HC Deb 31 March 1882 vol 268 cc518-31
MR. DUFF

, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Herring Brand Committee, and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, effect should be given without delay to the recommendations of the Report of the Herring Brand Committee, said, he would not enter into any controversial matter as to the merits or demerits of the herring brand practice, as to which there was a good deal to be said on both sides. He craved for the Committee's Report that it was based on the preponderance of evidence laid before them; and he could only say that if the majority of the fishcurers and fishermen wished to retain the brand, and were, at the same time, willing to pay for it, he was not aware that there was any valid reason why it should not be continued still. What he proposed to deal with was the recommendations of the Herring Brand Committee; and the chief of those recommendations was that the surplus brand money should be appropriated for purposes beneficial to the fishermen and the trade. He had to state to the House what he meant by the surplus brand fee. In the year 1854, an Act of Parliament was passed imposing a fee of 4d. per barrel for every barrel of herrings branded with a Government mark. At the time this Act was passed it was distinctly stated that this fee was for defraying the expenses incurred; but since the Act was passed the herring fisheries of Scotland had so largely extended that, besides paying the expenses, the brand had been a considerable source of revenue. The existence of the herring brand surplus had been often denied; but it was distinctly proved before the Committee that the surplus, allowing for the largest expenditure, amounted to £31,571, and the surplus paid into the Treasury for the year 1880 amounted to £0,502. It had long been contended that this surplus ought to be applied to some purpose beneficial to the fishery interest; and the first recommendation of the Herring Brand Committee was that it should be applied to works on the piers and harbours of Scotland. The necessity for increased harbour accommodation seemed to be universally admitted. It had been pressed on public attention by too many lamentable disasters—disasters causing an appalling loss of life among the fishermen, and misery to all those dependent on them. The disasters in the Shetland Islands last August, and on the Berwickshire Coast last October, must be fresh in the memory of hon. Members. In the year 1879, the loss along the North-East Coast of Scotland, of fishing and coasting vessels, bore the saddest testimony to the want of adequate harbour accommodation. He therefore thought this was a very appropriate purpose to which to apply the surplus brand fund. But if the question were looked at from a national point of view, he ventured to say that a far larger claim than that he was now making might be substantiated. The Imperial policy appeared to have been to get as much money as possible out of Scotland, and to spend it on harbours in the Southern parts of the Island. £1,250,000 had been thrown into the sea at Alderney. Sums of nearly equal amount had been spent on Holyhead, Portland, and other English harbours; while, in the meantime, Scotland had been put off with a grant of £3,000 a-year to the Fishery Board, and a few grants of comparatively trifling sums to harbours, not very happily designed, at Wick, Anstruther, and Dunbar. He thought that the propositions put forward for the allotment of those fees to the purpose of improving the Scotch harbours were very modest. He might say that they were distinguished by the extreme modesty which usually characterized Scotch applications to the Treasury. The case for aid to Scotch harbours was strengthened when it was remembered that there was not now, as formerly, any fund which they could draw upon for assistance. Many of the harbours along the North-East Coast—harbours which the trade and fisheries had entirely outgrown—were constructed at the close of the last and the commencement of the present century, by the great Scottish engineers, Rennie and Telford, out of money drawn from the Forfeited Estates Fund. Speaking as a loyal subject, and also as a landowner, he would not affect any regret that that particular source of revenue was not likely to be revived. He referred to the Forfeited Estates Fund merely because, since it had been exhausted, he knew of no public fund for harbour improvement which had taken its place. The Royal Commission of 1859 reported that certain specified sums should be given by the Treasury to different localities for constructing harbours, on the understanding that those localities provided a proportionate amount; but that amount was so large that it was never forthcoming, and consequently the recommendations of the Report were never carried out.

