Fisheries Act.

Amendment negatived.

MR. W. LESLIE proposed to leave out the words "thirty-six hours," and insert the words, "from the hour of six o'clock on Saturday night till six o'clock on the Monday morning.'

THE LORD ADVOCATE then proposed an additional clause, providing that the River Tay should continue to be governed by the special Act, provided that In line 11, to leave out "for thirty-six hours," the close-hours from twelve on Saturday

II OUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, May 28, 1862.

MINUTES.]-NEW MEMRER SWORN.-For Kidder-
minster, Luke White, esq.

l'UBLIC BILLS.-2o Fisheries (Ireland); Juries; Elections for Counties (Ireland); Elections (Ireland).

3° Crown Private Estates.

|

those fisheries were properly worked ; and the Billingsgate dealers said that it was almost impossible to overstock the English markets with fresh fish. Various causes had been assigned for the neglect of the fishery. In 1849 a very eminent writer in the Edinburgh Review said that it arose from the peculiar social organization of the Irish, the Irishman being of such a nature that he would rather beg for a penny than work for a shilling. Again, M'Culloch attributed the cause to the minute subdivision of land; but the real cause was the bad laws which had so long existed in the country. There was no suggestion about the want of fish. Old Acts of Parliament showed that a great and profitable fishery used to be carried on upon the coast, so that the Irish fishermen used not only to supply the wants of their own countrymen, but to export largely to Thus, in 1734, they foreign countries.

exigencies of the fisheries in Ireland were almost entirely similar to those of English fisheries. In accordance with that opinion, the object of this Bill was to extend to Ireland the Bill which was last Session passed for England, to repeal the laws by which the Irish fisheries had been so seriously injured, to abolish all unnecessary restrictions, and to deprive the Commissioners of Fisheries of the power of making by-laws.

exported 21,000 barrels of herrings, importing none, while in 1834 149,000 barrels of herrings were imported into Ireland, and there was no export trade whatever. FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. The destruction of the Irish fisheries had [BILL NO. 47.] SECOND READING. been caused entirely by the restrictions Order for Second Reading read. imposed by erroneous legislation, one of MR. M'MAHON said, he rose to move the most important of which was a provithe second reading of this Bill. Its object sion in an Act passed in the year 1777, was to assimilate the fishery laws of Ire- requiring that all nets and fishing lines land to those of England, not only as to should be covered with tar and oil. The the inland, but the deep-sea fishing. The Commissioners who inquired into the subquestion which everybody would ask was,ject in the year 1835 reported that the why, with a dearth of food on the west coast of Ireland, sometimes approaching to a famine, the Irish fisheries were so neglected by the Irish people. The Commissioners, who in 1836 had inquired into the subject, had remarked upon the anomaly that Scotch herrings were imported into Ireland while there were living shoals of the same fish on the Irish shores. Very large quantities of herrings were, in fact, brought every year into the country from England and Scotland, along with ling, cod, and hake, although, as Sir William Temple long ago said, the fisheries along the Irish coast presented a mine of wealth beyond any existing underground, and Arthur Young declared that next to land there was no manufacture or trade of half as much consequence to Ireland as her fisheries would prove to be if judiciously encouraged. This was a subject of great importance to England as well as to Ireland, for the English market would derive great advantage from the new supplies which would be forthcoming if

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

LORD FERMOY said, he felt an objection to the Bill in limine. Legislation on a subject of such importance ought not to be left in the hands of a private Member. In their last Report the Irish Fisheries Commissioners advised a consolidation of the law, and the introduction of some restrictions upon the use of stake weirs and bag nets, and they stated that a Bill was already drawn for the purpose. He want

He con

ed to know what had become of that Bill. industrious and deserving men. Scarcely anything connected with Ireland tended that it was a measure which, was take up by the Irish Government; if brought in at all, should be brought in and when they did take up anything, the upon the responsibility of the Government, practical result was to stifle discussion and and to test the feeling of the House he effectually postpone any beneficial legis- would move that the Bill be read a second lation. But as they had before them the time on that day six months. Bill of the hon. and learned Member, they must deal with it. He thought that the hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in

