shape in which they framed it. What he proposed to do, was to move the omission of the first paragraph in the clause, and the insertion of certain words in its stead, which would serve to restore the clause to the shape in which it was originally drawn; and he thought he could claim the concurrence of the Government in this Amendment.
  Amendment moved, To leave out ("or in any other Waters, except in the open Sea") for the purpose of inserting certain other words.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREobjected to the Amendment, and said he would divide the House.
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not Contents 42; Majority 4.
  Then the words "or within a distance of less than three statute miles from the mouth of any river or estuary, as such river
  1036
  or estuary has been defined by the Commissioners of Fisheries, or shall be defined by the Commissioners under this Act" added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Sutherland, D.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Bath, M.

  Clarina, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Gardner, L.

  Cardigan, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Devon, E.

  Effingham, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo)

  Orkney, E.

  Romney, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Lifford, V.

  Sondes, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Sydney, V.

  Abercromby, L.

  Cleveland, D.

  Aveland, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Exeter, M.

  Normanby, M.

  Crewe, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Abingdon, E.

  Harris, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Derby, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Desart, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Seymour, L.

  Russell, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Wicklow, E.

  Taunton, L.

  Melville, V.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Clause 4 (Penalty on new fixed Nets).
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he wished to know whether this was to be a Bill for the protection of salmon, or of all sorts of fish as well. He proposed to leave out the word "trout" from this and all the other clauses of the Bill where it occurred, so as to except that fish from the operation of the Bill, as was the case in England.
  Moved, To leave out the word "trout."
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the omission of the word would seriously affect the laws of fishing in Ireland with respect to trout.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD CHELMSFORDproposed an Amendment to leave out the words "during the open season of 1862," in order to insert words, whereby stake nets that have been legally used "before the passing of this Act" may continue to be legally employed. The noble and learned Lord instanced the case of Mr. Reeves, one of the Petitioners, as illustrating the injustice that would be done if the clause remained in its present shape. That gentleman had had a right to use both stake nets and bag nets for fifty years past, but be had abandoned the use of that power. Bag nets would be rendered illegal by the Bill; and as he was not using stake nets in 1862, he would be prohibited from re-establishing them, and the result would be that his fishery would be annihilated.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought that the Amendment would give rise to great evil and inconvenience, and he contended that the clause was necessary, to suppress stake nets which had been erected since 1862.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsupported the clause as it stood, and said it would be more rational and more convenient to introduce a saving clause in favour of Mr. Reeves rather than to make an important piece of legislation, affecting the whole of Ireland, imperfect on the hardship of one particular case.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the question raised by his noble and learned Friend was of very great importance—of more importance than the existence of salmon itself—for it affected the character of their Lordships' House. Surely, if they attacked property in this way, their reputation would be very much diminished. He should like to hear the opinion of the Lord Chancellor upon the matter, especially as this part of the Bill had already been opposed by two ex-Chancellors.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he should have to-morrow to preside over their Lordships as the highest tribunal of justice in the land; but he should be ashamed to take his seat if he supported the principle of this clause. He had been
  1038
  much shocked by some of the arguments by which the proposal had been supported—he had never expected to hear such arguments uttered in their Lordships' House. It had been said by a noble Lord on a former evening, that if an Act of Parliament passed in 1842 conferred certain rights, an Act passed in 1863 could take those rights away. A more revolutionary doctrine—a more wicked doctrine—had never been enunciated. The title to the Crown of this country was an Act of Parliament, the titles to the estates possessed by their Lordships were based upon Acts of Parliament; and if their Lordships countenanced such a doctrine, they would weaken the title to everything that was most valuable in the institutions of the country. Their Lordships had deliberately sanctioned the Act of 1842, which conferred certain rights. Were they now, at the end of twenty-one years, to attempt to take these rights away? Not having intended to take any part in this discussion, he had suggested an Amendment to a noble and learned Lord, which would have the effect of providing that nothing contained in this Bill should take away any right, title, or interest now possessed, enjoyed, or exercised by virtue of the enactments of the Act of 1842. His conscience would not permit him to do less than express his opinion on the course which had been taken with reference to this Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYregretted that the conscience of the noble and learned Lord had not been moved when the English Bill was under discussion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he knew nothing about it. He gave the noble Lord and the House credit for not being capable of doing such an act of injustice.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the noble and learned Lord ought to have known something about it, for he was in Parliament at the time. He disputed the correctness of what had been stated by the noble and learned Lord. This clause expressly reserved the rights of every person who had legally used a stake net previously to a particular time; but it was quite fair that Parliament should say that after a certain time no such stake nets should be erected. The question really was whether those nets should be forbidden from the beginning of this year or from the passing of this Act. He did not care about the

