The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

ROUSE OP COMMONS.---This Day.
The SPEAKER took his seat at tha Clerk's Table at 12
o'clock, but a house was not made until 20 minutes after 12.

PRIVAT E BUINESS.
Private business occupied a portion of the earlier par of
the sitting.

INDIAN ARMY.
Col. SYKES presented a petition from officers of the
Indian Army, complaining of the operation of the amalga-
mation scheme—one that he had served for 14 years, and
that an officer who had served only 8 years had been placed
over him, and praying for redress.

FISRIES.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD presented a petition from
Armagh in favour of the Irish Salmon Fisheries Bill.
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from Carrick-
on-Shannon to the same effect.

GAROTTING.
Mr. ADDERLEY gave notice th a
at on Monday next he
should move for leave to introduce bill to afford greater
protection to her Majesty's subjects from violence.
SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND).
Mr. M`MAHON, in proposing the second reading, ob-
served that, up to 1842, the law of England and Ireland
with respect to the regulation of fisheries was identical.
Up to that period every person had a right to fish in the
tidal waters of the country, as, indeed, they had from time
immemorial. Assuredly up to that period there had been
no encroachments upon their undoubted rights by wiers, or
otherwise, From the very earliest times enactments had
been passed against the setting up of all obstructions to the
free passage of the fish. The hon. member cited the various
acts, and explained the nature of the numerous re-
ports of the Commissioners on the Salmon Fisheries of
England, Scotland, and Ireland. For many years past all
obstructions or nuisances in the rivers had been strictly
forbidden by the Crown and the Legislature. The act of
1842, which this bill sought materially to modify, was hur-
riedly smuggled through the house, conferred the most
monstrous powers on the owners of lands abutting on the sea,
shores, and estuaries, and rivers ; in fact, it empowered
them by allowing the use of stakes and bag nets,
to virtually enclose the water and its produce
like a gentleman's park. He could not find that any dis-
cussion took place on the bill of 1842; indeed an hon.
member present, he learned, observed at the time, " This
must be a monstrous Irish job, as no Irish members have
spoken against it." (Laughter.) The act was a complete
violation of the common law of the land and the rights of the
people, as defined by the Great Charter. The act had com-
pletely ruined many people who had made a living out of the
fisheries before it became law. The new bill would not in-
terfere with a single vested right. It might be said that
some people had bought property, with the fishing powers
given by the bill, in the Encumbered Estates Court, and
on the assurance of the commissioners that those powers
would not be disturbed; but if any commissioner had given
such an assurance he ought to be dismissed from his office.
However, he did not believe that any suggestion of the kind
had been made. As there had been endless commissions and
reports on the salmon fisheries, he did not see what good could
arise from the amendment intended to be proposed by his
hon, and learned friend.

Mr. BUTT then proposed the following amendment:—
"That any legislation affecting the rights of the owners of
property secured by the existing laws regulating Irish
fisheries, ought to be preceded by a full and complete
inquiry, either by a royal commission or a committee of
this house." He said the whole question amounted to a
contest between the owners of the upper and lower fisheries,
and if the bill was passed it would virtually confiscate a
multitude of undoubted rights, clearly and deliberately,
granted ;by the Act of 1842. A full and exhaustive in-
quiry was urgently needed.
Colonel WHITE seconded the amendment. It was
most important that there should be further inquiry,
as those, like him, interested in the low fisheries
were not satisfied with the inquiry of last year ; indeed
they were not fairly represented in it. He read extracts
from several official reports, setting forth that the stakes
,nd bag nets had not had a detrimental effect, and that
the fisheries were greatly improving. He was not opposed
to legislation on the subject, and would readily meet
the supporters of this bill half-way, but he objected
to the property enjoyed under the Act of 1842 being
suddenly taken thus forcibly from its owners. A large
amount of capital had been invested in these fisheries in
purchases in connection with the Encumbered Estates
Act, and it was impossible that the rights they
purchased on the faith of an Act of Parliament
could be taken from them without, at least, full and un-
b,assed inquiry.
Mr. LONGFIELD supported the second reading, con-
tending that there had been ample and exhaustive inquiry.
There had been commissions and committees out of number.
Ellis bill was presented for the sole benefit of the public.
He ridiculed the idea of a Royal Commission, moved by
the gallant colonel, and probably headed by him. The
public had been too long robbed by stake weirs and bag
nets, utterly unauthorised even by the act of 1842 ; in fact,
these destructives injured the fish, and interfered with the
navigation. No one save those interested in the present
defective state of the law could honestly object to the bill.
The legislation of 1842 completely nullified the interests of
the public. Even in Waterford estuary alone 1,000 poor men
who obtained their living by the fisheries were thrown out
oi employment. Two of the most eminent judges that ever
sat on the Irish bench had decided that the putting up of
weirs in some foreshores was opposed to the public interest
and the law of the land.

