HC Deb 04 August 1885 vol 300 cc1173-92

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 2 (Application).

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, he begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "Scotland" to end of Clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "Scotland" to end of Clause.—(Mr. Williamson.)

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

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, he could not accept the Amendment, and pointed out that this part of the Bill was according to the Act of 1883.

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, that the Act in question applied to the lettering of vessels, and also with reference to the Renal Clauses of the Fisheries Act. He had not thought it necessary to explain what he meant.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

said, he understood the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was to leave out the words which dealt with the exclusive limits of the British Islands and which defined the scope of the Act. No doubt, there were some parts which should not be excluded for certain purposes—that was to say, there were some parts of the Act which should apply outside the three-mile limit, in matters connected with trawling for instance. But the Amendment affected the whole scope of the Bill. He saw that the hon. Member opposite (Baron Henry De Worms) had an Amendment to a similar effect on the Paper.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

No; my Amendment is in line 11, and not in line 10.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Then I agree with the hon. Member.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "Scotland" to end of Clause.—(The Secretary, Baron Henry De Worms.)

Amendment agreed to.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he had a Notice on the Paper to move to add to the Clause, after line 12, the following words:— Provided always, That damages done to nets, lines, gear, or boats by any mode of fishing in any part of the sea beyond the exclusive fishery limits of the British islands, may be prosecuted by order of the Fishery Board in such Sheriff Court as may be most convenient for the trial. He had been told, however, that the Fisheries Act of 1883 provided for damage of this kind; and, on that understanding, he should not press his proposal on the Committee.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Fishery Board may make bye-laws prohibiting or regulating trawling within defined areas).

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, he desired to move, in line 18, to leave out the following words:— And within the exclusive Fishery limits of the British Islands. He knew this was going outside the scope of the Bill; but they also knew that there was a great deal of conflict between trawlers and line fishermen outside the territorial waters, and if they regulated these matters within the limits, seeing that conflicts might as readily occur outside, he did not see why their regulations should not extend beyond those limits. He was perfectly satisfied that the clause as it stood would not satisfy the line fishermen who were liable to have their business interfered with by the trawlers. As to the difficulty of dealing with the fishermen outside their territorial waters, he would point out that the law of this country could follow a British ship all over the world and say she should not do damage to her neighbours. This was a question affecting the destruction of fishermen's gear. He would not take up any further time in explaining the Amendment, but would merely express his sincere hope that it would be accepted.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the words "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands."—(Mr. Williamson.)

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

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, he was afraid he could not agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and he thought the hon. Member himself had given sufficient grounds why it could not be accepted when he declared that it was not within the scope of the Bill. It would be absurd to go beyond the three-mile limit.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, he should like to say a word upon this Amendment of his hon. Friend, and at the same time to appeal to other hon. Gentlemen who had Amendments to the clause down on the Paper. He (Mr. Marjoribanks) had been a Member of the Royal Commission on whose recommendations this Bill had been framed. They had considered this question most carefully, and had come to the conclusion that the utmost to which they could go was to recommend that the Scotch Fishery Board should have power to pro- hibit trawling within the three-mile limit.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he objected to the hon. Member anticipating Amendments that were to come on afterwards.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, he begged the hon. and gallant Member's pardon; but, as a matter of fact, the point was raised by the hon. Member for the St. Andrew's District (Mr. Williamson), who proposed to strike out from this clause all reference to territorial waters, and to leave the Act to apply to trawling, not only about their own shores, but in the North Sea and in the Atlantic. The Commission had considered the matter very carefully, and had thought it absolutely necessary to give the Scotch Fishery Board power and option to put a stop to trawling where they thought proper within territorial waters. That was a power which the Irish Fishery Inspectors had at present, and one which was exercised in a similar way in other countries. In France, for instance, trawling was prohibited within the three-mile limit unless a licence were given to the contrary. In parts of Germany there was a similar law; also in Denmark. Norway and Spain had no regulation of the sort. He thought they had better adhere to the clause as it stood in the Bill, and not attempt to go further.

MR. ASHER

thought the exact meaning of this Amendment was somewhat overlooked. He desired to explain the position he took in regard to the Amendment, because he quite agreed with the Amendments which had been put down for excluding these words from several other clauses. There seemed to be one fatal objection to the exclusion of these words from this clause, and that was that they would be legislating upon a matter as to which the British Legislature had no power. This was not a clause dealing with the destruction of fishing gear, but it was a clause limited to the prohibition by the Scotch Fishery Board of trawling or other destructive modes of fishing. It was perfectly certain that the Scotch Fishery Board could not exercise that power except within the territorial waters. If the words were struck out, as proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Williamson), the clause would be made applicable to the sea outside the territorial waters in regard to which the Legislature of this country had not exclusive power.

