HC Deb 12 May 1887 vol 314 cc1729-39
MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

said, he rose to call attention to the recent prosecution, by the Procurator Fiscal of Ross-shire, of Lossiemouth fishermen at Tain, for dredging for mussels to be used as bait; to the alleged existence of private rights in mussel beds in tidal waters; to the injury to the prosperity of the fishing industry caused by such alleged private rights; and to the advisability of vesting all mussel beds in the tidal waters of Scotland in the Scotch Fishery Board; and to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire as to the existence and extent of private rights in mussel beds in the tidal waters of Scotland, and to inquire generally as to the nature and value of such rights, and to report as to the advisability of compelling the transfer of all such lights to the Fishery Board for Scotland. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. ANDERSON

said, his Motion raised several of the most important questions concerning the fishing industry in Scotland that could possibly be brought before Parliament. The prosecution mentioned in the Notice arose out of the fact that certain fishermen who resided at Lossiemouth, in Elginshire, were dredging for mussels for bait in the Dornoch Firth on the 25th of May, 1886. and took away about two tons of mussels which were lying below low-water mark, where one could suppose private rights of property could not exist. These men were summoned at the instance of Major Rose of Tarlogie, the charge being that they had stolen the mussels, which were alleged to be his property. The case was heard at considerable length in the Sheriff's Court, and the men were fined £10. It was stated at the trial that Major Rose had put buoys to warn people for infringing on the mussel beds in question, and that notices were published to the same effect. But fishermen had been in the habit of taking away mussels for 30 years, and at the trial they stated their willingness to pay for the mussels if Major Rose could establish his title. In such circumstances it was perfectly extraordinary that any conviction could have taken place; but the men had been convicted, and the verdict had been affirmed by the Court of Session.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