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

MR. DUFF

, resuming, said, that when he was interrupted he was referring to past legislation with regard to the harbours. From various causes the Act of 1861 had become almost inoperative, and, therefore, there was additional reason for granting aid from other sources. He wished, at the same time, to express a very decided opinion that the best means Government could adopt for assisting harbours was to lend money at the lowest possible rate of interest to supplement local efforts. Such a policy, in his humble opinion, would be attended with far better results than spending a large sum of money on any particular harbour. If the Scottish Members would concentrate their energies in inducing the Government to restore in its integrity the Act of 1861—which would be of general benefit—they would be doing far more good than by pressing the claims of any particular place for special assistance. With regard to the next recommendation of the Committee, that of extending the functions of the Fishery Board, he might say that there seemed a strong desire expressed by the Scotch Members, and by the public in Scotland who were interested in this subject, that the functions of the Fishery Board should be extended; and he had reason to believe that the recommendations of the Report in that respect had the approval of the Government. In connection with the duties he should like to see the Board undertaking, there was one he particularly wished to mention. He referred to the protection and the jurisdiction respecting mussel-beds. To those not acquainted with the practice of their Northern fishermen, this might seem a small subject; but it was really one of very considerable importance to the fishermen; and perhaps the House would realize this when he mentioned that it was calculated that in the district he represented each individual fisherman required in the course of the year two tons of mussels for bait. Now, he thought that one of the duties of the Board should be to encourage and protect artificial mussel-beds. Then the law respecting the right to mussel-beds was somewhat obscure, and gave rise to many disputes. The Government, he thought, should deal with the rights of mussel proprietors in the same way as they did with salmon proprietors. That was to say, where the proprietor of the land could show no Charter to the right of mussels the Crown should enforce their rights, take possession of the beds, and let them out to the fishermen. That was done in the case of coast salmon fishings, as he knew from personal experience. He succeeded to a property where the proprietors had always fished the sea for salmon; but when he was called upon to give a Charter he found he had none to produce, and the Crown seized his salmon fishings, and added insult to injury by proposing to let them to him at an exorbitant rent. He mentioned this control over mussels as one of the duties a Board with more extended powers might usefully perform. One other subject to which he should like to refer was the subject of telegraphs. The Report of the Committee recommended that facilities should be given, especially on the West Coast of Scotland, for extending telegraphic communication to all the important fishing stations. Applications from his hon. Friends the Members for Inverness and Argyllshire were now before the Postmaster General with reference to this subject, and he trusted they would receive the most favourable consideration, because it was very important that the fishery stations should have telegraphic facilities. The recommendation that an enlarged Fishery Board might deal with scientific questions regarding the artificial propagation of fish, which had been so usefully followed in America, was well worthy of consideration. He regretted that the hon. Member for the County of Waterford (Mr. Blake), who served on the Committee, was not in the House, because he had visited the United States, and his information on this point was most valuable. There was no industry that he was acquainted with—certainly no industry in the North of Scotland—which had grown with such rapidity as the fishery. No other industry that he knew of was capable of such extension, for the resources of the sea appeared to be inexhaustible. In many counties in Scotland the value of the herrings taken at the different stations exceeded the annual amount of the rental of those counties. In the Fishery Board Returns the value of herrings alone in 1880 was given as upwards of £1,800,000, and it was stated that their value in that year exceeded by 73 per cent the average value for the last 10 years. He, therefore, saw no limit to the increase of the herring fishings, provided that there was given proper assistance. He thought this industry was one which was well worth the attention and the encouragement of Her Majesty's Government. He was very glad to see that when the Civil Service Estimates were produced the Government had given an additional grant of £3,000 to the Scotch Fishery Board. He understood it was given in consequence of the Report of the Committee. If that was the case, he had to thank Her Majesty's Government for so far carrying out the recommendation of the Report, as the amount given was, he admitted, a fair average of the surplus of the brand fee. He trusted that, if the brand fee went on increasing, as he believed it would, the Government would give the increased surplus back for some object beneficial to the fisheries, and that in other respects they would see their way to carry out the recommendations of the Report, which, if adopted, would, he believed, aid and encourage the development of a very important, but hitherto too much neglected national industry.

