(NO. 146.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 July 1883)

§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not anticipate that there would be much objection taken to the Bill, because, curiously enough, it had been supported by the whole of the Irish Members in "another place." he was also satisfied that their Lordships would be glad to assist in any way in their power, and would be ready to do anything to develop the industries of Ireland. He was sure they were also satisfied that there were a great many too few industries existing in that country. This Bill did not propose to make any charge on the Exchequer—it merely proposed to utilize the Irish fund for Irish purposes; and every provision in it, he might say, had been approved of by a Committee which had sat in "another place"—a very important Committee—on Harbour Accommodation. he had no doubt it might be said that £250,000 was a very large sum to expend on Irish fisheries. It was to be taken from the Irish Church Surplus Fund. He was satisfied, however, that the expenditure would be entirely reproductive in the increased prosperity of the Irish fisherman himself, and the increased prosperity of the country would give a really good percentage on the money proposed to be laid out. As far as he could ascertain, since the Norman Conquest there had been only £175,000 expended on piers and harbours in Ireland—that was to say, upon fishing harbours, because he believed that something like £2,000,000 266 had been expended upon four Royal harbours, which were used for postal and other purposes. There was no doubt that these harbours might be used also for fisheries; but upon fishery harbours themselves only the sum he had mentioned had been expended, and out of that £42,000 was spent during the relief works of 1881 and 1882. Their Lordships had heard a great deal at different times of the disgraceful manner in which the industries of Ireland were crushed and destroyed by the selfishness and short-sightedness of the English Government; and how all classes of landlords and tenants alike—although only landlords seemed to suffer now—protested against such a fatal policy. He believed the fisheries of Ireland had suffered greater than any other industry from that policy, because that policy of destruction had been pursued with them up to a much later time. He should not dwell upon the history of earlier times. Their Lordships were aware, if they read the history of Ireland, how every class of industry was discouraged. But, as lately as 1804, when other industries were being encouraged in Ireland, a Bill was brought in for establishing a fishery upon the Nymph Bank, which was one of the finest fishing grounds on the Coast of Ireland; but that Bill was thrown out in consequence of Petitions presented from the English fishing interest, who stated that if the Irish were encouraged to compete with them their own trade would be destroyed. But he would come to later times than that. In the year 1837, a Government Bill, founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission, who were formed for the purpose of seeing how the Irish fisheries could be resuscitated, was brought in, and was thrown out again in consequence of the deputation from the Scottish fishing interest, who came up to London to declare that their trade would be injured if the Irish fisheries were encouraged by grants of money to pursue their own trade or to resuscitate that trade. At the same time, the Scotch fishermen were receiving money for the very purpose themselves. It was very curious, indeed, to note the manner in which the Irish fisheries had fallen off. He found, before the Famine, by the Government Returns, that there were 20,000 vessels employed in fishing in Ireland, with 267 crews numbering 113,000 odd men and boys; but last year—their Lordships would hardly believe it—there were only 6,089 vessels, employing crews of 22,391 men. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that the Famine finished what the short-sighted legislation of the English Government had begun. He was satisfied that there was quite as much wealth in the seas that washed the Coast of Ireland as there were in the seas around the Coast of this country; but, at the same time, they would find that the catch of fish by the English fishermen represented the enormous sum of £8,000,000 a-year, that the catch of the Scotch fishermen represented £3,000,000 a-year; but what did the wretched Irish catch represent? Why, only £500,000 in a year, and this was owing, to a great extent, to want of harbours. He had attempted to show some of the reasons for the decline of the fishing industry in Ireland; but there were two great causes at work which prevented its being resuscitated. The laws which pressed upon all classes of industry had now passed away, he was thankful to say; but they had left behind them a difficulty which was felt all over Ireland. Every industry had been destroyed more or less, and they had no strength or vitality to again resuscitate themselves; and one great cause of that inability with regard to the fishing interest was the poverty of the fishermen themselves, which rendered it impossible for them to procure proper beats and fishing gear. He was happy to say, however, that he found that had been met, in a great degree, by the loans granted by the Fisheries Commissioners, whose system of loans had worked most admirably. The other difficulty to which he alluded would be removed by the Bill which he was anxious that their Lordships should read a second time. At this time, harbour accommodation in Ireland was most inadequate—fishery Harbour accommodation, of course. Great tracts of fishing ground lay unproductive around the Coast of Ireland, and it was perfectly impossible that those grounds could be fished unless there were harbours of shelter for the fishermen. In Scotland, he was told, there was a harbour between every five or ten miles; but in Ireland, from Galway, 70 miles round the Coast, he believed there was not a single Harbour that was of any use for 268 fishing purposes. He believed the same thing existed in many other districts. The Fishery Commission had stated it was absolutely required for the fisheries of Ireland that 70 harbours should be either repaired or made. Many of the sites had such natural advantages that, he believed, the expense of giving effect to the recommendation would not be very large. The money which he was asking for would be amply sufficient. And without good harbours, as their Lordships must know, it was impossible to have good boats, because boats could not put out to sea unless they had some place to run for. Therefore, if they provided them with fishing harbours, he was satisfied that beats would before long be supplied to the fishermen. In addition to the money he was asking for, there was also an immense improvement with regard to the law relating to the building of harbours proposed by the Bill. The Royal Commission on Irish Sea Fisheries of 1870 pointed out that the harbours were often built in the wrong places, or were not erected at all, in consequence of the clause in the Act which prevented any money being granted by the Treasury unless a quarter was subscribed by the locality; and he also believed there was a provision that the repayment of the money should be secured, and many districts were so poor that it was utterly impossible that the locality should guarantee the money; and in other instances people only guaranteed the money for harbours that could be used for other purposes—for their beats and for getting merchandize. Therefore the sites of harbours were constantly placed in the most inconvenient and expensive positions. This Bill would alter that. It empowered the Treasury to find the whole of the money, provided they were satisfied that it was for a good cause. It altered the law which limited the loan in each case to £7,500, and did away with the necessity that repayment with interest should be secured. The Bill also provided—which was a very important part of it—that the Fisheries Commissioners were to see the places, and report to the Treasury as to their suitability before the work was undertaken. In the past, it had been their habit merely to recommend that a Harbour was wanted, and to leave it to the Board of Works to carry out the works in any way they thought fit; and 269 as, in many instances, they did not understand how to carry out the work properly, they had constantly failed to be completed. He knew their Lordships were always anxious to do anything in their power to benefit the people of Ireland, and he himself had advocated the establishment of industries for the purpose. He thought the employment of the people at home was preferable to any scheme of emigration; and that by encouraging the people of Ireland to develop the fisheries, which they would do by reading that Bill a second time, they would be taking a real step in the right direction. He hoped sincerely that the Bill might be followed by other steps of a similar character, that should have fur their ultimate object the development of the industries of Ireland. Before he sat down he should like to say one word with regard to a matter with which the Bill did not propose to deal, but, if it was to be really effective, should be taken into consideration at once by Her Majesty's Government. The Fishery Commissioners, in their Report of 1882, recommended strongly that a properly-equipped vessel should be attached to their Department for the purpose of making experiments, with the view of finding out and testing the fishing grounds round the Irish Coasts, and, at the same time, acting as a police vessel to prevent poaching and other illegal practices. He believed a vessel of this description would be of immense advantage to the Fishery Inspectors. By means of such a vessel they would be able to find out new banks, and generally to exercise a supervision over the fishing industry. He thought such a ship might also be made of immense advantage in teaching the unskilled fishermen of Ireland the best manner of catching fish and pursuing their calling. Boats of this description would not cost much money—they would really pay for them. selves, because they would be always catching fish which could be sold. The Government must also remember that the Bill proposed to confine the funds of Ireland for the building and repairing of the harbours. He would not trouble their Lordships further, but would conclude by expressing a hope that they would give the Bill a second reading.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
said, he did not intend to speak against the Bill, and he had no doubt that the application of the money proposed would be for the public benefit; but, at the same time, their Lordships would remember the anticipations that were formed regarding this Church Surplus Fund when it was originated. They were then told that the Fund would not be applied to any but the holiest and highest purposes; and he wished now to point out how completely these predictions were falsified. The Fund was being applied to none but the most secular purposes. It was applied to the paying of tenants' arrears, to the promotion of fisheries, and other matters which were all very excellent in themselves, but certainly not what they were led to expect the Fund would be applied to. He hoped this result would be regarded as an instructive moral when next Parliament proposed the spoliation of Church property.

