any civil war that history had recorded. English Salmon Fisheries Act, applicable Some warm and ardent friends of the also to those shores of the Firth situated United States had charged him with gene- in Scotland. The principle of the Bill ralizing too much in attributing to the had been frequently affirmed. It was enpeople at large what was in truth only tirely in conformity with the opinions of the behaviour of individuals. Certainly the Select Committee, and did not differ nothing could have been further from his materially from the Bill of last year. intention than a desire to impute particular acts to general conduct. It had been represented to him that although things were very bad in America, they were not quite so bad as he had stated. Whatever might be the facts, there could be no doubt as to their frightful character, and he trusted that this bloody and fratricidal war would soon be brought to a termination.

SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [BILL NO. 112.] SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he could not agree with the noble Baron that it was entirely in conformity with the recommendations of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House. Numerous Salmon Fisheries Bills had been before Parliament during the last few years, but, for some cause or other, none of them had passed; and with the exception of the Tweed and the Tay, the Act of 1828 was the general law of Scotland with regard to fisheries. Last year the Lord Advocate introduced a LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in Bill which proceeded at once to sweep away moving the second reading of this Bill, all fixed engines of every kind, and to said, the subject was well worthy of legis- regulate generally the manner in which lation, and the measure was founded upon people should fish in Scotland; but notthe unanimous Report of a Select Com-withstanding that it was referred to a mittee of their Lordships, including seve- Select Committee and greatly amended ral of the largest proprietors of salmon there, it was found impossible to pass it, fisheries in Scotland. The fourth clause in consequence of the great variety of constituted every river in Scotland flowing interests at stake. The Lord Advocate into the sea a district for the purposes of had given his attention to the subject this Act, which was to be placed under during the recess, and the result was this the control of three Commissioners. The Bill. His first objection to it was, that it annual close-time was to continue for 180 gave most extraordinary powers to three days in every year, but the commence- Commissioners, who were entirely irresponment and close of this period was to be ble, to make regulations which ought to fixed by the Commissioners in reference be fixed by Act of Parliament, and which to each district: the weekly close-time noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen in another was to extend from six p.m. on Satur- place ought to have an opportunity of disday to six a.m. on Monday. No fish-cussing before they were made final. The ing was legalized which was not already Commissioners might be most respectable legal, and the possession of salmon roe gentlemen-he had no doubt they would was forbidden. A penalty was also inflict-be-but they might hold the wildest possied for allowing poisonous substances to flow into rivers. The Bill also provided for the election of district Boards, and for district assessments to defray the expenses to be incurred under the Act. The law as to fixed engines would not be altered. They were clearly illegal in rivers and in estuaries, and the Bill would enable the boundaries of all the estuaries in Scotland to be ascertained, so that the question as to where the estuary ended would be settled. The Tweed and Tay, being governed by special Acts, were to a certain extent excepted, and provisions were inserted making the regulations now applicable to the south of the Solway, under the

ble theories on the subject: yet they were empowered to make regulations which would affect the property of every man in Scotland who had a salmon river; and there was not single clause in the Bill which would enable the proprietors to have anything whatever to say to any of the by-laws until they came before the Secretary of State. There was scarcely any subject on which there was more of theory and less of practical knowledge than the breeding of salmon; and as the pay of the Commissioners was not to exceed £3 for every day they were called upon to act, considering the large sums which engineers and others in similar employment received

Amendment moved, to leave out "now,"