MR. WILLIAMSON

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. He had thought it right to propose it, as he had a fishing constituency.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved to omit "fishing," in line 26, and insert "trawling." He did so, because the powers which it was proposed to give to the Fishery Board by this clause were very extensive, and were believed by fishermen to be very arbitrary. The men were afraid of the extent to which the powers might be exercised. The object of all this legislation was the protection of fishermen within the three-mile limit, or, in other words, within the territorial waters. The fishermen had complained of the damage done by trawlers, and the complaints had reached such a point that the late Government appointed a Commission to inquire into them. The Commissioners took a great deal of trouble, sitting for two years, and they presented a Report, and the result of that Report was this Bill. But the fishermen felt that by giving the Board this power they would have the power of stopping fishing on every ground in any area they thought proper. Now, if they restricted the fishing within a certain area, say, of 20 or 30 miles, they took away at once the whole means of livelihood of all the fishermen within that area. There was no provision for any compensation to the fishermen who might be deprived of their means of livelihood; and, therefore, what he proposed to do was to alter the word "fishing" to that of "trawling." That would enable the Board to stop trawling wherever they thought proper under the powers of the Act; but it would not give them power to stop fishing, by which so many men obtained their livelihood. This Amendment was so obviously just that he hoped it would be accepted by the Committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the word "fishing," and insert the word "trawling."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

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

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Commission was not directed against any particular kind of fishing, but was appointed to inquire into the general effects of fishing or trawling. It appeared to him that if they were to agree to the Amendment proposed, they would go directly against the principal object of the Bill.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

remarked, that the principal object of the Bill was to protect the in-shore fishermen against trawlers. That was the sole object of this legislation, and the fishermen would be very much disappointed if some such Amendment as this were not accepted. No fisherman could be injured if the power were taken from the Board to stop fishing. He was sorry the hon. Gentleman could not agree to the proposal.

Amendment negatived.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, the next Amendment was a very important one, and one which he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to agree to. It was to the effect that the bye-laws which the Fishery Board were empowered to make by this Bill should not allow trawling by any trawler with a beam of greater length than 12 feet. It was trawlers with huge beams of from 30 to 40 and 50 feet long which did all the damage; and, therefore, if the prohibition he suggested were made, the fishermen round the coast would have secured all they wanted. The hon. Member for Ross-shire (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) had an Amendment to the same effect. The hon. Member was largely interested in fishermen, the same as he (Sir Alexander Gordon) was. Between them they had more fishermen under their observation than any other two Members in that House. Now, what the fishermen asked to be protected from were the huge machines which came sweeping the whole floor of the sea, and did thereby so much damage. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), addressing his constituents on Saturday last, said— As regards the exhaustion of fishing grounds by trawlers they had the clearest evidence, and he did not think there could be the least doubt that in the Firth of Forth the number of fish had been decidedly and considerably reduced by the action of trawlers in inshore waters. There had been a marked diminution of fish, and the Commissioners recommended in regard to that that the Scotch Fishery Board should have the power entirely to prohibit trawling in the territorial waters in the United Kingdom. All he (Sir Alexander Gordon) asked was that that House should do themselves what they empowered the Fishery Board to do, because if they did it here it would be done. The Fishery Board would find great difficulty in giving any order to that effect, owing to the powerful influence the trawlers possessed. The trawlers were a wealthy body, the fishermen were poor; the trawlers were to be found in towns, and the fishermen all round the coast, the latter having few people to speak for them. He asked the Committee to do what he suggested, as an effectual means of protecting the fishermen from injury.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 28, after second "bye-laws," to add—"Provided, That such bye-laws shall not sanction any fishing, within the exclusive fishery limits of Scotland, with a trawl having a beam of a greater length than twelve feet, and all trawling, within the above named limits, with a trawl having a beam of a greater length than twelve feet is hereby declared to be illegal after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, it was quite impossible to agree to this Amendment. While by his proposal the hon. and gallant Gentleman would do justice to a certain class of fishermen, he would do great injustice to others. The object of the Bill was not, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated, to do away with trawling, but to ascertain what kinds of fishing were injurious. They were not sure of the amount of damage done by trawling, and therefore it was not right they should limit the length of beam.

