§ Enactments which are to cease to apply within the Solway District.
§ The local Act of the session of the forty-fourth year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, chapter forty-five, intituled "An Act for the better regulating and improving the fisheries in the arm of the sea between the county of Cumberland and the counties of Dumfriesshire and 339 Wigton and the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, and also the fisheries in the several streams and waters which run into or communicate with the said arm of the sea." except section nine thereof.
§ THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in the paragraph: "As regards the River Nith, a line drawn from the eastern extremity of the southern bank of New Abbey Pow to Scar Point, in Dumfriesshire," to leave out all words after "line," except "in Dumfriesshire," and insert "drawn from Carsethorne Pier in the Stewartry of Kircudbright to Caerlaverock Castle." The noble Duke said: I placed this Amendment on the paper at the instance of the fishery board who want their boundary altered. If, however, they could be sure that the limits recommended by the Stafford Howard Report would be carried into effect they would not wish any other action to be taken. What they are alarmed about is this. It has been recognised by the Stafford Howard Report as being very necessary that there should be a playground for the salmon somewhere in the estuary if for any reason they are not able to go up the river at once, and the board are rather afraid that the salmon will be deprived of such a playground if the present limits are observed because there may be nets in the river. If, as I say, the recommendation in the Stafford Howard Report can be carried out they do not want this Amendment to be pressed.
§
Amendment moved—
Fourth Schedule, page 71, lines 34 to 36, leave out from ("line") in line 34, to ("in") in line 36, and insert ("drawn from Carsethorn Pier in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright to Caerlaverock Castle").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERI am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment at the present time, and I do not know that I should enter into what appears to be a technical point. I will say, however, that the Royal Commission of 1895, as one of their recommendations, proposed that the limits of the Solway district should be as defined in the Bill. They also recommended that fishing by whammel nets should be limited in extent, and one of the proposed limitation lines was a line drawn between the two points set out in the noble Duke's Amendment. Under Clause 59 of the Bill the Solway District Board would have power to 340 define the limits within which this kind of fishing may be carried on, and no doubt they would do so. I imagine, however, that when an Order is made under Clause 84 of this Bill the Order will specify the limits within which whammel net fishermen may carry on their fishing, and I have no doubt that such limits will be those laid down by the Royal Commission. There are obvious advantages in the whammeling limits being defined by the Order and not in the Bill, as for various reasons it might at some time become desirable for such limits to be altered. The Amendment would reduce the limits of the Solway as recommended by the Royal Commission, and for the reasons I have given I regret I cannot accept it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHI think the answer given by my noble friend will quite satisfy those who asked me to put the Amendment down. As long as the recommendations of the Stafford Howard Commission are adhered to I think that will give them what they want.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, at the end of the second paragraph of Part II to leave out "except section nine thereof." The noble Duke said: This is a drafting Amendment, and I think the noble Earl will be willing to accept it.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 16, leave out ("except section nine thereof").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
§ VISCOUNT ULLSWATERI have no objection to the noble Duke's Amendment, but I would ask the Ministry of Agriculture to consider very seriously the necessity for repealing the whole of this Act. I have the Act in my hand, and before it is finally repealed I think it would be very desirable if the Ministry would look at it carefully from the point of view of fishing in some of the lakes. I am told that the repeal of this Act would have a very serious effect upon the lake trout fisheries. They are regulated by Section 15 of the Act. In lakes such as Ullswater there are only small trout, and nets of one-inch mesh are in general use, and are quite large enough. If you are going to abolish the one-inch mesh, and compel the use of a two-inch mesh, I am afraid you will destroy practically the 341 whole of the fishery in these lakes. If the noble Earl would ask his advisers to look into this matter before the Report stage I shall be satisfied.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERI shall be prepared to do that. The noble Viscount has raised a point with which I was not conversant, and I am not sure that my adviser is conversant with it. I do not know whether it would be more convenient, in these circumstances, that the noble Duke should not move his Amendment now, but should bring it up again on Report, when I shall be in a position to deal with the point raised by the noble Viscount.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHI do not think it matters one way or another. As I understand, under the Bill the whole of the Act to which Lord Ullswater has alluded is repealed, except this particular section. It is a legal point. I do not know to what the section refers. I think it was to the other part that my noble friend was referring, and not to this particular section.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThere is no objection to putting the Amendment in now.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Fifth Schedule agreed to.
§ House resumed.
342§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I do not know if this would be a suitable moment to ask when the noble Earl proposes to proceed further with this Bill.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERWould it suit the noble Earl to put it down for Wednesday or Thursday of next week?
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPWednesday next would suit me, but I do not know if it would suit other members of your Lordships' House.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWe only desire to suit the convenience of the House. I thought a full week would probably be sufficient. I am reminded that there is an important Notice down in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for Wednesday next, so I think we had better put this Bill down for the day following.