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

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

, in seconding and cordially supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duff), gave it as his opinion that no greater good could be done by the Government than by taking up the question of how to construct successfully harbours in Scotland. The Government were still engaged in assisting harbours in other parts of the country. For example, they had recently given £15,000 to Ardglass Harbour, on the East Coast of Ireland, and were about to give a like sum to Arklow, within a few miles on the same coast; and to lend, in addition, the large sum of £20,000. If the Government continued to give these grants of money, he thought it was their duty to ascertain whether or not the designs of these works were of such a nature as to fulfil their purpose. If an inquiry were made to see what mistakes had been made in the past, in unsuccessful attempts to construct sea-coast harbours, in order to ascertain what should be avoided in future, he believed the coasts would soon be covered with harbours. It was a curious fact that there was no money so difficult to obtain by loan from capitalists as that with regard to the building of harbours; yet he believed there was no public work which could be successfully undertaken that would pay the country better than harbours would. There was a small harbour in his own county (Kincardineshire), and he believed if it were enlarged and improved the value of the fish caught there would more than equal the whole of the land rental in the country, which was about £180,000. He cordially joined in the recommendation of his hon. Friend, that the formation and constitution of the Fishery Board should not only be improved, but its duties extended, so as to have a jurisdiction over all kinds of fishing, and over all harbours aided by Government funds. In France, Germany, and Norway they had statistics of the whole fish caught along their several shores; but in England, the great statistical country, which prided itself on its statistics with regard to its trade and commerce, they were entirely ignorant—except as to the herring—with regard to the other portion of the great industry of fishing. Yet, in a Report on the Fisheries, made about 16 years ago, by well-qualified Commissioners, of whom Mr. Caird, Dr. Huxley, and the present Chief Commissioner of Works were Members, it was fully shown that no portion of the land could supply wealth so easily as that which the sea could. If the fisheries were properly developed by means of safe harbours, to which boats could run in safety after being exposed to a four hours' gale, it would be found that an acre of sea ground on certain banks of the coast would greatly surpass in value the produce of similar extent in land. Then, with regard to the objection to applying the brand to Scotch herring barrels, on the plea that Irish barrels did not need to be branded, it must be stated that the herrings taken on the Coast of Ireland were not so suitable for export as those taken on the Scotch Coast, and the Inspector of Irish Fisheries had reported that the branding system was not well adapted for Ireland. Then, with regard to a further development of good fishing grounds, the Government might aid by surveying vessels, because there were banks on the Coast of England where fish abounded, which were partly defined; but in Scotland they were deficient of information of that kind, which would be of great benefit to the fishermen. There were many banks lying off the North-East Coast of Scotland full of fish, but their boundaries and positions were still only known to a few fishermen. The kind of fish, and the food for fish there existing, should be inquired into by the Government. In every other branch of industry millions were spent by the State to collect information; but no such assistance was given to collect information about our great fish industry. As to the herring brand fees, the Government had made a good beginning by giving a grant of £3,000; but he claimed that the whole surplus fees collected on account of the herring brand should be given to the Coast of Scotland. The inhabitants along the Scotch Coast gave a certain sum of money for a particular trade, and that money should not be spent over the whole United Kingdom, but should be used for the benefit of the Scotch people themselves. If they could improve their harbours and extend their fisheries as they had been doing within the last few years, instead of £3,000 they ought soon to have a surplus of 8,000. But the first and foremost consideration now was how to construct sea-coast harbours with success; and this the Government could alone ascertain by instituting an inquiry into the many past failures in harbour works, which had entailed the loss of millions of money.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, effect should he given without delay to the recommendations of the Report of the Herring Brand Committee,"—(Mr. Duff,) —instead thereof.