said, the question had been decided by the Justiciary Court.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the matter was the subject of an appeal, and had been finally decided. They had heard of a good many startling claims made by lairds, but of all the rights they had succeeded in establishing in the Courts of Law, that, to his mind, was one of the most monstrous. The fishermen were dependent for their existence on getting cheap bait, and he maintained that, by all natural laws, they had a right to dredge for it in the deep sea. The fishing industry was a very precarious one. Owing to the difficulties connected with the conveyance of their fish to market the fishermen had often to sell their fish by auction, at a ridiculously small price, sometimes not realizing more than 3s. or 4s. for their take, and out of that small sum they had to pay the laird from 1s. 6d. to 2s. or more per basket for the mussels with which they baited their hooks. In the Western Highlands of Scotland the laird did not charge these poor men for the mussels, which were habitually gathered for local consumption without interference on the part of the proprietor or the factor. When they were collected for sale the right of purchase in some rare instances had been limited to particular agents paying rent to the proprietors. Thus that extravagant charge for bait was not made on the Western Coast of Scotland, but on the North Eastern Coast of Scotland it imposed a very heavy burden on the precarious industry of the fishermen. Indeed, so onerous was the charge made by the factors for those mussels on the East Coast of Scotland that the fishermen there had actually to get their bait from Glasgow and the Western Coast instead of from the mussel beds of their own districts. Those lairds thus compelled the fishermen to pay enormous railway rates, the freight being £1 per ton from Glasgow to Lossiemouth or Burghead, although coal was carried for 10s. a ton. Those matters called for the interference of the House of Commons, and he could not imagine any case of greater importance. He had endeavoured to see his way to bring in a Bill to legislate on the subject. But it was necessary, in the first place, to ascertain the nature, extent, and value of these private rights in the mussel beds, and how it came to pass that the law of Scotland should have recognized anything of the kind. He had himself put questions on that subject, and he had been told that the Scotch Fishery Board could not give any information regarding it. It was natural that the lairds should give none. They were thus left completely in the dark as to the nature, extent, and value of those rights; and therefore it was necessary that there should be an inquiry instituted before any legislation was introduced on the subject. He did not propose that the Commission should lead to the confiscation of any rights of property which had been legitimately acquired; but he believed that in many cases those alleged rights did not legally exist. The Commission, however, would ascertain how that matter stood, and what sum, if any, was required for compensation. In the next place, he thought that those bait beds, instead of being left to the care of the proprietors or of persons who were not proprietors, should be placed under some authority in the public interest who would look after their proper preservation. They were far more important than oyster beds. Many complaints had been made about the Scotch Fishery Board, but he understood that the Board was to be reconstituted and made efficient; and he could not think of any better way of using the Scottish Fishery Board than by vesting in it the right to all these bait beds. They had at present a staff of inspectors who received good pay, but had practically nothing to do; they might be usefully employed in looking after the mussel beds. Then the revenue which the Board would derive from the sale of mussels would be sufficient to recoup any expense which might be incurred for that purpose, and also pay the interest which might be necessary to meet the lairds' claims to compensation for any well-defined legal rights; while the poor fishermen would get their mussels at 6d. instead of 1s. 6d., 2s., or 2s. 6d. per basket. That was the scheme which he suggested, and he did not see what objection there could be to it. He was sorry to say he believed the Government were going to object to it. He had had communications on the subject with the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when he was Secretary for Scotland. That right hon. Gentleman had taken a great interest in the subject, had gone into it thoroughly, and had been satisfied that it was a case in which Parliament ought to interfere, and the right hon. Gentleman had agreed with him that the course he proposed was the proper one. He had even gone so far as to say that if a discussion were brought on there would not be much objection to the proposal. He had, therefore, received great encouragement from the late Secretary for Scotland, and had congratulated himself on the thing being done. But since that time several serious changes had taken place, one of them being (he transfer of the right hon. Gentleman from the administration of Scotland to that of Ireland, to the disadvantage of both countries. He had addressed a communication to the present Secretary for Scotland, but, instead of receiving the answer he expected, Lord Lothian had sent him a letter in which he stated that he could not consent to any inquiry of the kind. It was most unfortunate that on an important ques- tion of this sort the Minister who had to decide whether this inquiry should be granted or not was not in the House of Commons to listen to the arguments adduced in support of it. In his opinion, it illustrated the inconvenience of having the Secretary for Scotland a Member of the House of Lords. He was sure if Lord Lothian had heard his statement he would have been satisfied that his proposal was a reasonable one. They had reason to complain of the manner in which Scottish Business was conducted in that House. Neither the First Lord of the Treasury nor any other Member of the Government who could give a satisfactory reply was present. The Lord Advocate had, no doubt, received his marching orders from Lord Lothian. This was not the way to treat Scotland, and Scottish Members were placed in a very great difficulty. He hoped, however, that before the debate was concluded they should hear something really hopeful from the Government, who could do nothing better than accept his proposal, if they really wanted to do anything that would conduce to the prosperity of the fishing industry. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.),

in seconding the Resolution, said, he did not think any good purpose would be served by continuing the discussion at great length. He could not share the despairing feelings of his hon. and learned Friend in supposing that nothing was going to be done by the Government in regard to this question. That was a larger question than might be supposed. Although the mussel itself was of no apparent value, yet for the line fishing—on which thousands of people depend in Scotland—it was essential for the carrying on of the industry. The fishing on the coast of Aberdeen was a larger source of annual revenue than the whole of the land in the county—that was to say, that the produce of the sea around Aberdeenshire represented a greater value in money than the produce of the land. A great deal of attention was paid to the Land Laws and to the interests of agriculture; but the Legislature remained blind to the enormous interests involved in the fishing industry. He was of opinion that the object which his hon. and learned Friend had in view could be attained without the expense of a Royal Commission. He could suppose no better business for the Scottish Fishery Board than to inquire into this subject, and there was no great necessity at the present stage for appointing a Royal Commission. The Scottish Fishery Board, if properly constituted, would have a greater knowledge of the fishing industry, and of the importance of this question, than any Royal Commission that could be appointed. Why not give to that Board the powers which his hon. and learned Friend asked for a Royal Commission? His hon. and learned Friend might disagree with him, but he (Mr. Esslemont) had been longer acquainted with the East Coast of Scotland than his hon. and learned Friend, and his hon. and learned Friend must not suppose that he had any superior information in regard to this question than he (Mr. Esslemont)claimed to have. On the other hand, he was quite sure that he represented as large a fishing interest as any Member in the House. But his purpose was to get the information they required with the least possible expense, and in the best form; and he hoped the Lord Advocate, if he would not agree to the appointment of a Royal Commission, would at least give them an assurance that the subject would receive the attention of the Government, and that he would communicate with the Fishery Board, and see by what means they could best bring about the result they all desired. In one fishing village in his own constituency, with about 14 boats, a sum of £224 was paid annually for the right of laying down mussels in the river Y than and picking them up again. The right seemed to be leased to a firm, and was sub-let by them to the fishermen, who were practically obliged to pay that large sum or cease to carry on the industry of white fishing. He did not desire that any private rights should be violated, but only desired in the meantime full information. He begged to second the Resolution.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire as to the existence and extent of private rights in mussel beds in the tidal waters of Scotland, and to inquire generally as to the nature and value of such rights, and to report as to the advisability of compelling the transfer of all such rights to the Fishery Board for Scotland,"—(Mr. Anderson.) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

