SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).

HC Deb 08 March 1892 vol 2 cc332-71

RESOLUTION.

(9.0.) MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

I feel that some apology is due to the House for the form in which I am obliged to raise the question I am going to bring forward to-night. I feel myself that it would be much more convenient to raise this question in the form of a Bill, the clauses of which would set clearly before the House what my proposals are. But, unfortunately, the chances of the ballot have been against me. But although I have not been given the opportunity of introducing a Bill, I have been enabled to obtain this evening to bring forward the Resolution, which is really a summary of a Bill which has been before the House already in three different years. I felt that I was bound to bring this matter forward—in the first place, on account of the interest taken in the subject by those on whose behalf I speak; and, secondly, on account of the Unwarrantable and violent attacks which have been made on the Party to which I belong for the manner in which they have dealt with the Scottish fisheries question, and more particularly on account of the more recent attack with regard to the attitude we have adopted towards the proposals of the present Government during the last two years. These attacks have reached their culminating point in the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) during a recent proselytising pilgrimage with which he was good enough to afflict my country. That right hon. Gentleman, some two or three months ago, went down to Edinburgh, and, for his benefit, a so-called deputation of fishermen was brought together. But, curiously enough, that deputation was not brought from the shores of the Firth of Forth, not from East Lothian, not from Kincardineshire, or Aberdeenshire, but from a remote corner of the Moray Firth. Certainly I cannot congratulate those who had the management of that deputation upon their success. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to be in his place to-night. I have no doubt he is better employed at one of those Barmecide feasts with which the Party to which he belongs delights to keep their spirits up, and at which, I suppose, they endeavour to imbibe a little Dutch courage with which to meet the coming Dissolution with some equanimity and fortitude. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman delivered on the occasion I have referred to was full of inaccuracies and full of misstatements, due to the ignorance or misrepresentation either of himself or of those who prepared the brief from which he spoke. The deputation represented to the right hon. Gentleman their view, and he, in replying, suggested to that deputation, in the following words, that it was to the conduct of the Liberal Members, and of the Party on this side, that their interests had not been properly attended to. The right hon. Gentleman said— Why do you find it necessary to come to a person who is a private Member, and a Representative of an inland constituency, in order to represent your views? That is a question which I can only put to you, and which I must leave you to answer. Now, the suggestion that the Liberal Members for the Moray Firth district did not attend to the fishery interests is one of the most unwarrantable suggestions ever made by a responsible Statesman. The constituency of Moray and Nairn was represented by the late Mr. Anderson, who gave great satisfaction to his fishermen constituents, and his place was afterwards taken by my hon. Friend who I now see entering the House (Mr. Seymour Keay), and who has paid considerable attention to fishery questions. Then we have my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duff), the father of the Scottish Members of the House of Commons, and it is well known that for 31 years he has constantly striven for the interests of the Scottish fishermen, a course also pursued by the hon. and learned Member for the Elgin burghs (Mr. Asher) ever since he has occupied that seat. These hon. Gentlemen whom I have mentioned have certainly done all in their power to forward the interest of the Scottish fisheries. The charge that we as a Party have neglected their interest is as baseless and as unfounded as the suggestion that those hon. Gentlemen have done so. I will briefly run through the measures that the Liberal Government of 1880–85 passed in the interest of the Scottish fishermen, and then I will show what the present Government have done for the same purpose. The House shall decide which Party has done most for the interests with which I am now concerned. In 1881 a Committee was appointed called the "Herring Brand" Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff was Chairman. That Committee recommended that the surplus brand fees should be appropriated to the improvement of piers and harbour accommodation, and the extension of telegraphic communication to remote districts. It further advised that the functions of the Brand should be extended, so as to take cognisance of everything relating to the coast and deep-sea fisheries of Scotland, that the branding officers and Brand Commissioners should be made available for scientific investigations similar to those carried on in America, and that the Secretaries of Legation abroad should be requested to furnish the Fishery Board with an annual Report giving information upon those scientific investigations. These recommendations of the Committee were promptly carried into law. The Act of 1882 re-constituted the Scottish Fishery Board, and since then that Board has done much for Scottish fishermen. The next step was an inquiry in the interest of fishermen as well as seamen, the "Harbour Accommodation" Committee of 1883–4. One of the recommendations of that Committee was that Local Authorities of the United Kingdom should have power to give the rates as collateral security to the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the construction of harbours. That principle