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

SIR ALEXANDER GOEDON

approved the remarks which the hon. Members had made in regard to the necessity of improved harbour accommodation. He quoted a Return which he obtained a short time ago from the Board of Trade, showing that during five years, between the Pentland Forth and Fifeness, no fewer than 367 vessels had been lost. On one night, the 18th of August, 1848, 124 boats were wrecked, and no less than 100 lives were lost. He did not quite know, however, what it was that the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. Duff) recommended the Government to do, he was so very vague. With regard to the brand fees collected on the Coast of Scotland, he thought it right that these should be applied in the districts where they were collected. Last year there were no fewer than 2,173 herring boats fishing from three ports in this country and employing 21,430 persons, compared with 245 boats employing 2,485 persons engaged at Banff, Buckie, and Findhorn. He maintained that the Government in spending this fee money should spend it in the districts where it had been raised; because if that was not done the money raised by the herring fishermen would be spent for the benefit of the cod and ling fishers, who gave nothing at all to the Government. Therefore, he thought that the application of the money generally all over the coast would benefit those fishermen who did not raise the fee, and he hoped the Government would bear that in mind in distributing the money. The Government were not able to distribute the excess of the fees. By the Act of Parliament they were bound to pay them into the Exchequer. They could not give money, except what was actually wanted for the expense of the branding; therefore, it was entirely delusive to talk about returning. The Government might give a grant of money from the Exchequer as they had done now; but he should like to ask the Lord Advocate how the £3,000 was to be spent—whether it was to be on the same footing as the statutory £3,000 which the Board had every year to spend, or whether it was to be spent according to the will of parties who might apply for it? He hoped it would be placed as the statutory £3,000, which required that the party receiving the money should provide themselves a certain proportion of the amount that was spent. He wished also to remind Her Majesty's Government that, with reference to the proposed alteration of the Fishery Board which had been suggested, that the Fishery Board had been appointed solely for the benefit of the trade of the herring fishery; and all their correspondence, and all their duties, were connected with the mercantile men in commercial matters. But it had been proposed by the deputation which the hon. Gentleman referred to that the duty of protecting the rod fishing in the rivers inland should be placed upon the Fishery Board. As now constituted the Fishery Board had nothing to do with salmon. Therefore he must protest against any interference with the very important interest now confided to them, unless they were prepared to create a separate or additional Board to carry out the new duties. They need not foster the cod and ling and other fishing, because they did not require it. The best plan would be to reduce the brand to one-half. It was now 4d. per barrel and 2d. the half barrel. A short Act of Parliament amending the present Act would relieve the curers of the payment of one-half of the fee, and that he believed would be accepted by them. Irish fishermen, finding they could not cure herrings in Ireland, came over last year, and no fewer than 49 boats came to the harbour of Aberdeen, and did better than our own people. If any alteration was to be made in the Fishery Board, which he thought very likely possible, he hoped it would be done after public inquiry, and not in consequence of the deputation to which the hon. Member had referred. Half the Members of the deputation did not know what they went there for. He himself did not know until they got into the room. He protested against that being taken as an expression of the opinion of the people of Scotland as to any change in the Board. He could not help fearing that if they joined the two duties they must have a joint Board. Inland proprietors must be represented on the Board as well as the great coast trade in herrings, and they would then have two separate interests, and a great deal of unpleasant work would go on in the endeavour of one party to get money for the benefit of inland as against deep-sea fishing. He maintained that the herring fishery trade was far more important than anything else; and he certainly hoped the Government would not interfere with that trade without public inquiry.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, that the necessity for further harbour accommodation had been brought home to him in a most terrible and a very close manner. On the 14th of October, between the Tweed and North Berwick, no fewer than 200 fishermen lost their lives in a single morning. That disaster would have been vastly increased had it not fortunately happened that the Dunbar boats had reached the harbour before the storm came on, and the Berwick boats had not gone to sea at all. In Berwickshire, out of a total of 500 fishermen, 175 were drowned; and there were 129 out of one village. It was difficult to convey any idea of the distress and misery which he witnessed in that village. If a similar disaster had happened on a railway, or from any other cause, there would have been Commissioners sent down to make inquiry, and all sorts of suggestions would have been made; but in this case no suggestion of any kind had been made by anyone of responsibility. He had no hesitation in saying that this disaster took place simply, solely, and entirely because there was no harbour to which the boats could run. The boats that did escape were boats that put to sea, and were out 56 hours, finally putting into the Tyne. It would be of considerable advantage to the fishermen of Scotland if the functions of the Board in Edinburgh were extended, to take notice of everything connected with the coast and deep-sea fisheries. He was very grateful for the additional £3,000 that had been granted. He did not mean to say that their fishery harbours should be constructed by grants from Government; but grants were useful and acceptable in aid now and again. They must look to local exertions. What they expected was that great facilities should be given by the Public "Works Loan Commissioners for an object so desirable as the construction of a fishery harbour. As far as the North-East Coast of England and Scotland was concerned, he did not think that very much had been done, in consequence of the Act of 1861, on behalf of the fishery harbours. Between the Humber and Cape Wrath, to 11 harbours having incomes of over £2,000 a-year, £1,377,000 had been advanced. These were almost wholly commercial harbours. On the same portion of the coast to five, out of over 40 harbours with incomes under £2,000 a-year, and dependent mainly or entirely on the fishing industry, only £19,200 had been advanced. He thought the Fishery Board in Scotland should take care of the harbours. They would help them very much in this matter, because they would be able to give information as to the points most advantageous where harbours could be placed. He was not at all disposed to have harbours stuck here, there, and everywhere. He believed the little tidal harbours were simply man-traps and delusions that lured men to their death. They created a small colony of fishermen, and when a storm came on the men hailing from them rushed to these places, often to meet their death.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, as he had the honour of being Chairman of a Royal Commission for the Fisheries of the Northern Coast, he would not like the discussion to end until he had said a few words upon the subject. He did not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon), who desired to limit the Board of Fisheries to the care of herrings. He was, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, a Commissioner of that Board; but he thought, instead of limiting its action to the herring fishing, that its functions ought to be extended so as to promote all the fisheries, and the interests of the fishermen engaged in those fishing stations. Nor could he understand why he would restrict all the £3,000, which represented the money derived from the brand, to the interests of the herring fishing. They could not divide a harbour. A harbour might be as useful for cod or ling fishing as for herring fishing. The wider they could make the Board, and the less restrictions they put upon it, the better. The hon. and gallant Member did not desire to give special encouragement to cod and ling fisheries, and yet such aid would in reality best promote the growth of herrings. Let him give one curious illustration, which showed how closely all the fishings were related. Parliament interfered a great deal too much in its legislation with regard to fisheries. One of the restrictions in an Act now repealed was to enforce a close time for the herring fishing during a certain number of weeks or months, in which the herrings might be allowed to breed. Now, what was the effect of that legislation? Its effect was mainly to destroy the herring fisheries, and the reason was this. Man was the least enemy of the herring. His catch was perhaps not more than a few per cent as compared with the destruction which was caused by other enemies of the fish of the sea. The close time in the herring fishing gave an unexpected protection to cod and ling. At certain times cod and ling could only be caught with herring bait, so that the close time for herring meant a close time for cod and ling as well. What was the consequence? They did not know how many cod and ling there were in the sea; but they knew how many cod and ling were salted. Now, in the Commission on which he sat, he had the honour of Professor Huxley as one of his Colleagues. They frequently dissected cod, and they had found in their stomachs no fewer than 14 undigested herrings; but giving only six herrings a day to the cod and ling which were caught and salted, they would, had they remained in the sea, have devoured more herrings than all the fishermen in the United Kingdom, although 600 were added to their number. Therefore, the interference of the Legislature for the protection of the herrings was merely a law for an enormous destruction of the herrings. He quite agreed with the Report in saying that they should do nothing except to allow Nature to go unrestricted in her ways. There were balances of Nature with which, when they began to interfere, they interfered wrongly. He thought it important to broaden the duties of the Fishery Board under its re-organization, owing to the resignation of that efficient officer, Mr. Primrose. It would be very difficult to find a Secretary of equal ability and devotion to the service; but they might arrange the duties of the Board in a different way. He was speaking entirely independent of the Government, and as the case presented itself to his mind. He did think that a Board of Fisheries, which was to extend its influence and take in all the sea fisheries of the Kingdom, ought to have very efficient officers, and an efficient Inspector, so as to enable them to make those scientific observations, and give that scientific aid, which had produced important results in foreign countries. It was often said the herring was a most capricious fish. For a certain number of years it came to one part of the coast, and then deserted it. There was no caprice in that. They ought to know the meteorology of the sea, the effect of temperature of the ocean, and of the food presented to the herring under different conditions; and if they had scientific officers who could make these observations, which they were accustomed to make in America with so much advantage, he thought they could understand much more what was going on, and enable fishermen to take more advantage by the knowledge thus derived. It was for that reason he was anxious to see, in any re-organization of the Board now under the consideration of the Government, that while their functions ought to be broadened, so as to promote the building of harbours, they should understand also that part of the money should be devoted to proper efficient officers, who would be enabled to superintend fisheries with a knowledge of science; and, with such a re-organization and such officials, he believed they would find that the great value of the fisheries now going on in Scotland and the Irish Coast would be very largely improved by the application of knowledge to this subject.

