REPORT. (Hansard, 21 July 1863)

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, this proposition was practically a repetition of what had been moved and decided before, and he could not, therefore, give his assent to it.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
supported the Motion, believing it to be in accordance with every principle of right and justice. Was it not better to wait till next Session, and pass a proper Bill, than hurriedly to sanction a measure which everybody admitted to be full of gross injustice?

§ THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS
said, that it was with very great reluctance that he felt compelled to support an Amendment which was opposed by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley); but having been a party to the Act of 1842, which established rights which it was now proposed to destroy, he felt that he could not as an honest man refuse to listen to an appeal for the protection of those rights. The Bill of 1842 was introduced by the Government, it was referred to a Select Committee, and it was after full consideration that the Bill passed. That Bill recognized rights which parties had been since dealing with, and yet now it was proposed to confiscate them. Surely, this should not be done without giving compensation for the injury inflicted, for no such principle had ever before been recognized. He was of opinion that it was necessary that all obstructions to the full development of the salmon fisheries should be removed, but in doing so they should pay due regard to all existing rights and interests. He should certainly vote for the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.

VISCOUNT LIFFORD
looked more to the general spirit of legislation than to any particular measure. The Act of 1842 was not like a law of the Medes and Persians, which could not be modified for the benefit of the community.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW
, though he regretted that a Bill which would be so useful should be endangered by the Amendment being adopted, said that still he could not support the principle that rights should be taken away without any compensation being afforded. The adoption of such a principle would be thought unfair to the character of their Lordships' House, which the public had hitherto looked up to as a place where justice was sure to be done. He regretted, that owing to the late period of the Session at which the Bill had come up to their Lordships, there was no opportunity of hearing the parties who would be affected by the Bill; but it was clear that rights which had been created by Act of Parliament were now about to be destroyed; and therefore even although he should endanger the passing of the Bill, he should support the Motion of the noble and learned Lord.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
admitted that some private rights would be interfered with by this Bill; but, at the same time, the rights of all parties were likely to be 1147 materially increased in value by the improvement of the fisheries, and therefore there was no ground for asking for compensation.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, he desired to remind the House that by the Bill all rights existing in 1862 were preserved.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, that they were dealing with property worth £300,000 a year; and he was told that one-third of that property would be annihilated by the Bill in its present shape. Although the measure was for the public good, and although some fisheries would be much improved by it, still that was no reason why they should take away the rights of individuals without awarding compensation.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
admitted, that considerable hardship might be occasioned in individual cases; but he reminded their Lordships that yesterday he had voted in favour of a clause which gave compensation for all injuries sustained, which, however, their Lordships by a majority rejected. The question of compensation was not raised in the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, and he thought the adoption of that proposal would destroy the principle of the Bill.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
gave notice that on Thursday next he should move that Clause 20 be struck out.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
trusted that the noble Lord would acquiesce in the decision at which the House had already arrived.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
regretted that he could not do so.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
protested against the unfairness of repeating these fights when the House was daily becoming thinner and thinner. Did Irish Members, he asked, know what they had done? They had actually prevented themselves from catching salmon more than a third of the year.

CONTENTS.
Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Chichester, Bp.
	Calthorpe, L.
Bath, M.	Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]
Normanby, M.	Cranworth, L.
	Kingsdown, L.
Derby, E.	Redesdale, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Templemore, L.
Saint Germans, E.	Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Wicklow, E.
	Wensleydale, L. [Teller.]
Bangor, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Saint Albans, D.	Fortescue, E.
Somerset, D.	Granville, E.
Sutherland, D.	Hardwicke, E.
	Harrowby, E.
Ailesbury, M.	Orkney, E.
	Romney, E.
Airlie, E.
Amherst, E.	De Vesci, V.
Beauchamp, E.	Falmouth, V.
Cottenham, E.	Hawarden, V.
De Grey, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Desart, E.
Devon, E.	Lifford, V.
Effingham, E.

Abercromby, L.	Mostyn, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Overstone, L.
	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough, [Teller.]
Camoys, L.
Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)	Saye and Sele, L.
	Seymour, L.
Clarina, L.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Cloncurry, L.
Crewe, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Egerton, L.
Foley, L. [Teller.]	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)	Talbot de Malahide, L.
	Taunton, L.
Llanover, L.	Wodehouse, L.
Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)	Wynford, L.