§ (The Lord Cranworth).
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD CRANWORTH, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he had introduced the measure in consequence of a Petition which he had a few days previously presented to their Lordships. In that Petition the Petitioner stated that some years since he purchased a salmon fishery of the Encumbered Estates Court; but that, having failed to use it in the years 1861 and 1862, he found, when he was about to use his right of fishing with fixed nets in 1864, that by the Act of 1863 he was precluded from so doing. Not believing that any Act could have contemplated so unjust and retrospective an operation, he appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench, where the decision was confirmed, although its injustice was acknowledged. The Bill, to the second reading of which he now asked their Lordship's assent, provided a remedy for the clause by which so much injustice was committed—a clause against which, he might add, he had protested at the time it was originally before their Lordships' House—by providing that persons entitled to erect fixed nets might do so notwithstanding the pro- 762 visions in the Act. The second clause of the Bill extended the time originally allowed for appealing against the decision of the Commissioners, and permitted those who had not appealed to do so, provided they made the appeal within six months after the passing of the present Bill; and the third clause allowed the re-hearing of cases decided by the Court of Queen's Bench against the appellants in consequence of this provision of the Act of 1863 in cases where the petition for re-hearing was presented within six months of the passing of this Bill.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Cranworth.)
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the benefit conferred upon the salmon fishery of Ireland by the Act of 1863 had been very great, and that he therefore trusted their Lordships would be careful how they interfered with the operation of that Act, and especially how far they opened a door to litigation of a serious character.
§ An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months,")—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
§ LORD HYLTONdeprecated any interference with legislation, which, on the whole, had been beneficial in its results, in order to meet isolated cases. By so doing they might create a difficulty which would go far to destroy the benefits which had already resulted from the operation of the Act. The present Bill would entirely unsettle the law as settled by the Act of 1863.
§ LORD MEREDYTHwas understood to say that the destruction of the weirs, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1863, had lead to a great increase of salmon, and now that the fish were more plentiful, certain gentlemen were very desirous of re-erecting weirs, which, from the former scarcity of salmon they had some few years since found to be of no value. He trusted their Lordships would not virtually repeal an Act; that had operated so beneficially.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that the Act of 1842 had almost killed the goose that laid the golden eggs; but the Act of 1863, which restricted the right to fish with fixed nets to those who had so used them in their fishery in the seasons of 1861 and 1862, had done much to remedy the disastrous state of the fisheries. The 763 gentleman who had sent the petition had failed to exercise the user required by this beneficial Statute, and had consequently lost his right, and now sought to repeal the beneficial provisions of the Act of 1863 in order to regain it. The Irish Fishery Commissioners reported that the produce of the salmon fisheries in Ireland had very largely increased in consequence of the Act of 1863. If this Bill were passed in its present shape, the appeals to the Queen's Bench would be endless, and the entire object of the Bill of 1863 would be lost. If, however, the noble and learned Lord would name some period for the exercise of these rights, and would exclude bag nets from the first clause, the measure might not be an unfair one to pass.
THE LORD CHANCELLORdeprecated a revival of the discussion of the Irish Salmon Fishery Bill. The noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) had gone back to the Act of 1842, by which certain rights were created and others confirmed. It had been argued that as Parliament could create rights so it could extinguish them; but that was a position he (the Lord Chancellor) utterly denied. He agreed that it was proper to put some limit to the exercise of these rights with regard to stake nets and bag nets; but, undoubtedly, where persons had not abandoned the use of their stake nets and bag nets before 1862, but accidentally, or for some personal reason, had not used them in that year, it did seem most unjust to say that these rights should be forfeited. The Bill proposed to put an end to that gross injustice, and, with some limitation upon the rights of parties, it would receive his support.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that wrong, injustice, and confiscation had taken place under the Act of 1863, and the Fishery Commissioners had been armed with arbitrary powers which ought not to be given to any set of men. He denied the accuracy of the statement made by the Fishery Commissioners with respect to the increased catch of salmon. Anglers might have found better sport, and at particular places the fishery might have improved; but his inquiries led to the conclusion that the additional supply of Irish salmon was inappreciable in the London market, while in Dublin the same prices ruled as in previous years.
§ After a few words in reply from Lord CRANWORTH,
764§ On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 29; Not-Contents 22: Majority 7.
CONTENTS. | |
Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Clinton, L. |
Cranworth, L. [Teller.] | |
Crofton, L. | |
Buckingham and Chandos, D. | Denman, L. |
De Ros, L. | |
Grafton, D. | Feversham, L. |
Richmond, D. | Lyveden, L. |
Penrhyn, L. | |
Amherst, E. | Redesdale, L. |
Bantry, E. | Romilly, L. |
Cadogan, E. | Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) |
Dartmouth, E. | |
Gainsborough, E. | Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) |
Haddington, E. | |
Malmesbury, E. | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) [Teller.] |
Powis, E. | |
Stanhope, E. | Stratheden, L. |
Templemore, L. | |
Cairns, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS. | |
Abercorn, M. | Clonbrock, L. |
Delamere, L. | |
Airlie, E. | Foley, L. |
Cowper, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) |
De Grey, E. | |
Devon, E. | Grinstead, L. (E. Ennis illen.) |
Harrowby, E. | |
Kimberley, E. [Teller.] | Hylton, L. |
Romney, E. | Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.) |
Tankerville, E. | |
Yarborough, E. | Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.) |
De Vesci, V. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
Lifford, V. | |
Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.] | |
Bagot, L. |
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.