Sitting of 25 July 1863

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  Page 1, line 14, the first three Amendments read a second time.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he thought that before the House proceeded to consider seriatim the Amendments which had been made by the Lords, it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would explain the bearing which those Amendments would have on the operation of the Bill.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the Amendments which had been introduced by the Lords consisted of two or three rather important particulars. The first alteration made was in Clause 3. As the clause went up from the Commons it stood thus—"After the passing of this Act no bag net shall be placed or allowed to continue in any river or estuary except in the open sea, at a distance of more than three statute miles from the mouth of such river or estuary." The Lords had inserted in the clause the words—"as such river has been defined by the commissioners of
  1434
  fisheries, or shall be defined under this Act;" but the introduction of those words would not in the least alter the effect of the Bill in that particular, because by a subsequent clause it was stated the special Commissioners would have full power either to accept the present definition as to rivers or estuaries, or to alter it. But there was one effect the Amendment would have, that bag nets would be prohibited within three miles of rivers, of the mouths of rivers only, and not of estuaries. The next alteration was in Clause 8. As the Bill went up from the Commons to the Lords, it would appear that where a gentleman had a weir extending a certain distance into the stream, there being a gap in the deepest part, he would still be obliged to make a second gap in the weir. It was quite evident that that was not the intention of the House of Commons, and that had been corrected by the Amendment which the Lords had made in the clause, and he hoped, therefore, the House would agree to it, The Lords had omitted Clause 20, which related to the weekly close season. Looking, however, to the period of the Session, and feeling an anxiety that the Bill should not be put in jeopardy, he hoped the House would be disposed to accept the Amendment of the Lords in this particular. Two new clauses were added. One of these new clauses (Clause 24) would have the effect of preventing netting in fresh waters between eight in the evening and six in the morning.
  Clause 3 (Prohibition of Bag Nets in Certain Places).
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would move that the House do not agree to the Lords' Amendments, so far as they would allow of bag nets being used or erected in the estuaries. He thought that many of the claims put forth under the Act of 1842 were illegal, and could not be supported in any court of justice. The Amendment would seriously interfere with the operation of the measure, and if accepted, would prevent the law from being final, and the whole question would have to be re-opened in another Session.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he was of opinion that the Government ought to stand by the Bill as amended by that House and sent up to the Lords. If the Lords' Amendments were agreed to, the rights of numerous persons would be most unjustly interfered with, and the cotmen, or persons who obtained their livelihood on the rivers in

  1435
  Ireland by fishing, would have their occupation entirely abolished.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that the most mischievous things used in the fisheries and rivers of Ireland were bag nets; and if his hon. and gallant Friend went to a division, he should vote with him.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that the clause, as it came down from the Lords, would abolish all bag nets in the Shannon.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the clause, as it came down from the Lords, much more closely resembled the clause originally introduced by the Government than the clause as it was sent up from the House of Commons; and having been so altered, the hon. and learned Member for Wicklow could not expect the Government to incur the hazard of a rejection of the Bill by agreeing with the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for the Queen's County. The Bill would, if passed in its present shape, be, upon the whole, a most useful measure, and a great improvement of the Act of 1842.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he should oppose the Motion. It would be a hard thing to prevent a man who resided on the coast of the Atlantic, and who, under the Act of 1842, had a right to use bag nets, from using these nets. He hoped the House would not pass a clause which would compel those persons to abolish their bag nets. He thought the House should agree to what the Lords had done, and for the present accept the Bill as it stood, or the result would be that no Irish Fishery Bill would pass that Session.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendments."
  The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 13: Majority 27.
  Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 8, line 19, agreed to.
  Page 8, line 19, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he objected to another of the Lord's Amendments to the same Clause, but he should decline to divide the House against it, as his object was simply to enter his protest against the Bill.
  Clause 17 (Power to define Estuaries and Mouths of Rivers).
  MR. BUTTsaid, the Amendment introduced in the 17th clause was only useful with respect to the 24th clause, which prohibited
  1436
  netting for the capture of salmon in the fresh water portion of any river as defined by the Commissioners under the Act, except between the hours of eight in the evening and six in the morning. He contended that the Amendment introduced by the Lords was directed to destroy the public right of fishing. It would extinguish the poor cottiers, and he moved, therefore, that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he concurred in the view taken of the clause as it stood by the hon. Member for Youghal.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the words introduced by the Lords were intended simply to meet the case of netting in fresh water. It was a point decided by the Scotch Commissioners every day. He suggested that it would be better to raise the question at a later stage.
  MR. BUTTintimated his willingness to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn, and the Lords' Amendment was agreed to.
  On Clause A (Penalty for using Boat or Cot for the Capture of Salmon during Weekly Close Time).
  MR. M'MAHONobjected to the clause, and thought the House ought not to allow it to remain in the Bill.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he saw nothing unjust in a person who used netting for the capture of salmon during the weekly close season, being subjected to a penalty of £5. He agreed that the second part of the clause was of a harsh character.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he could not but denounce the clause as most harsh in its character, and it would be ruin to the poor man to seize his cot. He considered that the latter part of the clause relating to the forfeiture of the boat or cot for a second offence should be omitted; and as a necessary preliminary to moving an Amendment to that effect, he should move that the words "for the first offence" be struck out of the first portion of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "for the first offence."
  SIR ROBERT PEELexpressed a hope that the House would agree to the Lords' Amendment. They attached great weight to the clause. If it was known that for a second offence the boat would be forfeited persons would be deterred from transgressing the law.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Page 9, the next Amendment, leave out Clause 20, read a second time.
  Clause 20 (Weekly Close Season).
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would then propose to restore Clause 20, which had on two divisions in the other House been rejected, first by a majority of one, and afterwards by a majority of fifteen. He thought the House ought to insist upon a restoration of the clause.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he considered that if the House did not restore the clause, the Bill would be of very little use.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he hoped the House would agree with the Lords. The second division showed that the other House were determined to reject the clause, and it would only jeopardize the Bill if it were again inserted.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake).
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought it would be better to have a uniform close time of forty-eight hours for all cases. There was very little chance of the Lords agreeing to the restoration of the exception as to stake nets.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir Robert Peel.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 17: Majority 17.
  Page 9, line 34, the next Amendment, read a second time."
  Clause B (Nets not to be used between Eight o'clock in the Evening and Six o'clock in the Morning).
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that the new clause introduced by the other House, in reference to the hours to be allowed for fishing, and enacting that the cotmen should be prohibited from fishing between the hours of eight in the evening and six in the morning, would, if it were agreed to in its present shape, destroy the rights of hundreds of persons.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he should move the omission of the words "between eight in the evening and six o'clock in the morning."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "between the hours of eight of the
  1438
  clock in the evening and six of the clock in the morning."—(Mr. Butt.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment."
  SIR ROBERT PEELopposed the Amendment.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, the effect of the clause as it stood would destroy rod-fishing in fresh waters.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, and vote against the clause entirely.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he would admit that the provision was rigorous, but he thought the rights of the fishermen should be regulated, and therefore he would support the clause.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, the clause would sacrifice the common-law rights of the rod-fishers.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment made by their Lordships."
  The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 14: Majority 11.
  Page 10, line 5, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would oppose the next Amendment, on the ground that it imposed a duty on rod-fishing. He wished to appeal to Mr. Speaker whether the House of Lords were entitled to insert such a provision.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that as the Lords' Amendment was intended to carry out the intentions of the House of Commons, he thought that no objection could be taken to it on the point of order.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he must oppose the Motion, on the ground, that as other persons engaged in fishing had to pay a licence duty, those who used rods ought to do so. The Amendment made by the Lords was one which ought to have been made, and which it was intended by the Government should be made by that House, but through an oversight it was omitted.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Bruce.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 4: Majority 32. [Special entry.]
  Subsequent Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Rum Duty (No. 251).
Third Reading—Indemnity; Land Tax Commissioners' Names (No. 246); Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (No. 244); Poisoned Grain, &c. Prohibition (No. 243); Removal of Prisoners (Scotland) (No. 200); Charitable Uses (No. 152); Companies Clauses (No. 232); Railways Clauses (No. 238); Expiring Laws Continuance (No. 241).

