FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE SOUTH AND WEST COASTS.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 22 June 1888)

§ THE EARL OF HOWTH

, in rising to move— That an immediate survey of the fishing grounds on the south and west coast of Ireland is much required; that in the event of Her Majesty's Government accepting the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works to reconstruct the Irish Fishery Department, legislation be not delayed beyond the present Session of Parliament, said, it was not his intention at present to enter into a discussion upon the whole question of the Report of the Royal Commission. He ventured to assert, however, that he approved of its principal observations, which consisted in the proposal to develop the deep sea fishing apart from those in shore or near the shore; that large vessels manned by skilled crews were to be constructed; that full-sized and deep harbours were to be erected; and that railway communication was to be established towards them for the purpose of facilitating the exportation of the captured fish for the English markets. This policy was a total subversion of the principles of the Irish Fishery Act of 1869, which, by promoting the building of small fishing piers, had conferred benefit and relief upon the coast population. He was certainly not opposed to seeing relief extended to congested and poor districts. Quite the contrary; but he ventured to think that expenditure could be beneficially made in improving the condition of the fisheries. The Irish fisheries, with the exception of the mackerel fishery in a small portion of the South-Western Coast of Ireland, had been very fully explained and entered into in this Report; and it would appear that in the opinion of the Commissioners it had been proved that there was an inexhaustible supply of fish on the Western and Southern Coast, and that, with the assistance of future legislation, great benefits might be conferred on the fishing industry. It was clear that the fishing grounds had never at any time been fully inspected and considered, and that thorough inspection of them was absolutely necessary in order that it might be fully proven what was the supply of fish upon them, what was the quality and the species of the fish, and in what localities they were to 963 be found, before an expenditure of a large sum of money was entered upon. It was always a matter for consideration, also, whether the youths who were employed on the sea fisheries of Ireland, and entirely on the sea fisheries of Ireland, should continue their profession unless more happy prospects might be secured to the future of the Irish fisheries. This inspection was really and decidedly a case of what might be termed urgency. In all that had taken place hitherto, it was assumed that there were inexhaustible supplies of fish; but there was a striking absence of information that could be relied upon. The only argument urged against immediate inspection of the coast was that no European nation had made such inspection; but the truth was the waters of all civilized countries were thoroughly well known, the habits of their fish had been studied, and there was no necessity for the inspection which was so urgent in this case. It was essential for the sake of Irish fishermen who were seeking the means of livelihood; in the interests of English fishermen who were on the look-out for new fishing grounds; in the interests of the British public who wanted larger and cheaper supplies of fish; and in the interests of the British taxpayer who was anxious to see more fish caught in return for the money that had been expended upon the Irish Fisheries. The Report recommended an expenditure of £400,000 on harbours and railways communicating with them; and it would be most unwise to incur this expenditure without more definite information as to the fishing grounds. For the purposes of inspection, and to obtain information for the guidance of fishermen, the American Government granted no less than £120,000 a-year. With regard to the second Resolution, the Royal Commission had very clearly and decidedly recommended the dismissal of the three Irish Fishery Commissioners—Sir Thomas Brady, Major Hayes, and Mr. Hornsby. They recommended that there should be substituted for them a Board of practical men connected with the fisheries; that only one of them, the Chairman, should receive a salary, and that the rest of the Board should be composed of unpaid members. He was opposed to that proposal, but he would not now enter into details in connection with the matter. It 964 was evident that the Royal Commissioners considered that the present Fishery Officers were unfitted for their duties, and that they were also dissatisfied with the way in which they managed the Irish Fisheries. He ventured to urge upon Her Majesty's Government that if they had decided that these men should be dismissed, it was very unfair to allow this sentence to remain hanging over them, even till next Session, or even after the present Session was past. There were in Ireland, he was sorry to say, in fishery matters as in politics, two programmes. The popular programme was that fishery grounds should not be made subservient to the interests of the coast population; while the other view was that the fishery grounds were not to be made subservient to supplying the demands of England with fish. The Irish fisheries were at present regulated by the Act of 1869, which was introduced immediately after the Election by Mr. Blake, then Member for Waterford, and received a very liberal support from the Irish county Members as well as the Members for boroughs. It was approved of by the Government and received their support, and its main features supported his first Resolution. The expenditure of thousands of pounds on the construction of harbours and railways would give enormous employment to the people. It would aid the farmers and the shopkeepers, and also, perhaps, the publicans would be paid. The whole neighbourhood would derive enormous benefit by these small piers, and they certainly were very popular all over Ireland. Mr. Blake, the previous Chairman of the Fishery Commissioners, had supported these principles for years, and Sir Thomas Brady had also supported them. He thought it was pretty clear that the Commissioners exceeded their powers in making an inquiry into the Irish Fishery administration, and he hoped that the sweeping measure of removing Sir Thomas Brady, who was a gentleman of great experience and ability, and two other Commissioners, which had been suggested by the Royal Commission, would not be adopted by Her Majesty's Government.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)

said, that it would be impossible not to sympathize with the objects of the noble Earl in placing his Motion on the Table; and he was certainly not prepared to say that it would not be desirable that the survey of the fishing grounds on the South and West Coasts should be made as soon as possible. It was quite true that the Commissioners did in one paragraph of their Report recommend that some such survey should be made, but they did not lay much stress upon the recommendation. Undoubtedly it was a point which must be considered in connection with other matters dealt with by the Commission. In reply to the last portion of the noble Earl's Motion, he could only say that it was not the wish of the Government to delay any legislation in connection with this subject longer than was necessary; but he would remind the noble Earl that on a previous occasion he informed him that the Commissioners were instructed to deal with the subjects which were to come before them in the order most advantageous to the Public Service, and they took the question of arterial drainage first and issued their Report on that subject before the Report on Irish Fisheries. The Government had thought it better to follow the order of these subjects adopted by the Commissioners. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had accordingly prepared, as he said some time ago ho would prepare, three Bills on the subject of arterial drainage, and when he informed the noble Earl that these Bills were prepared and printed at Whitsuntide, and that his right hon. Friend had not even yet had an opportunity of presenting them in the House of Commons, it would show how impossible it was for them to give any pledge as to when legislation in connection with the Fisheries would be begun, and whether there was any prospect of passing a Bill on that subject during the present Session. He would not follow the noble Earl in the remarks which be had made as to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, nor did he think it necessary to say much on the question of 966 whether the Royal Commissioners had exceeded their authority or not, because, as the noble Earl was well aware, Her Majesty's Government had no control over Royal Commissions, and if any recommendation that the Commissioners had made were ultra vires, so as to render objectionable such legislation as might be founded upon them, that was a matter which could be dealt with when they came to introduce into Parliament the measures on this subject which, no doubt, it would be their duty to bring forward. So far as the Motion of the noble Earl was concerned he trusted that he would not now consider it necessary to go to a Division. He could only say that the subject of Fisheries had received the anxious attention of the Government, and it was their wish to proceed with legislation on the subject with as little delay as possible.