The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-06-23 00:00:00

OUTER FISHERY BILL.

Mr. Wmaireos brought up the report of the
Oyster Fishery Bill.
Sir S. Hontxxe said, he shnitill o!ijeet to that
part of the Bill making the bte Alin.; of oysters a
crime punishable with transportatien for seven
years; for this punishment he should hare, in the
Committee, had he born present, moved the sub-
stitution of hard labour sis a work-house fee the
space of two
,sears. As the Bill now stood, he en-
treated the House to recollect how extremely inde-
finite the limits of mantle property of this kind
were, and how very easily the crime might unin-
tentionally be incurred. The punishment then of
this offence should be unattended with any snow-
cessary severity, and, above all other punishineut%
he should be most unlined to prevent the frequent
application of transportetiou, both on all ns,:onn-
mien' and a moral ground. This punishment nikly
rendered the morals of delinquents more depravool
and desperate, sand coutirmed them in the practice
of ever, villainy and vice. Such was the testimony
Of the celebrated Mr. Howard, the `rate-passible
authority on this aublect. It would be much bet-
ter to lessen, rather thaq increase, the number of
offences and penal laws, This act moreover west
upon a false asousuption, namely, that the act it
went to amend was etoolivocal. This was unfound-
ed ; for this met was moat distinct and decisive upon
the criminality of the act of stealing much property.
The SoLociroa4;eifeßAL- tooteuded, the hill
was not intended to create anew crime, for the Bill.
although imperfect in acme degree. upon which it
Wm founded, had made the same a felony at common
law. That species of property lusd alwnys been as
strictly gleaned by nauticul persona, and aseensiord
by positive boundaries, as au) other/operty in laud,
and it was more than any other so 'eta to robbery.
The whole intention of the present 11 was, to le-
store the state of the common law to its origioal
p_nrport,aeconling to the Statute of the :list of the
King. The objertinu, to the punishment, as too
heavy and severe. would. with equal propriety, be
made tie those instituted against petty larceny and
simple felony. It w 'Le principle of British
to look on all theft,. .of. I% bitterer trifliag tlrserip-
tion they might be, in the Pittlit. 14(11i. said to pro-
portion the punishment r.i;li-r to the intention of
the person, than to time o .1.111 of the tiring stolro ;
hence hr think the Bill old) c-

pt

r.

1.

stored the form of the ancient common law, and
reyired au equitable and just punislunciit tur an Of-
fence injurious to the interest* and istilu.try
of aces tam portion of the community.

Mr. Macsse explained the nature of the oyster
beds, and enlarged upon the various deprixlatious
that had taleu place upon them. The ps,ople to
whom they belonged were in general poor, and
lived, as it were, from hand to mouth. It war,
therefor*. the more necessary that their property
should be protected, in the sums inannir as any
other property equally imposed, such as bleach-
fields, orchards, ;kr. This was not a matter
of small amount ; and some means ought to he
taken to enable them to gain their livelihood by
carrying on their trade. He approved this Bill, as
eifordinsi that necessary protection.
Sir 11 Cuartsobaerved, that undoubtedly the
oyster-beds were a species of property deserving
of protection as any other. His only objection to
the Bill was, that it did not suaciently mark out
the property, insomuch that any person, like him-
self, fond of oysters, might innocently and igno-
rantly transgress upon these oyster beds, should he
hamlets to e pasting near tilt: spot where they lay.
As it was a traffic which produced many good sea-
men, be should not object to its being properly pro-
tected, provided the property in question was so
noted or marked out, as to prevent persons fulling
into error.

Mr. Seekers Booste► said, he did not appre-
hend that this Bill went to, inane any alteration in
the descriptiou of the property or place where it
lay, other than the former Bill contained. It was evi-
dently a property well worthy of protection.—
Doubts having enisted whether the law at present
deemed the offence of stealing these oysters a le-
looy or a misdemeanor. it was therefore itecausitry
to explain the law. Such was the object of this
Bill. It had always been deemed necessary to
punish those offences that could be committed a ith
great facility, with greater severity than those of a
contrary description. For instance, the crime of
sheep-stealing was punished, upon all occasions,
with death. Upon the saute principle, oyster-
beds well deserved protection. as being private
property collected together with great labour. As
to what had fallen from the worthy Alderman as
to the necessity of pointing out the property, he
we'; sure no person would be so ill-natured as to
make him ainenable to the low, merely for taking a
few oysters from these beds as a lunch before din-
ner. There was no occasion for being apprehen-
sive apon this point. He anpruved of the Bill, as
protecting that species et' property, and doing away
the existing doubts upon the subject..
Sir WILLIAM ELFORD supported the measure,
as he thought it was necessary to protect that pro-
party, be the severity of the punishment.
Mr. *ILLIAMS WYNNE s.ud, that formerly a
nut had been brought in for 'making the stealing
of any species of fruit a felony ; and although it
was acknowledged by all that that property was
much exposed, and required protection, yet the ar-
ticle was so tempting, sad the offence so easy of
commission, that boys might be induced to commit
it ; the Bill was rejected. He thought it highly ne-
cessary th 4 the oyster beds should be marked out
so as to prevent persons totally ignoraut of the
law from committing the offence of taking oysters
from thauce. A Captain of a ship, newly arrived
from a distant climate, might innocently enot.ti
send out his boat, with ineu. to take oysters where-
ever they could get them. Was it just or reason-
able that such persons should be deemed guilty of
felony ? He should wish to ace mine provision in-
troduced, so as particularly to mark out these beds
to the public.
Mr. Vitus-As thought it extremely important to
declare what the taw upon the subject. The
punishment proposed in the Bill could toot be ob-
jected, as being severe, as it was certainly the
mildest kind inflicted for larceny.
SirAaritua Piet:ore thought, that if the law al.
ready declared this offence to he felony by the
common law, there was no occasion for passing this
Bill. It was certainly important that the beds
should be particularly marked out.
Mr. Sits STAKHoPE said, if he consented
to this Bill, he was consenting to innocent persons
being punished as felons. A Captain might return
from the East Indies, and might choose to regale
hi.nself with oysters, and he could see no circum-
stance that could induce a Jury to acquit any per-
sou who had committed the offence, even in the
slightest degree. He had however no doubt there
should be A law making this offence more penal
than it at present scented to be, although he cer-
tainly thought the oyster beds that were private
property ought to be particularly marked out.
Mr. WIDITIIRN stated, that the object of the
Bill WWI merely to declare the law, upon which
doubts had on various occasions a •iseu.
Mr. Buieroe could are no objection against re-
storing the existing law, and explaining what it
really WWI. The only difficulty was, to ascertain
whether or not it was private property ? Ile thought
there ought to be words in the Act descriptive of
the property, and that it ought to be marked out
with proper buoys.
The question being loudly called for, strangers
were ordered to withdraw ; but we understand the
meort was agreed to without a division, and the
Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.—
Adjourned.