MOTION FOR PAPERS. (Hansard, 23 March 1888)

§ THE EARL OF MINTO

, in moving for Returns for each of the years 1886 and 1887 of the number of cases that have been the subject of trial for alleged offences under the Tweed Fisheries Acts, distinguishing those that occurred during the open season for rod and line fishing from those that occurred during the close season for rod and line; also the number of acquittals and the number of convictions, and the punishment awarded in each case of conviction; also distinguishing the cases (so far as the nature of the charges admits) that have occurred in respect of alleged offences on the main stream of the Tweed from those that have occurred on each of its tributaries, and giving the name of each such tributary; the Returns to be prepared in sections as follows:—Section 1st to comprise the Tweed and its tributaries from its mouth up to Coldstream Bridge; 2nd, from Coldstream Bridge to Kelso Bridge; 3rd, from Kelso Bridge to Melrose Bridge; 4th, all waters above Melrose Bridge; also, as regards the Teviot (the chief tributary of the Tweed), the Returns to be prepared in sections as follows:—1st, from Teviot Foot to Ancrum Bridge; 2nd, from Ancrum Bridge to Hornshole Bridge; 3rd, all the waters above Hornshole Bridge. The noble Earl said these Returns would be useful in showing not only the whole number of offences and offenders against the Tweed Acts, but in showing with some particularity the parts of the country and the streams which furnish the largest proportion of illegal fishers. It was often argued that if the public were allowed free liberty of rod fishing, the public would become the most effective protectors of the rivers against illegal fishing. He himself would greatly like to believe that this was the case, though he greatly doubted it. Anyhow these Returns would throw some light upon that point. He rather anticipated that the Returns would 156 prove these two things—first, that the number of offenders against the Tweed Laws was in inverse proportion to the value of the respective rights of fishing in different streams; second, that the number of offenders was proportionately largest in respect of those streams which were practically open to the public already, and where the riparian proprietors abstained from exorcising their proprietary rights.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND The Marquess of) LOTHIAN

said, the Government were prepared to give the Returns asked for, but he was afraid that they would take some time to prepare and cost considerable expense. He would like to call the attention of his noble Friend to the fact that he had altered the terms of his Motion three times. When Motions of this kind were altered and added to from time to time, it was extremely difficult to obtain that information which was necessary before assenting to the Motion. He agreed with what the noble Earl had said, that poaching was not so great on the main streams as on the tributaries. This fact was known, he thought, to everyone, and therefore he could not understand why the noble Earl required a Return with regard to that. He had, however, 157 no doubt the Returns when prepared would be interesting and useful. He did not know whether the noble Earl wanted the Returns for the purpose of making any changes in the Salmon Fisheries Bill when introduced. If he did he was afraid it would delay the Bill considerably, and he did not wish to do that.