MR. ASHER

said, this Amendment raised the very important question whether trawling should or should not be abolished within the territorial limits. There was no doubt that it was within the power of the Legislature of this country to entirely prohibit trawling within the territorial waters. He had said outside the House, and he desired to repeat inside the House, that, in his opinion, it would have been a more satisfactory settlement of this matter if the Trawling Commission had dealt with this question in a bolder form, and had recommended the abolition of trawling altogether within the territorial waters. He had a very strong belief that that prohibition would not in any way interfere with the successful prosecution of trawling, and the adequate supply of fish, through the means of trawling, to the markets of the country; and, on the other hand, he had a strong belief that it would have prevented great injustice and injury, which it was desirable to obviate, as regarded line fishing in many estuaries and bays from which he thought trawlers should be altogether excluded. But whilst these were his views on the question, he was bound to look at this matter from a practical point of view. At this period of the Session they were practically in this position—that they must accept the Bill substantially as it stood, or make up their minds not to have it at all. Looking to the terms in which the Royal Commission on Trawling reported, he could not say he entertained any hope of being able to carry his views about the prohibition of trawling within the territorial waters to any successful issue; and, therefore, regarding the Bill, as he did, as a step in the right direction, and believing that it was calculated to be beneficial in its results, he did not propose to press his views, but to accept the clause as it stood. But there was one matter which he thought it was right to bring forward. This clause proposed to impose a very onerous and difficult duty upon the Scotch Fishery Board—namely, that of investigating and deciding within what portions of the sea within the territorial waters trawling or other injurious methods of fishing ought to be prohibited. It was quite evident that that was a matter which could not be decided by the Scotch Fishery Board without elaborate investigation; and, in his opinion, a serious objection to the Bill was that it contained no provision for supplying the Scotch Fishery Board with the necessary funds for enabling them to discharge this duty imposed upon them by Clause 4. He was quite aware it was not within the competency of a private Member to propose the introduction of a clause to rectify this defect; but he alluded to the matter now in order to point out to the Government the necessity of keeping this fact in view. He hoped the Government would, by arrangement with the Treasury, see their way to authorize the Scotch Fishery Board to undertake the investigations necessary under this clause, and to provide the Board with the necessary funds for the purpose. He trusted that before this clause passed the Committee would receive an assurance from some Member of the Government that the point to which he had referred would not be lost sight of.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WILLIAMSON

proposed, in line 28, after second "bye-laws" to insert— It shall also be in the power of the Fishery Board, subject to confirmation as hereinafter mentioned, to prohibit steam trawlers from trawling at night, between sunset and sunrise, on fishing grounds or banks largely frequented by line or drift net fishing vessels, during such time or such part of the year as the Board may consider expedient.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, he could not agree to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

proposed to insert, in page 2, after line 7— The Secretary of State shall allow any person to make a representation for his interest against the confirmation of any bye-law, on a notice of objection being given by such person to the Fishery Board within the said period of one month, and may, if he see fit, allow parties to be heard thereon.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

considered that by this Amendment the hon. Gentleman was striking a great blow at the authority of the Fishery Board.

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, that, undoubtedly, very onerous and delicate duties were imposed on the Fishery Board by this Bill. He was obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) for having brought those duties before the notice of the Commit- tee; and all he could say was that the Fishery Board would do their best to discharge them faithfully and well. He did not see that any reasonable objection could be raised to this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of the SECRETARY to the Board (Baron Henry De Worms), the following Amendment made:—Page 2, line 22, to leave out "by any officer of the Fishery Board."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Steam trawlers fishing off Scotland to have letters and numbers painted on the quarter).

MR. WILLIAMSON

proposed to omit from line 28, "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands." The hon. Gentleman explained that this Amendment referred to the painting of letters on vessels.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands."—(Mr. Williamson.)