mixing up the deep-sea fisheries with the salmon fisheries, and that as they were very different questions, they ought to be dealt with in two distinct Bills. With regard to the deep-sea fisheries, he (Lord Fermoy) was one of those who thought that it it was a bad system to encourage a feeling amongst the Irish people that they ought to look to the Government for support in all such cases as this, which would be better left to private enterprise. The old maxim was particularly applicable to the Irish people in those matters, namely, "Heaven will help those who help themselves." The Bay of Dublin was fished and the markets of Dublin were supplied by Cornish fishermen ; and if Irishmen would apply their industry, capital, and intelligence in the same way, they would obtain the same profitable returns. With regard to the salmon fisheries, which formed the more important branch of the subject, it was proposed to sweep away all stake weirs and bag nets in the tidal waters and estuaries of Ireland. The best system of fishery was that which produced the largest amount of sound and wholesome fish without diminishing the future supply. He had ascertained that in 1861, up to the 27th of May, 3,647 baskets of salmon came from Ireland to Billingsgate Market. In the same period of 1862 the number of baskets was 5,183, being an increase of more than 30 per cent. If the majority of these fish were caught by bag nets and stake weirs, it only proved that they were brought to market in the best possible state, and that buyers appreciated the finer quality of the fish when caught nearest the salt water. But if they were not caught by bag nets and stake weirs, there was no case for destroying the right of property in them sanctioned by Parliament in 1842, and placed by law under certain limitations. The effect of the Bill would be to increase the profits of the proprietors of lax weirs at the expense of the proprietors of the stake weirs and bag nets, and to throw out of employment an immense number of

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word 66 now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day

three months."

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

COLONEL VANDELEUR said, if the Bill passed, it would inflict great pecuniary injury upon many persons who had engaged in the salmon fisheries. For them some compensation ought certainly to be provided, if the change proposed in the law were made. But the Bill made no provision for any such compensation, and he could not, therefore, give it his support. The contemplated destruction of the stake weirs and bag nets would not divide the fish more equally, but would simply give it all to the lax weir proprietors. The stake weirs and bag nets were recognized by the Act of 1842, and they were placed under the control of the Commissioners. There would be no objection to any modification of the regulations to which they were subject, if the Commissioners deemed any alterations to be necessary; but there was no pretence for saying that the produce of the fisheries had of late years diminished. On the contrary, he believed that since 1842 the fish had largely increased above the weirs, instead of diminishing. Such was especially the case with regard to the Shannon, with which he was well acquainted. It would, in his opinion, be a cruelty to pass this Bill without a full inquiry being first had. As to the sea fishery, it had no doubt decreased; but that was partly owing, he believed, to the fish having changed their haunts, and partly to the obstinate opposition of the Irish fishermen. When trawling boats were introduced into the Bay of Galway, they had to be protected by revenue boats, owing to the determined opposition of the Claddagh fishermen. He hoped, if the Bill were read a second time, it would be referred to a Select Committee.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN said, he was glad the Bill had been brought before the House; but he felt that it had been introduced too late in the Session for practical legislation on the subject. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Fermoy), tha! the

importance of the subject was so great that such nets were in a certain qualified that the Government ought to have taken manner legalized by the Act, and hon. it in hand. The noble Lord had used an Members who were interested in the emargument which might be very fallacious.ployment of these engines of course op.. He had quoted the large increase of the posed the Bill. He believed, however, supply of fish to the London market in that the bulk of the Irish Members were proof of the fact that the stake weirs and in favour of legislation on the subject. bag nets did not interfere with the produc- Repeated attempts to deal with the question of fish. That argument might prove tion had failed, yet the noble Lord blamed the opposite; but whether it did so or not, the Government for not taking it up. it naturally suggested the inquiry whether The truth was, that they had already so such an enormous supply could be kept up much business to attend to that they without ultimately destroying the fisheries could not at present do justice to the subaltogether. The preservation of the fish, ject. He thought it would be well to read and the development of the resources of the Bill a second time and to remit it to the Irish waters, was a question of infinite- a Select Committee, before which evidence ly more importance than the claims of could be taken. They would have the rival proprietors. He would suggest that Report of the Committee early next year, the Bill should be sent to a Select Com- and would then be in a position to intromittee, in order that the whole question duce a Bill which would have a reasonable might be carefully investigated. He ob prospect of success. The main points in jected to the discretion allowed in the the Bill were the abolition of fixed engines making of bylaws, as too wide. and the opening of Queen's gaps. The engines had been proved to be very injurious, and the opening of the gaps in certain cases had been attended with satisfactory results, as it enabled the fish to move about freely and encouraged them to fructify. The Solicitor General had expressed his opinion that the measure could, with certain amendments, be worked effectually, aud the Chairman and several members of the Fisheries Commission also believed that it would be turned to practical account and deserved the support of the Government. For these reasons he supported the second reading, and hoped the Bill would then be sent to a Select Committee.

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Baronet was worthy of consideration. The hon. Member for Wexford was not open to the reproach which the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone had applied to him, for he deserved the thanks of the House for the labour he had bestowed on the preparation of the Bill. But whenever the noble Lord made a speech in that House, he always attacked a Member of the Government, generally himself and the introducer of a Bill.