  1039
  slight alteration that would be required to make the time date from the passing of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, the Bill of 1842 was an utter robbery, not only of the proprietors, but of the public in general, and he trusted their Lordships would protect those who had suffered by that abominable measure.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwished to recall their Lordships' attention to the immediate object of the Amendment. The clause provided that no fixed net not legally erected before or during the open season of 1862 should be placed or used for catching salmon or trout. Now, up to the end of 1862 the same individual had the right of using bag nets and stake nets, but might have preferred to use, not the stake net, but the bag net. The Bill prohibited the use of bag nets; and at the same time by this clause a man who might legally have used a stake net in 1862, but had not done so, would be deprived of the power of using such a net. His noble and learned Friend's Amendment provided that it should be lawful to use a stake net which might have been legally erected up to the passing of the Bill. That was nothing more than just, because it would be rather strange legislation to punish a man for having adopted a less injurious system of fishing.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the rights of such a person would be protected by Clause 6.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, Clause 6 would not have that effect, because it would be controlled by Clause 4.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the practical question was whether their. Lordships should give the same protection to the people of Ireland, who were most anxious on this subject, which they had given to the people of England and Scotland. In the Bills which referred to England and Scotland certain principles were no doubt strained. The real question, then, was whether they would consent to a principle in regard to Ireland which they had not been very scrupulous about when England and Scotland were concerned.
  LORD CHELMSFORDwished to point out that the words which he proposed to insert were contained in the Bill as introduced in the House of Commons by the Government. The principle had been discussed over and over again, and over and over again the Government had expressed their determination to protect all vested rights.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwould not object to the Amendment, provided the words "in use" were inserted. Those words were adopted in another clause of the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he would not accept this alteration.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsuggested that the words "in actual operation at the passing; of this Act," would meet the difficulty.
  Moved, To leave out "during the open season of one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two," for the purpose of inserting "and in actual operation at the time of the passing of this Act."
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he was wilting to adopt this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREobjected to the Amendment, both in its original and its altered form. He would remind their Lordships that by the Act of Charles I. all fixed engines were declared illegal and remained illegal until this provision was repealed by the Act of 1842; but this Bill contained a saving clause, protecting the interests of those who had bonâ fide taken advantage of the Act of 1842. Since this Bill was introduced, stake nets had been erected in many rivers in Ireland with a view of establishing a right which had not heretofore existed, and it was monstrous that for the sake of saving the alleged rights of Mr. Reeves these stake nets should be legalized. Their Lordships might as well give up the Bill at once as adopt the Amendments of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford). The Amendment of the noble Duke would let in a quantity of nets which had been erected since the Bill was brought in, and he trusted that their Lordships would adhere to the clause as it stood.
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 44; Not-contents 28: Majority 16.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Ducie, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Effingham, E.

  Sutherland, D.

  Fortescue, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Harrowby, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Romney, E.

  Devon, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  1041

  De Vesci, V.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Llanover, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Torrington, V.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Bagot, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Mostyn, L.

  Overstone, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Clarina, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Ebury, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) [Teller.]

  Foley, L.

  Gardner, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cambridge, D.

  Hawarden, V.

  Lifford, V.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

  Crewe, L.

  Bath, M.

  Denman, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Seymour, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  De Grey, E.

  Derby, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Desart, E.

  Granville, E.