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

MR. MARJORIBANKS

hoped the Government would consent to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

proposed to insert, after "ground," in line 34, "on the funnel twelve inches from the top, and." He said, that the rule with regard to sailing vessels was that they had to paint numbers and letters on the bow and also on the sails. There was no doubt that the numbers being marked on the sails were very distinctive emblems seen at a considerable distance. The steam trawlers had no sails, therefore he thought the numbers should be painted on the funnels. It would be a great advantage to fishermen, inasmuch as it would help them to identify vessels which did them damage.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 34, after the word "ground," to insert the words "on the funnel twelve inches from the top, and."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WILLIAMSON

proposed to insert, after "officers," in page 3, line 5, "or officers of the Fishery Board."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, after the word "officers," to insert the words "or officers of the Fishery Board."—(Mr. Williamson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

opposed the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, he must insist that the point he had just raised should be considered; if it was not, he would move that the clause be rejected. He would like to know whether the Board of Trade meant to put the Sea Fishery officers under the orders of the Fishery Board, because at present they were not? The men who attended to the numbering and lettering on the Coast of Scotland were the Fishery Board officers. If the Board of Trade would omit the section, all would be right.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, he would be very happy to consider the matter by Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Fishery Board may require statistics of sea fisheries).

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

proposed to leave out "fishermen," in page 3, line 6, and insert "fish salesmen." He wished to impress upon the Committee the fact that very great labour was entailed on the fishermen by the keeping account of all the fish they caught. A very large meeting of fishermen was held recently at Stornoway, and, amongst several objections to this Bill, this was particularly mentioned. It was pointed out that, after having been one or two nights out, the men came in very tired; but, before they could seek rest, they had to take an account of the fish they had caught. The duty was very irksome to them. He would like the hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry De Worms) to explain whether he intended an account to be kept of the fish caught in territorial water or in off-shore water, or whether separate accounts were to be kept of fish caught in territorial water and of that caught in off-shore water? He had never heard that the Returns now presented to Parliament from time to time were incorrect or insufficient; but he thought that, if any more were wanted, they ought to be got from the persons who cured the fish or from those who sold it.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 6, to leave out the word "fishermen," and insert the words "fish salesmen."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

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

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, the Amendment would defeat one of the principal objects of the Bill, and, therefore, he could not accept it.

MR. R. W. DUFF

hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon) would not press the Amendment. At the Conferences at the Fisheries Exhibition, it was universally admitted that, in statistical information, we were behind other nations. The Scotch Fishery Board had succeeded in getting much better statistics concerning fisheries than were got in any other part of the Kingdom, and this clause would assist them in getting still bettor statistics.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. W. Duff) talked about fishing; but he did not know much about it. By this clause they imposed a very irksome duty upon Scotch fishermen, a duty which was not imposed on English fishermen. The fishermen of Scotland asked very earnestly that Parliament would not pass this clause; therefore, he could not withdraw the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. Asher, the following Amendments made:—Page 3, after line 7, insert "and other person belonging to British sea fishing boats, and all;" line 8, leave out "and other person."

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR moved, in page 3, line 17, after the word "returns," to insert "or compilation thereof as may be agreed upon with the Board of Trade." He hoped the Secretary to the Board of Trade would assent to the Amendment, as a compilation prepared by competent authorities would be very useful.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 17, after the word "returns," to insert the words "or compilation thereof as may be agreed upon with the Board of Trade."—(General Sir George Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

thought it would be perfectly useless to do what was suggested.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

Can you tell me what use they make of them at present?

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

I do not know.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

You could get Reports from 50 places.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman could not promise to let them have these Returns published by the Board of Trade during the herring fishery season? If Returns were to be made at all, they might as well be made use of; and it would be to the advantage of the fish curers if the Board of Trade would once a week, during the fishery season, publish the Returns which their officers made. It would be of very great use to the fish curers, who could arrange their sales accordingly. He would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would bear this in mind at the next herring fishery season.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, he would be very glad to see what could be done in the matter.

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, it would be quite impossible to get the Returns from the Fishery Board every week, or even every month. What the Fishery Board did was to prepare the Returns annually.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, there would be no difficulty whatever. He knew the Fishery Board could not publish them; but they could return them to the Board of Trade, who could publish them without any difficulty.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Sea fishery officer may award compensation under ten pounds).

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) moved, in page 8, at beginning of clause, to insert— Every case under the Sea Fisheries Acts may be prosecuted in any sheriff court which the Fishery Board may declare, by a notice under the hand of the Secretary to the Board to the Procurator Fiscal of such sheriff court, to be the court nearest to the spot where the offence was committed, or otherwise the most convenient for the trial of the case.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

wished to have the closing words of the Amendment made clear. Did "most convenient" bear reference to the convenience of the prosecutor, or the convenience of the person accused? The convenience of the person accused ought to be more considered than the convenience of anybody else?

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

said, there must be a balance of convenience.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

asked whether it was not the custom that all these crimes were tried at the nearest Court?