The question was one of immense importance. There were boundless reSources on the coast of Ireland, which were not available, owing to causes into which he need not then enter, and which required protection and encouragement. The Bill was certainly very voluminous; but considering the numerous and complicated interests involved, it was doubtful whether it could safely be compressed. The main question might be put into a very small compass. The hon. Member justly complained of the fixed engines on the coasts and at the mouths of the great rivers, which were productive of incalculable mischief. The obvious answer to the argument that the supplies of fish from Ireland had increased was, that if such an excessive rate of production were persisted in, it would probably lead to the destruction of the fisheries. He had received communications from Limerick and elsewhere in favour of the Bill, and his correspondents all joined in complaining of the use of bag and stake nets. It was quito true

MR. GEORGE said, it was a matter deeply to be deplored, that as the Bill was of such importance in the opinion of the Government, they had not that Session introduced a measure of their own upon it. The fisheries of Ireland, whether sea or inland fisheries, were of paramount importance to Ireland. Out of the 122 clauses there were perhaps not more than three which could be said to be new, or to raise any serious question for the consideration of the House; but, as some clauses seriously affected vested interests, he should certainly give the Bill his opposition, unless he understood it was to be stringently examined by a Select Committee. He thought the most stringent measures should be adopted for protecting the fish in the upper waters of rivers, for it was there, in his belief, that the great destruction of fish took place.

MR. CALCUTT observed that he would support the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that it was to be referred to the Committee.

and that inquiry would be made by the Committee. Most of them had received numerous communications as to the state of the Shannon. They were told that the existence of bag nets and stake nets were destroying the fishery. But in the Appendix to the Report of the Fishery Commission for Ireland it appeared from the answers given to a circular issued by the Commissioners, that in the Shannon, the river where they were told the fishing was being destroyed, it had improved, and that the prospects of a further improvement were very good. This was the answer given to the Commissioners by the Conservators of Limerick. It was a startling contradiction to what they had heard, and he could come to no other conclusion but that an inquiry was necessary. thought that the interests that had sprung up under the Act of 1842 were too extensive to be dealt with in a summary manner; they ought to have an opportu

He

MR. LONGFIELD said, he had not heard a single reason why the Bill should not be read a second time. It was said that one clause of the Bill destroyed rights created by a former Act, the 5 & 6 Vict. That Act gave a qualified sanction to stake weirs; but a proviso to one of the sections of the Act reserved all the rights of fishing on the part of the Crown and the public. It had been laid down in a judgment of Baron Pennefather, in Ireland, that the erection of fixed engines in fishing waters was a violation of Magna Charta, which provided that fishing in all estuaries should be free to the public at large. They remained as illegal as they were before the previous Act. The present Bill consolidated the fishing laws, both as it related to the inland and deepsea fishing; and it contained two admir-nity of stating their case before they were able provisions, destroying the stake weirs, and enforcing the construction of free gaps in the fishing weirs, that would be of the utmost possible benefit by increasing the supply of salmon. He believed, if the Act were passed, the Blackwater, one of the finest rivers in the empire, would be teeming with salmon; whereas at that moment it was almost hermetically sealed by weirs and other fixed engines. He hoped the House would not refuse to read the Bill a second time because some of the clauses were opposed by certain proprietors.

MR. H. A. HERBERT said, he must admit the importance of the subject, but he could not concur in the censure passed on the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, for the alleged neglect of the Government in not bringing forward a measure of its own. In common justice the right hon. Baronet must be absolved from blame; his industry during the present Session deserved all praise; indeed, he had shown rather an over-anxiety for legislating than any neglect. He was glad the Government had not brought in a Bill on the subject of the Irish fisheries in this Session, and that the question had fallen into the able hands of the hon. Member for Wexford. Not only what had passed during the debate, but what was passing out of doors, showed that they had not sufficient information to enable them to legislate. Before they did so there ought to be a searching investigation into the subject,

deprived of what they conceived to be their rights and privileges. At the same time, he thought that the exercise of these rights and privileges had much deteriorated the fishery. The hon. Member for Wexford said that great injury was done by the destruction of spawn in the upper parts of the Shannon. That might be ; but it should be remembered that the owners of the upper part of the river had been deprived of their interest. The lower proprietors would always have the lion's share, but the upper proprietors ought to have their due share. He trusted that next year Government would bring in a measure founded on the present measure, and modified by the result of the inquiry before the Select Committee.

MR. WHITESIDE said, he agreed with the right hon. Member as to the propriety of referring the Bill to a Select Committee; but he did not concur with him in thinking nothing ought to be done till next year. He believed the Committee would come to a decision that might be acted on that Session. It was more easy to introduce Bills than to carry them. And the right hon. Baronet would not be just to himself if he left himself without the assistance of others. A Bill might be carried in that Session that would save himself the labour of introducing one.

MR. MONSELL said, he concurred with the opinion of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside). It was of the