  Templemore, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Russell, E.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Construction of Free Gaps).
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the clause proposed to give power to the Commissioners to make gaps or openings in all weirs—those which had been closed, and those in which they had no power under the Acts of 1842 and 1850 to make openings. The clause ended with a proviso declaring that no person should be entitled to compensation by reason of enforcing the opening of free gaps. He strongly objected to the principle of the clause, which was a direct infringement of the rights of private property, and would move to strike out the proviso for the purpose of inserting words to the effect that the Act shall not affect the right of owners of weirs, in which free gaps could not have been enforced without compensation previous to this Act, to any compensation to which they were otherwise entitled.
  Moved, To omit the Proviso at the end of Clause 9.
  LORD LLANOVERsaid, that some
  1042
  years ago the upper waters of the English rivers were so utterly deprived of fish by these weirs that an Act of Parliament was passed, providing for a free gap in every weir, and the consequence was an enormous increase of salmon, to the advantage not only of the upper proprietors, but of the lower. No compensation was then asked, and he did not see how the owners of weirs in Ireland could be better entitled to compensation.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the Irish had an Act which gave compensation, but the English had not.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobjected to the Amendment. The advantage which the owners of weirs would derive from the improvement of the rivers would be ample compensation for the opening of these gaps.
  LORD CHELMSFORDhoped their Lordships would protect the rights of private persons.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEconcurred in thinking that compensator ought to be awarded.
  EARL GRANVILLEappealed to his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) to give way. He was very anxious to secure the object of the Bill, which was to prevent the utter destruction of salmon in the Irish rivers. The mere question of compensation was of secondary importance, and he would suggest that the proviso should be omitted, with the understanding that on the Report the clause originally introduced by the Government for regulating the mode in which compensation should be given should be added.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that when the gaps were made, by the course of nature the number of salmon would be increased. There would be no loss for which to give compensation, but, in fact, an actual gain.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the clause of the Government was so drawn, that if there was no loss, there would be no compensation.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he could not give way. To give up the clause was to give up the Bill.
  On Question, Whether the said Proviso shall stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 15: Majority 21.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause agreed to.

  CONTENTS.

  Sutherland, D.

  Clarina, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Foley, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Gardner, L.

  Desart, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Ducie, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Mostyn, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Overstone, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Lifford, V.

  Seymour, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Romney, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

  Crewe, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Redesdale, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Derby, E.

  Granville, E.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Clauses 10, 11, 12 agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDproposed to insert a clause prohibiting the use of nets of any kind or description in the fresh water portions of rivers in Ireland for the capture of salmon and trout.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, this clause appeared to him absurd. Although a proprietor might have a river full of salmon, he was not to fish in it except with rod and line; and if he happened not to have them, he must go without fish for dinner.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwas confident that the Scotch proprietors would never have assented to such a clause.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas aware that many Irish landlords were in favour of the clause, but it was such an innovation on the existing law that he could not consent to it.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREapproved the object of the clause, and had himself given notice of a clause—which he would recommend his noble Friend to adopt—to the same effect, but exempting certain cases where nets had been used from time
  1044
  immemorial, to which it would be unjust to apply it.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDconsented.
  Page 5, line 39, after Clause 12, moved to insert the following Clause:—
  ("No Net shall be used for the Capture of Salmon or Trout in the Fresh-water Portion of any River, as defined by the Commissioners under this Act, except so far as the same may have heretofore been used within the Limits of a Several Fishery next above the Tidal Flow, and held under Grant or Charter or by immemorial Usage"): (The Viscount Hutchinson.)
  On Question, Whether the said Clause shall be there inserted? their Lordships divided:—Contents 11; Not-Contents 27: Majority 16.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.) [Teller.]

  Clarina, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lifford, V.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Crewe, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Derby, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Desart, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Ducie, E.

  Granville, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Romney, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Templemore, L. [Teller.]

  De Vesci, V.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Motion negatived
  Clauses 13 to 19 agreed to.
  Moved to omit Clause 20: On Question, Whether the said Clause shall stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 19: Majority 1.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Lifford, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Desart, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Orkney, E.

  Romney, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  De Vesci, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Wynford, L.

  1045

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Derby, E.

  Ducie, E. [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Saint Germans E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Crewe, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Templemore, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Wensleydale, L.

  Clauses 21 to 29 agreed to.
  New Clause (Salmon Passes and Fish Ladders to be open to Inspection) inserted.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 229.)

  EXHIBITION MEDALS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to prevent false Representations as to Grants of Medals or Certificates made by the Commissioners for the Exhibitions of 1851 and and 1862—Was presented by The Lord SOMERHILL, and read 1a.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.