§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1.
(4.42.) MR. A. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)I beg 1632 to move to add, after "Order," "if the Legislature of the Dominion shall consent to such prohibition." The persons most concerned are the Canadians, and they are by no means consenting parties to this measure. The Americans require that they should be allowed to kill 7,500 seals on their own account. Whatever number of seals they claim to kill, they ought to kill in the open seas and not in the rookeries. These 7,500 seals are not to be killed for food for the islanders. But the United States state that they keep 300 Aleutian islanders in the seal fisheries; and if the prohibition is to affect them, they will have themselves to keep these servants of theirs, and for their wages will have to pay some £20,000. A more monstrous claim could not be put forward. If there is to be any claim at all, it should be made by the Victorian fishermen.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line after l, the word "Order," to insert the words "if the Legislature of the Dominion shall consent to such prohibition."—(Mr. A. Staveley Hill.)
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,) Strand, WestminsterI regret that my hon. and learned Friend is not satisfied with the assurance which the Government has given. I said distinctly on the Second Reading that the Government could not assent to the introduction of these words. The Dominion has a right to legislate so far as her own people are concerned, but she has no right to legislate for the British Flag. The Behring Sea is some thousand miles away from Canada, and the Canadian Government have received every assurance that compensation shall be given to any British subject who, it can be shown, will suffer loss. Her Majesty's Government hope that the British losses will be a great deal less than my hon. and learned Friend supposes. The destruction of 7,500 seals is considerable, but we are willing to consent to that proposal in order to put an end to a serious danger.
MR. A. STAVELEY HILLAfter the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not proceed any further with my Amendment.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)I think the Government ought to afford us some 1633 information as to what has passed between them and the Canadian Government on the subject, and the nature of the terms that have been arranged. I think, moreover, that we ought to press Her Majesty's Government for an assurance that no Order in Council will be issued until a satisfactory arrangement has been arrived at.
§ (4.46.) MR. W. H. SMITHCommunications have been going on upon the subject within the last fortnight, and Her Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves that the Dominion Government have accepted the views I have already indicated. I will endeavour to give the House further information on the subject as soon as possible, but at the present moment the information is not in a complete form.
§ SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)I think we ought to have a more explicit assurance than we have yet received on the subject of compensation. I hope the Government will take care that there is no ambiguity in the assurance they may give on this subject. What I particularly want to know at the present moment is whether the Government have accepted the principle that we are to pay the compensation. On a former stage of this Bill we were assured that the feelings of the taxpayers of this country would be carefully considered. Therefore, I hope that if the principle of compensation is accepted, the burden will not be thrown upon the taxpayers of this country. I hope the Government will see that no injustice is done to the British taxpayers in this respect.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 3.
§ MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)I should like to ask, with reference to the phrase "marine animals," whether it is not too vague. It would include whales, or indeed any kind of fish.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe phraseology of the clause has been carefully considered, and these words have been deemed necessary; but, of course, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to prohibit the catching of whales.
§ Clause agreed to.
1634§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Bill reported without amendment.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI hope the House will allow the Bill to be read a third time now. The measure is one of great importance, and it is very desirable that no delay should take place.
§ SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)I cannot but concur with the First Lord of the Treasury in hoping that no objection will be taken to the course he has suggested. I wish, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will lay on the Table of the House the communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Dominion?
§ (4.50.) MR. W. H. SMITHThe painful circumstances in which the Government of the Dominion are placed rendered it impossible for us to hold regular official communications with them, and those which had passed were sufficient to satisfy us that the Dominion Government were consenting parties to the proposals we had made to Parliament, subject to the concession of compensation to British subjects for any loss they could be shown to have sustained by reason of the prohibition, and to the acceptance of the terms of arbitration by the United States Government.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will appreciate the forbearance of the Irish Members in not opposing the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.