THE LOED ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he thought he might say, on the part of the Government, that they were by no means unmindful of the importance of the recommendations in relation to the Board contained in this Report. In regard to the first part, he might state that in the month of December, when the Estimates were being prepared, the Fishery Board were requested by the Treasury to forward to them a statement setting forth the reecipts and expenditure connected with the branding; and, in the statement forwarded, the amount of the receipts for the year 1881 was given at £8,236, while the expenses were given at £5,419, leaving a surplus for the year of £2,817. The Treasury had resolved to make a grant of the surplus, and they had not limited themselves to that precise amount, but had given the nearest round sum above it by introducing into the Estimates for the current year a sum of £3,000 for harbour purposes, in addition to the sum ordinarily granted for that object; so that his hon. Friend would see that in putting in this additional sum they were giving rather more than the aggregate gain on that head. He hoped that would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend. A question had been put as to the manner in which it was proposed that that money should be expended. The intention in that matter was, that it should be expended under the direction and at the sight of the Fishery Board, a proposal which, he believed, would also meet with general acceptance. Something had likewise been said with regard to the application of any profit resulting from brand fees to telegrams; and while he quite agreed with what had been said by one of his hon. Friends as to the impossibility of dividing the money applicable to harbours between white and herring fishing, where both kinds of fishing were practised from the same harbour, it would seem just that in the other matter—that was in regard to the telegrams—where there was room for distinction, any money resulting from brand fees should be applied to the part of the coast from which the brand fees were gathered—that was to say, to the East and North-East Coasts, because it was there alone, and not on the West Coast, that the branding system prevailed. He was happy to say that even that appropriation, which would probably commend itself to the sense of fairness of the House, would comprehend the Islands of Orkney and Shetland, where there was great need for additional telegraphic facilities as an aid and assistance to the herring fishing. The next point which had been referred to was the re-organization of the Fishery Board. That matter also was under the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but it was not a matter as to which a resolution could be arrived at immediately, because—

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

House adjourned at half after Nine o'clock till Monday next.