for a single day's work, there was no secu- be read a second time that day three rity that they would be men of the highest months. practical experience. The Commissioners, among other things, were to fix the meshes and insert "this day six months." of the nets, and they were generally directed to carry out the Act as much as might be in accordance with the English law; but the English Act fixed the meshes of the net at two inches. The effect of such a regulation as regarded the river Spey, the fisheries in which he owned, would be, that whereas there was an average annual take of 10,000 trout, by the operation of this Bill he should be deprived of 9,000 of them. Now, if it would improve the breed of salmon to leave trout in the river, it might be some reason for the clause; but it was well-known that no fish was more destructive to salmon spawn than trout. With regard to the appeal to the Home Secretary, which might be made by any person who felt aggrieved by the by-laws, no such appeal could be a satisfactory one; for the Secretary of State could only refer the matter back to the Commissioners, who would naturally say that there was no ground of complaint. He objected to the enormous powers which it was proposed to give to the Commissioners; and, with regard to the district Boards, he thought it would have been wise to follow the example of the Tweed Act of 1857, and make votes bear some proportion to property. In respect of the weekly close-time proposed, it would press hardly upon persons who had tidal fishings and upon the lower proprietors; and if the Bill should reach the stage of Committee, he should move as an Amendment that the hours be from 9 o'clock on Saturday night to 3 o'clock on Monday morning. He felt that the Bill was an unjust measure, and that it did not carry out what it proposed to do. It in reality diminished the provisions against bag-fishing and poaching, which were the two great causes why the breed of salmon had decreased. He thought that it would be far better if the noble Lord would bring in a Bill to put down those practices, and also to prevent objectionable substances from being thrown into the rivers. There was already a clause intended to effect that object, but he was satisfied that it would prove inoperative. For example, nothing would more prevent fish from entering the tributaries of a river to spawn than sawdust, yet that could not be held by any ingenuity to be a poisonous or deleterious substance. He should not detain their Lordships fur- LORD RAVENSWORTH said, he was ther, but would simply move that the Bill convinced that the real cause why the

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said, he had long admired the unanimity with which Scotch questions were dealt with, but he also knew that whenever a Salmon Bill was mentioned that unanimity ceased. The arguments of the noble Duke appeared to him to be directed more against the details than against the principle of the Bill. There was another party to be considered besides the proprietors - the public-and their interests clearly demanded that some legislation should take place upon this subject. For many years there had been a war raging between the upper and lower proprietors in regard to the salmon of their rivers. While the one party had been striving to prevent the fish from going up the stream, and the other seizing it when out of season, the stock of salmon had been gradually diminishing, and the public became, consequently, the sufferers. He thought it was high time that some independent body should be armed with power to interfere in this matter. The object of the Bill was to give such power to a Board of Commissioners. So far he thought the principle of the Bill was good, because these gentlemen were likely to exercise an independent judgment; and if they did not, there would be no lack of persons ready to bring their complaints before the House. There was one extraordinary clause in the Bill (the 31st), to which he entertained great objections. By that clause the River Taythe greatest salmon river in Scotlandwas exempted from the operation of the Bill. The Bill, as originally introduced, did not contain that exemption, and he had been surprised to hear it said that the proprietors were unanimous in asking for that exemption. He did not believe there was any such unanimity; and, indeed, doubted whether more than five or six of the whole number of proprietors were favourable to the exemption. Salmon Fishing Bill which omitted the River Tay from its operations seemed to him very like the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted. The Bill might be improved in Committee, and he hoped their Lordships would consent now to read it a second time.

A

LORD POLWARTH objected to the arbitrary power given to the Commissioners under the Bill, though he thought the general principle embodied in it was a good one. He suggested that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.

salmon had decreased in all the rivers of this country was the cupidity of the lower proprietors, who would not let any fish that they could catch go up the stream to spawn. In fact, were it not for the great floods, no individual fish could ever escape them. While such a system existed, it was hopeless to expect any improvement; for the upper proprietors would never take any trouble in the matter, incur any expense, or run the risk of drawing down on themselves the ill-will of their neighbours, unless they felt they had some interest in the preservation of the fish. The Bill was no doubt susceptible of improvement, and might be made a valuable measure. He should move in Committee that the weekly close-time should be extended from twelve on Saturday noon until six on Monday morning, an alteration which he believed would be eminently useful.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, the great majority of the objections which had been taken were objections of detail. He was entirely disinterested in this question, as he was neither an upper nor a lower proprietor; any small fisheries that he possessed were in small streams which were entirely his own property. He could therefore approach the question without any bias. At the same time, he thought the noble Duke who had moved the rejection of the Bill (the Duke of Richmond) was entitled to speak as possessing the largest salmon property in the kingdom. It seemed to him that the only objection that had really been brought against the Bill, was against the arbitrary powers given to the Commissioners. Every year for the last twenty-five years there had been an attempt made to amend the law relating to salmon fisheries. When he first took his

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, that as an angler he should advocate the rights of anglers as distinct from those of the proprietors on the upper and lower waters; and, indeed, he thought the interests of anglers had been fully considered in preparing this Bill. He thought, how-seat in their Lordships' House, he had been ever, that their Lordships as legislators should look deeper than this; and in this spirit he complained that the Bill was unconstitutional, inasmuch as the same power was given to Commissioners in reference to one part of the kingdom which was exercised only by Parliament in reference to the other part. In the English Bill the enactments were clearly defined, but here a very large discretion was left to the Commissioners. With all its faults, he should advise the noble Duke, if he thought the majority of his countrymen were in favour of the Bill, to allow of the second reading, and endeavour to amend it in Committee; but still, if he thought fit to divide, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) must vote with him, because he was strongly opposed to conferring such despotic power upon the Commissioners.