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, the ordinary practice was that all these cases were tried at the nearest possible place to the place where the offence was committed.

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. ASHER the following Amendment made:—Page 3, line 23, after "person," insert "belonging to a British sea fishing boat."

MR. ASHER moved, in page 3, line 24, to leave out "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands." He pointed out that, although it was necessary to prevent the provisions of the Bill from coming in conflict with the International Convention, the section would not answer the purpose it was intended to serve, unless it was made applicable to cases of damage to fishing gear which occurred outside their territorial waters.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 24, to leave out the words "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands."—(Mr. Asher.)

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

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, it was impossible to accept this Amendment, for, by accepting it, they would be doing that which was contrary to the Act of 1883. Foreigners could only be dealt with when they came within, our three-mile limit. If this Amendment were made the effect would be to extend the operation of the clause beyond the three-mile limit.

MR. ASHER

said, his first Amendment, which had been accepted, limited the clause to the case of a person belonging to the British sea fishing trade. The effect of both Amendments, taken together, would be that where damage was done to fishing gear, either within or without the three-mile limit, by anybody belonging to the home fishing trade, then the fishery officer could award the compensation. No doubt, if the section applied to foreign boats it would be against the Convention and beyond the power of the Legislature; but we had jurisdiction over our own fishing boats outside the territorial waters just as well as within them.

Amendment negatived.

MR. ASHER moved, in page 3, line 30, after the word "writing," to insert the words— To make such examination or inquiry into the said complaint as he deems necessary, and. He said these were merely formal words in order to make the language of the clause more distinct.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 30, after the word "writing," to insert the words "to make such examination or inquiry into the said complaint as he deems necessary, and."—(Mr. Asher.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MARJORIBANKS moved, in page 3, line 31, after the word "heard," to insert— To award damages to the complainer to an amount not exceeding ten pounds, and to issue a certificate to that effect, and such certificate shall he final, and shall entitle the complainer to obtain, by action in the Small Debt Court, a decree for the sum specified therein; but when the amount of damage so inquired into shall exceed ten pounds, it shall be lawful for the sea fishery officer. He thought this Amendment was one of very great importance. It would make a provision, which was included in the Bill as drawn by the late Lord Advocate, and as introduced into the House of Lords, carrying out one of the strongest recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission that British sea fishery officers should be made a sort of floating magistracy. The men whom the Select Committee had in their eye were those commanders of Her Majesty's cruisers who were detailed for fishery purposes, and the recommendation was made with the object of securing to the injured fishermen as brief and easy a remedy, both for himself and the party charged with injuring him, as could possibly be obtained. The easiest way of doing that was to give to the British sea fishery officers power to deal with the eases summarily where only a small amount of damage was concerned. Those officers had now very considerable powers, of search, of examination upon oath, and in many other respects. They had even now powers to arbitrate, and decide those cases where the parties on both sides consented, and the Amendment would not give them any very great addition to their powers. It would, be of the greatest advantage in keeping order between the different classes of fishermen on their coasts.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 31, after the word "heard," to insert the words "to award damages to the complainer to an amount not exceeding ten pounds, and to issue a certificate to that effect, and such certificate shall be final, and shall entitle the complainer to obtain, by action in the Small Debt Court, a decree for the sum specified therein; but when the amount of damage so inquired into shall exceed ten pounds, it shall be lawful for the sea fishery officer."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ASHER

hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It would be of considerable importance in dealing with one of the greatest grievances which the line fishermen experienced at the hands of the trawlers. There were a number of cases where the men would rather suffer damage than incur the expense of prosecution, and the Amendment would provide a short, summary method of recovering the damage where it had been sustained. The fishery officers were well qualified to assess the damage in such oases. He regarded the proposal as one of the most import- tant provisions in the whole Bill, and he hoped it would be accepted.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

also hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

LORD ELCHO

also supported the Amendment, as he believed the fishermen felt very keenly about it.

MR. PRESTON BRUCE

supported the Amendment, which would only put the Bill back into the form in which it was originally drawn, and satisfy one of the recommendations of the Select Committee.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. The proposal was struck out after discussion in the House of Lords. If it were re-inserted it would restore the Bill to its original position; and, in point of fact, it would make the fishery officer a judge. He was astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member the late Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) advocating such a very serious departure from the ordinary administration of the law. It was impossible for the Government to accept the proposal.