Mr. HASSARD opposed the bill, because it was of a
far too sweeping nature. The house ought not to take the
rights conferred or purchased under an act of Parliament
away without affording some compensation to the owners.
If the present weirs and bag nets were considered objec-
tionable, their construction might be modified so as to
make them less objectionable. It was a fallacy to say
that these nets injured the production of the salmon, •
for there had never been a more productive year of
salmon in the estuary of Waterford than the last.
All the matters raised in this discussion ought to bo in-
quired into by a committee or Royal Commission. And he
hoped the Government would accede to this course.
Mr. J. B. SMITH was not an owner of fisheries, and,
indeed, had no interest in the matter. However he had
been a member of the recent committee, and he desired to
state that the evidence testified that the great evil was the
existence of fixed engines. For instance it was proved that
the effect of this injurious mode of fishing in the Tweed had
been to reduce the number of fish from 40,000 to 4,000.
Mr. HO IS GSON spoke against the injurious effect of
bag nets, and considered that they ought to be abolished.
He, therefore, earnestly trusted that the bill would be
adopted.
Mr. MONSELL admitted that gross abuses had grown
up under the act of 1842, and that the time had come when
there should be effective legislation on the subject. No
inquiry was needed, for they had more than enough of it.
The Government had ample materials in hand, out of
which they could easily frame a bill fair alike to all parties.
He pressed upon the right hon. baronet, the Chief Secre-
tary for Ireland, to frame such a bill, and he was satisfied it
would meet with the approval of the house. In that ease he
suggested that bag-nets should be entirely prohibited,
and especially so in narrow estuaries as at present in which
large numbers of salmon were surely snared; the owners
of the fisheries ought to be compelled to pay a certain
rate on their takings.
Colonel DUNNE supported the views of the hon. mem-
ber for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). He feared if the present
system was continued that it would lead to the entire
aestruction of salmon, and read statistics to show that the
take of fish on the coasts and rivers of Ireland had greatly
diminished during the last few years. He should support
the bill, but trusted that the Government would take up
the subject and introduce a measure under their own
auspices. The house had before it ample materials for legis-
lation.
Sir R. PEEL said the bill was identical with the one
read last session, and referred to a committee. It would be
better, he thought, to read the bill a second time than re
ferring the subject to a commission. (Hear, hear.) He
doubted much if a bill could be framed to meet the desires
of the upper and lower proprietors of river rights.
However, with the assistance of the hon. gentle-
men who had spoken, he would venture to undertake
a measure in the earnest hope that it might prove accept-
able to all parties. As the fixed engines had been in the
rivers for 20 years befere the passing of the bill of 1842, it
could hardly be said that they could be abolished without
compensation to their owners. A difference of opinion pre-
vailed as to the augmentation or decrease of salmon in the
rivers., Assuredly, if the rivers were getting depopulated,
it would be their duty to interfere. But Mr. Fennell
gave it as his evidence that it was only the
lower parts of the river that possessed any commercial
value. He should be glad to take charge this session of
1 such a bill as the one suggested by the hon. member for
Limerick, and if the hon. member (Mr. M'Mahon) would
consent to withdraw his bill—(no, no)—he would endea-
vour to embody some of its less objectionable provisions in
a new measure. He was prepared to endow commissioners
with more p ewer, and make a charge upon the proprietors
of weirs and bag nets; he would limit the projection of
stake nets to the low waters of the neap tides, instead of low
waters of the spring tides, and bag nets to one bag, also the
number of fixed engines, and would increase the penalties
for the infringement of the law. He should extend the
opening of the nets from 24 to 36 hours. If the hon. mem-
ber determined to I.roceed with his measure he should vote
for the second reading. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. HERBERT suggested that his hon. and learned
friend should withdraw his amendment, and that his other
hon. friend should postpone his bill.
Lord NAAS recommended the adoption of the course
recommended by the right hon. baronet the Secretary for
Ireland. He should support the second reading, and
hoped the matter would be definitively settled this session.
(Divide, divide.)
Mr. 0. GORE hoped the hon, member for Wexford
would proceed with his bill. (Divide.)
After a few words from Mr. GBORGE, who considered
the bill of 1842 based on just principles,
Mr. M`MAHON replied. He would not compromise
one single tittle of this bill, but should press it on. He
warned the right hon. baronet to be cautious how he acted
in this matter, as any undue opposition to it might lead to
sure destruction to other measures.
Mr. BUTT withdrew his amendment.
The bill was then read a second time.
Mr. WMAHON postponed the committee for a fortnight.
He should be happy to adopt auy amendments that might
promote the object he had in view.
DRAINAGE (IRELAND).
Colonel DICKSON moved the second reading of this
bill, which was agreed to, and ordered to be committed to-
morrow.
SUPPLY.
The report on supply was brought up by Mr. BRAND,
and agreed to in the usual manner.
CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION.
Mr. NE WDEGATE obtained leave to bring in a bill to
establish a charge in lieu of church rates for the commuta-
tion thereof, and to afford facilities for the provision of
other funds applicable to the purposes of the church rates.
Read a first time.
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON WOMEN.
Lord RAYN HAM moved for leave to bring in a bill for
the better prevention of aggravated assaults upon women
and children.
Read a first thee.
NEW WRIT FOR LISBURN.
On the motion of Col. TAYLOR a new writ was ordered
to be issued for Lisburn in the room of Mr. Richardson,
resigned.
The house adjourned at twenty minutes after four,