induced himself to take charge of one of these measures; whereon the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) told him that he must be very young to suppose that he could alter and amend the salmon laws of Scotland. All of these measures had, accordingly, been unsuccessful; and they failed because they adopted a principle which was avoided in this Bill, and that was the fixing one annual close-time for the whole of Scotland. The truth was, that the annual season for the different rivers was entirely different, and they never could get the different proprietors in the different counties in Scotland to agree on any one fixed period for the whole of Scotland. In order to effect this, therefore, it was necessary to have recourse to Commissioners, who should have the power of fixing the period acTHE EARL OF GALLOWAY said, he cording to the requirement of each several did not see why the Solway should be in- district. He did not think that the powers cluded within the operation of the Act. given to the Commissioners were too exThe noble Lord who moved the second tensive. There was a distinct clause in reading said it was because the English the Bill that nothing contained in the Bill law prevailed on the south side. By parity should affect in one way or other the exof reasoning, they might as well say that isting law of Scotland with regard to the the Scotch law should prevail in Northum- mode of fishing. If stake nets were berland or Durham. He thought, how-legal, this Bill did not make them illeever, that some legislation was required on this subject, though he objected to many of the details of this measure.

gal, and the Commissioners could do nothing which would make that illegal which was lawful under the existing statutes.

Irish proprietors to drain their estates | take any advantage of hon. Members, but at their own expense, and without that he found himself compelled to do so from amount of control imposed on them by former Bills.

MR. SCULLY said, he should oppose the Bill. It was a compulsory measure, which would enable commissioners of drainage to take the lands of a proprietor, and run drains through it, against his will and at his expense.

COLONEL FRENCH denied that the Bill was compulsory. On the contrary, it was permissive. Nothing could be done under it in any district until a large majority of the proprietors had called on the Board of Works to form a drainage district.

Clause agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.

House resumed.

the conduct that was pursued towards him. There were certain hon. Gentlemen present who had determined to count the House out; and finding there was a great desire to shorten the discussion on the Bill, he went to a division, which resulted in a victory to the friends of the ballot. It was not his intention to trouble the House with a very long argument on the question, because he considered that the arguments which had been urged in favour of the ballot had never been refuted, and in that respect the supporters of the measure stood perfectly triumphant. But it would be his duty to remove a load of dust and of cobweb which had been industriously thrown over the question, and in which a part of the press took the lead. Although he bowed with sub

Committee report Progress; to sit again mission to all fair criticism which might To-morrow.

The House re-assembled at Six o'clock.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present: House counted; and 40 Members not being present,

after Six o'clock.

come from the press, yet there were cases in which licence became licentiousness. He would give an instance. There appeared in The Times newspaper the following:

"Whoever wishes to see the low condition to

House adjourned at a quarter which a onco great Parliamentary question is reduced, has only to refer to our Parliamentary proceedings to observe that Mr. Berkeley could only assemble eighty Members."

Order for Second Reading read. MR. H. BERKELEY said, he found himself in an unwonted position with respect to the measure, inasmuch as that was the first occasion on which it was his duty to ask the House to read the Bill a second time. Much had been said about the late division, in which the supporters of the ballot achieved a victory by a very considerable majority in a small House. He would assure the House that it was not his desire to have pressed the question hastily forward to a division, or to

At the time that that passage appeared in The Times the editor had 112 pairs for dinner in his possession, in addition to those who voted. Upon such wretched capital was an opposition got up in that paper against the ballot, and those were the means used. Much dust had been thrown on the measure, with the intention of blinding the people to the real consequence of it. It therefore became his duty to lay before the House the exact condition in which the question stood. He held in his hand a table of statistics, in which were enumerated the constituencies of England, with their population and the number of electors. As first in place and consequence he would take this great and enlightened metropolis; and taking the eighteen members returned for the metropolitan boroughs, he would venture to say that whether as to their social position or their talent they were second to none in that House. The city of London had a population of 112,247; it contained 18,562 electors, and returned four Members who walked in the steps of George Grote. Westminster had a population of 253,985; it contained 12,826