said, that there were two points involved in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member—the first relating to the prosecution of the Lossiemouth fishermen at Tain, and the second affecting the general question. Now, as regarded the general question, there could be no doubt whatever that from far distant times legal rights had been established to mussel beds on the coasts of Scotland. Of that there could be no more substantial proof than the fact that an Act was passed under the Government of Lord John Russell in 1847, the Preamble of which set forth that certain rights had been established by law to mussel beds in Scotland, and that the Act was passed for the purpose of making the taking of mussels from such beds by persons who had no right to take them an act of theft. Therefore, about the general question that such rights had been recognized, not only by the Law Courts of Scotland, but also by Parliament, and that within recent times, there could be no question whatever. Whether that was a wise state of things was a different question, regarding which people could have their own opinions. So far as he know, where such rights did exist, they were well-defined rights, and rights which could be ascertained by reference to documents and to practice. Even if the Government were prepared to assent to a Royal Commission on a matter of this kind, the last thing they would think of referring would be the question of law as to whether individual proprietors had those rights or not. It was quite plain that to set aside the Courts of Law which had to deal with those matters would be perfectly out of the question. For instance, the case of Tarlogie was a case in which, as regarded the legal right, there could be no question whatever, and no room for an inquiry, by Royal Commission or otherwise, as to whether the right existed or not. In regard to that case, the questions ap- pealed to the Court of Justiciary were these—"Had Major Rose a good title to the mussel beds?" and the answer was "Yes." The second question was —"Could said title be held in a question with the public to convey an exclusive right to mussel fishing below low-water mark?" and the answer was also "Yes." It must be remembered that those mussel beds were in an estuary, and not in the open sea; but whether below or above low-water mark, it was only right to say, in this public assembly, that, as regarded what was done by the fishermen who were put on their trial, he had not the slightest doubt that on the occasion in question their object was not to go surreptitiously and as knaves to take the mussels, but that they went openly in the face of day for the purpose of having the right tested, and that any theft committed was not a malicious or immoral theft; and the decision having been against them, the fishermen had, so far as he knew, submitted to it, and had not again trespassed. He thought it due to them to say that. Having said that on their behalf, he was bound to say, on behalf of the proprietor, that he had taken pains and trouble to give intimation to those who might interfere with his rights as to the extent to which he claimed those rights, and the ground which they covered. It was perfectly well known that he asserted his right by letting out the mussel beds, and that the extent of them was carefully marked by buoys, about which there could be no mistake. The only remaining question, then, was whether the Government were to consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission upon this question. There was no doubt that the existence of a proper supply of mussels for fishermen on the coast of Scotland was a most important matter for their industry; but he thought all who knew anything about it would bear him out in saying in all fairness that the existence of those mussel beds had, to a great extent, tended to keep up the supply of mussels. They knew perfectly well that fishermen in most places, and certainly in Scotland, were sometimes a little careless of the gifts of Nature when they had them in their own hands; and that in the past, whatever might be advisable in the present, what was needful to the fishermen in the prosecution of their industry was, to a great extent, protected for them by the fact that there was some legislation regarding it. The question was whether now—he understood the Motion to go that length—it was advisable that all the mussel beds in Scotland at present possessed by private individuals should become the property of the nation, not, as the hon. and learned Member fairly said, by way of confiscation, but by taking them over, and giving compensation to the present owners. The hon. and learned Member asked for a Royal Commission to investigate the matter. Now, whatever the hon. and learned Member's individual conversations might have been with the late Secretary for Scotland, he did not know; but he would accept the hon. and learned Member's statement regarding them—namely, that the reading of those conversations was that a Royal Commission would be assented to if he made a good case in that House. But Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to assent to a Royal Commission, and that for two reasons. In the first place, they did not think it was necessary for the purpose of inquiring into this matter; and, in the second place, they thought that whatever inquiry was to take place could take place in a much cheaper and better way. At the same time, the Government did think that this was a matter which ought not to be overlooked; and he could assure the hon. and learned Member that they had not got to begin that work, because they had already been in communication with the Fishery Board, and had obtained some information and some of their views on the subject. He was glad the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) agreed with him that the Fishery Board was a competent tribunal to look into this matter, and perfectly competent to advise the Secretary for Scotland, first, as to whether anything should be done, and, in the second place, as to what should be done. He could assure hon. Members that the matter would not escape the careful attention of the Government; and the Secretary for Scotland was quite alive to the necessity of full and accurate inquiry. He, therefore, hoped the House would not accept the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, but, after the statement he had made, would allow it to be negatived, and he was sure his hon. and learned Friend would accept the assurances he had given on behalf of the Government.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