MR. R. W. DUFF

wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry De Worms) would consider what the meaning of "sea fishery officer" was under the Bill, for there was some confusion about that? There seemed to be some impression that the "sea fishery officer" would be an officer under the Fishery Board; but under the Bill he would be an officer belonging to the Coastguard. Some confusion arose on this point in "another place," and that was the reason why the proposal was not accepted there.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, that under the Act of 1883 "sea fishery officers" were divisional officers of the Coastguard, commanders of Her Majesty's cruisers for deep sea fishery purposes, and officers appointed by the Board of Trade.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

could not depart from the opinion he had expressed. He did not think these officers were legally qualified to act as judges.

MR. MUNRO-FERGUSON

hoped the Amendment would be accepted. It was of the utmost importance to the fishermen that they should have some such simple and easy and expeditious method of recovering slight damages.

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, the officers might be looked upon as arbiters in dispute—not judges.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 39: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 271.)

On Motion of the Secretary to the BOARD (Baron Henry De Worms), the following verbal Amendments made:—Page 3, line 27, leave out the word "said sea;" line 37, leave out the word "officer;" line 37, after "fishery," insert "Board;" page 4, line 1, after "evidence," insert "on the question of the damage."

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) moved, in page 4, line 2, after the word "cause," to insert the words— And in any case in which the damage, as found by the sheriff before whom the case comes for trial, shall exceed twelve pounds, appeal shall he competent as in ordinary causes before the sheriff court.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Transfer of powers of Board of Trade).

MR. WILLIAMSON moved, in page 4, line 21, to insert the following subsection:— (d.) The Board of Trade is also hereby authorized to delegate to the Fishery Board, for such time as it may see fit, powers to allocate, let, and manage the foreshores belonging to the Grown, or any portions of the same, for the special purpose of improving and extending oyster and mussel fisheries and bait beds, any rents collected to be accounted for to the Board of Trade, and the powers delegated to be exercised subject to the confirmation and approval of the said Board. He said this was merely a civil request to the Board of Trade to allow the Fishery Board to do part of their work.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

I cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. WILLIAMSON

Then I withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following clause:——

(Procedure when person injured claims damages.)

"Sub-section (1) of Clause fifteen of 'The Sea Fisheries Act, 1883,' is hereby repealed.

"Where any offence is committed, as set forth in Clause seven hereof, it shall be competent for the person whose property has been injured to give notice in writing to the person committing such offence, and to the sheriff clerk, that at the trial of said offence the sheriff will be called upon to consider and dispose of the question of damages, and, in such case, the evidence led at said trial shall be evidence for the consideration of the sheriff on the question of damages, and the sheriff, at the conclusion of the said trial, shall proceed according to the provisions of Clause seven hereof, and shall, if oral evidence is to be taken on the question of damages, allow the accused person to be examined as a witness on the question of damages."

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. ASHER

said, there were three clauses which had been placed upon the Paper upon this subject, and the difference between them was very much a matter of drafting. He himself had put down a clause; but after carefully considering that of the hon. Gentleman he should not press his own. However, there might be serious difficulties in the way of working the clause now proposed if its exact words were retained, because he doubted very much whether it contained the necessary enacting words to enable the Sheriff to do the work imposed upon him. His (Mr. Asher's) clause had been framed so as to include what was necessary to produce the effect which was clearly intended.

MR. WILLIAMSON

said, he also had a clause on the Paper on the same subject. If the clause proposed by the Government were accepted it would have to be remedied in one respect. In the second line were the words, "the person whose property has been injured." The Fisheries Act referred to the person as well as the property; and be would suggest that the words should be, "the person who has suffered injury," which would cover both the property and the person.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, he had contemplated making that change; and he proposed to substitute the words, "who has been injured," and also proposed to add, at the end of the clause— And shall proceed, after hearing the parties, to give decree as in an ordinary case before the sheriff court. Perhaps those changes would meet the views which bad been expressed.

MR. ASHER

wished to call attention to that part of the clause which directed the Sheriff to proceed according to the provisions of Clause 7. Now, Clause 7 simply regulated the duty of the fishery officer. Was the Sheriff to convert himself into a fishery officer, and proceed to do a fishery officer's duties? The words were unintelligible.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)

said, that if the clause were adopted he would consider it on Report, with the view of making any necessary alteration.

On Motion of the SECRETARY to the BOARD (Baron Henry De Worms), Clause amended by striking out the words "whose property has been injured," and inserting "who has been injured," and by adding at the end the words— And shall proceed, after hearing the parties, to give decree, as in an ordinary case before the sheriff court.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]