(NO. 43.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 12 April 1869)

LORD DUFFERIN
in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to enable the Lord Lieutenant to appoint two Inspectors. The late Government made such appointments; but as the powers of the existing Commissioners did not expire till the 1st of August next, and as the Fisheries (Ireland) Act provided that they were at that date to be replaced by Inspectors, the Government had been advised that the appointments were invalid.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, he understood that legal opinions differed as to the validity of the appointments. He wished to know whether the gentlemen appointed were to be reinstated, or whether it was intended to supersede them.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, that he had presented a Petition signed by the principal fish factors and fishmongers of Dublin, complaining that under the existing law salmon was higher in price and more scarce than it had been heretofore. He thought that the Government ought to institute an inquiry into the subject. It appeared to him that salmon was a fish that ought to be made, if possible, accessible to all classes. He should certainly submit an Amendment when the Bill went into Committee.

LORD DUFFERIN
said, that when the noble Marquess was prepared to submit his Amendment the Government would give it every consideration. In reply to the noble Marquess he had to state that the question of the re-appointment or otherwise of the Inspectors was one for the Government to determine.

§ LORD CAIRNS
remarked, that the noble Lord had not answered his Question—namely, whether the Government intended to affirm the appointments already made or to promote other persons?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
reminded the noble and learned Lord that a few weeks ago he declined to reply to a Question which had been put to him, on the ground that, having already spoken, he was precluded by the rules of the House from doing so. Such being the practice of the House—though their Lordships were always willing to grant leave for a personal explanation—he was surprised that the noble and learned Lord should now have risen a second time.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, that having had a much shorter experience in their Lordships' House than the noble Earl, he was always glad to receive a lesson from him on the point of Order. On this occasion, however, he thought the lesson was not required, for he apprehended it was allowable, if a Question which had been put to a Member of the Government had not been distinctly answered, to rise and call attention to the fact, and this was all that he had done.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he did not quite see the distinction drawn by the noble and learned Lord between the two cases, but did not wish, after his explanation, to insist on the point.

§ LORD REDESDALE
asked whether the Inspectors had exercised any functions which would require confirmation?

LORD DUFFERIN
said, he believed their proceedings had been merely ministerial.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
repeated the question put by his noble and learned Friend, whether the existing appointments would be confirmed or superseded?

LORD DUFFERIN
thought his former reply would have been a sufficient intimation that the decision on that point remained at the discretion of the Government.