said, he had hoped they should have heard something more definite from the Lord Advocate in this matter. As to the suggestion to consult the Fishery Board, he did not think there was much confidence in that body amongst Members who represented fishing constituencies; but that Board was to be re-constituted this year, and if the new Board contained representatives of the fishermen and fish-curers, they would be glad to have the question referred to them. That Board might then have full control of the mussel beds, and where there were private rights they should be bought over. Whether there were private rights or not, it was most important that the mussel beds should be protected, or they would be altogether destroyed. Another matter which should be considered, either by the Fishery Board or by Commissioners, was the pollution of the mussel and oyster beds on the West Coast by sewage. The filth dredged from that great canal the River Clyde was carried down to the fertile mussel and other beds in the lochs at the foot of the Clyde, and these beds were destroyed by the malign substances deposited upon them, to the great injury and loss of the fishermen in those parts. In consequence of the destruction of mussel beds, supplies of mussel bait had to be brought over at great expense by steamer from Ireland to the North-East of Scotland. With regard to the right of private individuals to buoy out several acres of ocean, he thought that that was a matter which might be brought before the Crofter Commission when their duties extended to the whole of Scotland, as would soon be the case.

MR. COLERIDGE (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

said, he regretted that Courts of Law had lent themselves to a process of constantly whittling down the effect of Magna Charta, which had made it illegal for the Crown to grant out to a private individual any rights of fishing in tidal waters that might belong to it. The provisions of the Oyster Fisheries Act sanctioned the marking out of oyster beds for miles along the coast, one being six miles long by half a mile in breadth. Poor people whose sole industry had been the collection of mussels were not allowed to lake thorn from these oyster beds, and. so were deprived of their means of existence.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to the great injury now being done to the mussel beds and fisheries in Loch Long and Loch Goil by the deposit of enormous quantities of silt. He supposed there was a difficulty in taking the dredging vessels used on the Clyde to where they would meet the real action of the sea; but he was told—he spoke without personal knowledge to justify an opinion—that if it was possible to take the whole of that silt down as far as Ailsa Craig, it would not come back to Loch Long and Loch Goil. He had seen long lines baited with mussels which, after lying through the night, were so coated with absolute filth as utterly to prevent the fishermen from earning a livelihood. These men were an industrious and sober body, and it was clear they had not been protected in this matter. They had no means of protecting themselves against a powerful Corporation, such as that which had the charge of the dredging of the Clyde; and he therefore trusted before these men were ruined that the Lord Advocate, or whoever was in a position to act, would be able to take some steps to prevent the utter annihilation of their industry on that part of the coast.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, he could assure the hon. Member that this matter had been brought to the notice of the Government; it was undoubtedly an evil which required their attention.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 108: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 136.)

Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."