§ THE EARL OF HOWTH
said, he supported the second reading of the Bill; but would suggest certain modifications in the application of the monies of the Fund. As to the results of the Bill, even supposing harbours were built, and there were increased takes of fish, it was difficult to see how the harbours would succeed without material aid. There was no market for fish in Ireland, for the Irish were not a fish-eating people. Mr. Blake, who was a great authority on this subject, had stated that an Irishman would not eat fish unless he had a potato beside him; even in time of famine it was almost impossible to get him to eat it. Again, there were no communications for carrying fish traffic into the interior of the country. Under these circumstances, it became a serious question what would become of the fish taken in these harbours. What he would, therefore, suggest was, that £150,000 should be expended on fishery harbours and piers, and the rest in providing cheap transit of the fish, and the improvement of the fishermen's beats and gear. Further, he thought a remedy was to be found in the plan that existed during the period between the years 1819 and 1829, which was, granting bounties for all fish caught. The result of that system was almost incredible, for it appeared that during the first year a fleet of 27 vessels received 271 a sum of 128,000, the total bounties for the 10 years amounting to £163,000. Then the Committee, of which Mr. Blake, the promoter of this Bill, was Chairman, stated in their Report that, although abuses did occur under the bounty system, there never, perhaps, was a similar instance of the benefits arising from a pecuniary outlay of that character. The opinion of Mr. Barry, who was for many years a Member of the Irish Fisheries Commission, was to a similar effect.

