SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 February 1865)

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
presented a Petition from owners of oyster beds in the river Roach, and others, praying that, if their Lordships should think fit to read the Bill a second time, it should be considered by a Committee of the Whole House, because they were too poor to bear the expense of opposing it before a Private Bill Committee. The noble Marquess said, that he did not object to this Bill upon its merits, but it formed one of a class for the creation or development of oyster fisheries which ought to be carefully watched, lest they should lead to the establishment of rights which might clash with general legislation upon the subject. He would now put the question of which he had given notice—Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Fishery Bill, regulating the Usages and Creations of Oyster Fisheries, during this 735 Session? and whether the Private Bills now before Parliament had been examined and approved by the Board of Trade or other Government authority?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that the Government did not intend to introduce any general Fishery Bill this Session. They had given their consent to this and other Bills of a similar nature that were now before Parliament, contingent on their passing through Parliament.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, it was an argument in favour of these Bills, that the supply of oysters did not in any degree equal the demand, and the formation of new beds of oysters would be of considerable advantage to the public. The object of the Bills was the protection of beds upon which a large sum of money would be required to be laid out. Many private Bills, no doubt, required full investigation, but he really believed the object of these Bills was unobjectionable.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, all these Bills gave very considerable rights upon shores, and therefore required to be looked at very closely for the public interest, especially as in unopposed Bills of this description no one was watching them on behalf of the public or the Admiralty.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH
said, that in a Committee on a Bill of a somewhat similar description, counsel had been heard in opposition on behalf of other companies and of the fishermen. Either the Board of Trade or the Admiralty had laid down several stringent rules for the observance of such companies as these Bills proposed to invest with certain shore rights.