TELEGRAPHS BILL.

  COMMONS' REASONS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to this Bill considered.
  The Amendments to which the Commons disagree not insisted on.
  On the Motion of Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY, the Commons' Amendments were agreed to, with a proviso in Clause 20 that the power therein given to telegraph companies to carry their wires over gardens in cities and boroughs, without the consent of the owners, should not apply to ornamental gardens or pleasure grounds; also with another proviso that in cases where the assent of the civic authorities only is required, public notice thereof should be given by the companies.
  Other Amendments amended: The remainder of the Amendments agreed to; and Bill, with the Amendments, returned to the Commons.

POISONED GRAIN, &c. PROHIBITION BILL— [BILL 243.]
Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF CORK THE EARL OF CORK moved to omit from Clause 3 the words "ground or" confining
1432
the operation of the Act to gram laid in exposed places.
LORD REDESDALEopposed the Amendment.
On Question, Whether to agree to the said Amendment? their Lordships divided:—Contents 4; Not-Contents 13: Majority 9.
Resolved in the Negative.

CONTENTS.

Airlie, E. [Teller.]

Lyveden, L.

Wensleydale, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Worcester, Bp

Foley, L.

Somerset, D.

Mostyn, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Bath, M. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Granville, E.

Saint Leonards, L.

Sydney, V.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 215.)
"Returned from the Commons, with a Reason for insisting on One of the Amendments made by them to the Bill to which the Lords have disagreed; and with the other Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons, agreed to: Reason, and Bill with the Amendments, to be printed; and to be considered on Monday next. (Nos. 257 and 258.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that having been absent when this measure was considered, he had not the opportunity of expressing his strong sense of the admirable manner in which the Gentlemen who propared the Bill had executed their task. He desired to point out to their Lordships that the schedule of the Bill did not afford complete evidence of the amount of labour performed by the gentlemen who had prepared this Bill. Quite as much labour and attention were required to determine what should be left out as to decide what should be included in the schedule. He made this observation in justice to the two gentlemen, and to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, who had directed and personally assisted them. These gentlemen, who had performed their work so admirably, were not, in his opinion, at all adequately remunerated. The sum of £700 a year was really no remuneration for the time and labour requisite for the

  1433
  execution of such a work as this. And, besides the labour which was performed, the responsibility which these gentlemen undertook ought to be considered. If it should appear that with all their care there had been the slightest slip in the performance of their duty, they would be exposed to a series of attacks which might make any man tremble.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he quite concurred with his noble and learned Friend, that the country owed a debt of gratitude to the gentlemen who had devoted themselves to this great work for a most inadequate remuneration. The whole expense of the revision and expurgation of the statutes by these gentlemen had not exceeded £3,160, which was much less than that expended on former Commissions of a like character. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend that a greater amount of remuneration ought to be awarded to these gentlemen.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock, to Monday next, Twelve o'clock.