§ LORD FITZGERALD
said, he had listened to the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Howth), and yet he did not understand from it whether he intended to oppose the second reading of the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF HOWTH
No.

§ LORD FITZGERALD
said, that being the case, he would remind the noble Earl that the modifications he suggested were more properly matters for discussion in Committee. He was surprised to hear the noble Earl say that the Irish were not a fish-eating people. He had always understood they would eat any fish but conger eels. On a visit to Galway some few years since, he found that the only articles of commerce in the port were seaweed and conger eels. On asking a fisherman who had caught a large quantity of conger eels, and was packing them in perforated boxes, what they were for, he replied—"The people cannot eat them; but they are all going to London to be made into turtle soup for the Corporation." In giving, as he did, his warm support to the Bill, and expressing his gratitude to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Waterford) for having taken charge of it, he would say that if there was one thing they could do for Ireland it was that they should encourage the promotion of industrial occupations. Whenever there was prosperity in Ireland was when the people were not dependent merely on the occupation of the land, but had also some industrial occupation; and when there was over-population he believed that the difficulty was to be met, not by emigration, so much as by promoting industrial pursuits. He did not want to criticize the statement of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) as to the disposition of the Church Fund; but this he would say—that, assuming his criticism to be perfectly 272 right, there could be no nearer approach to a holy purpose of the disposition of the Fund than by applying a portion of it to the great object of promoting industrial occupations in the country.

§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD
wished to correct one or two statements made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Howth). He must own that he was very much astonished to hear him find fault with the Bill, for he really ought to be the last man in Ireland to have any objection to the laying out of money on the harbours round the Coast, because the harbour in which he was interested was one of the Royal harbours, upon which a larger sum of money had been laid out than upon any other. Under these circumstances, he really thought he ought to have some feeling for the fishery, and not be objecting to the money being spent as proposed. His noble Friend had said that this Bill had been introduced by a side-wind; but he was perfectly at a loss to understand what he meant. The Irish Church was disestablished a long time ago, and the Fund, which really appeared to be endless, had been spent in a variety of ways, and the religious objections raised to the proposed appropriation of the Fund was really not worth referring to. His noble Friend seemed to be entirely misinformed upon one point, because he wanted to allocate a certain sum of this money to a purpose for which there was already ample provision made. The fishermen could already obtain loans for the purchase of beats and gear, and he was thankful to say that they had applied for them; but they had not done so to anything like the amount which the Fishery Commissioners had in hand, and the Fishery Commissioners were most anxious to encourage the applications for those loans in every way. There was, therefore, no necessity for including such a provision in this Bill.

§ THE EARL OF HOWTH
My noble Friend must have misunderstood me. I did not recommend that.

§ THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD
said, another statement of the noble Earl was that they should adopt the four harbours recommended by the Harbour Accommodation Committee; but the fact was that three of these harbours were in England.

§ THE EARL OF HOWTH
said, he did not state any such thing. The noble Marquess must not have heard him.

LORD THURLOW
said, during the time that the Bill was in progress in the other House of Parliament it received the very serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess had said that the Bill had received in the House of Commons the unanimous support of the private Members of Parliament on all sides. The Government were not without hope that the Bill, if properly carried out, might prove a really useful measure, conducing to the prosperity, happiness, and wellbeing of the people of Ireland; and, that being the case, they had decided to give it their countenance and support. He would like to say that it appeared to him that the money which was proposed to be taken for the purpose from the Church Surplus Fund was the very least that would be of any use; but he very much doubted—in fact he felt sure—that it would be impossible, at the present time, to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other House to allocate a larger sum. Under those circumstances, he trusted the noble Earl would not press in Committee the point he had raised. In answer to a suggestion that had come from a noble Lord on his own side of the House, he would point out that there was a great distinction between applying for public money for national and permanent works, such as piers and harbours, and applying for money for the purpose of aiding fishermen to procure beats and nets, which were articles liable to decay and disappearance.