was given effect to by the Public Works Loans Act, 1885, in which burghs were empowered to give the local rates as collateral security to the Public Works Loans Commissioners for advances for harbour accommodation. An important principle was thus established, though not carried far enough. It is not sufficient to allow the matter to rest here; not only burghs should have this power to give rates as collateral security, but counties, parts of counties, and even parishes, should have the same power. The next step taken was the appointment of the Trawling Commission, in the autumn of 1883, over which Lord Dalhousie presided. That Commission reported in March, 1885, and effect was given to the recommendations in the Report by the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act of 1885, which provides that when the Fishery Board are satisfied that any mode of fishing in any part of the sea within territorial waters off the Scottish coast is injurious to any kind of fishing, or for experimental purposes, the Board may make bye-laws restricting or prohibiting the same during such times as they think fit; that all steam fishing boats fishing off the Scottish coast should have their numbers on their funnels and quarters as well as on the bow; that the Fishery Board should have power to require returns from fishermen, fish-curers, and others, of all fish caught and cured by them; that sea fishery officers may award compensation in case of injury done by one sea-fishing boat to another, or the nets, lines, and gear thereof, where the amount of damage does not exceed £10; that the Fishery Board may decide as to the materials, construction, and hooping of barrels for cured herrings; that the powers of the Board of Trade under various Acts as to shell-fish fisheries in Scotland be transferred to the Scotch Board. All these suggestions of the Trawling Commission were given effect to by the Bill of 1885, passed by a Liberal Government. Even during the short term of office of the Party in 1886, the interests of Scottish fishermen were not lost sight of, for the Crofters Holdings Act of 1886, Section 32, empowers the Treasury to make advances to the Fishery Board to be lent to fishermen in the crofting counties for the purchase of boats and gear. And the "Sea Fishing Boat (Scotland) Act" of the same year regulated the property and joint ownership of fishing-boats, and provided for the registration of mortgage on boats, and that they might become valid for security for loans. And now I come to what has been affected by the present Government during their term of office. They, too, have appointed various Committees of Inquiry, the form adopted in each case being the appointment of a Committee by the Secretary for Scotland (Lord Lothian). The first inquiry was into the mussel fisheries of Scotland. That Committee reported quickly, and I believe it went pretty closely into the matters referred to it. Their Report contained only the minimum of recommendations to meet the case, but nothing has been done towards passing a measure to give effect to those recommendations. I know I shall be told that the Government brought in a Bill, but that Bill did not give effect to the recommendations. Then a Committee was appointed to inquire into Crown Rights in Salmon Fishing at sea, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was Chairman. That Committee reported, and I do not think its recommendations were very outrageous or revolutionary in their character, but nothing has been done to give legislative effect to those recommendations. We have seen no Bill yet, there have been no legislative proposals from the Government. A further Committee to inquire into the Solway Fisheries was appointed last year, again presided over by my hon. Friend (Sir Herbert Maxwell), but as that Committee has not yet reported I do not think I can find very much fault there. Now, what legislation has the Government been responsible for? The first Act for which they may claim responsibility was not brought in by the Government, but by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Colonel Malcolm), "The Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889," with the short amending Act as to penalty passed in 1890. This Herring Fishery Act regulates the measures used in the Scottish herring industry, prohibits day fishing for herrings between 1st June and 1st October, and Sunday fishing, between Ardnamurchan and Mull of Galloway; prohibits beam and other trawling in territorial waters off Scotland; and gives power to the Fishery Board to prohibit trawling within a line drawn from Duncansby Head to Rattray Point. Now I know that great credit is taken for this prohibition of trawling in the territorial waters, but whence arose its necessity? Power was given to the Scottish Fishery Board in 1885 to do this very same thing, and it was only because the Fishery Board did not act up to that power and did not fulfil their responsibilities that the Act of 1889 became necessary. The only other measure passed by the Government in this connection is the provision in the "West Highland Works Act" of last year, which authorises the Secretary for Scotland from time to time to make grants out of moneys voted by Parliament to the County Councils of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney, and Zetland, for the purpose of aiding in the construction and improvement of small harbours, piers, and boat-slips. Such is the record of either Party during the two long periods they have held office, and I do not fear to challenge the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and the Government to state their performances to the country against ours, and we will leave the Electorate to judge between us. I have not done with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, for later on in his Edinburgh speech he proceeds to make a still more extraordinary statement The right hon. Gentleman said:— Then there is the question of mussels. No doubt it is a matter of necessity to your trade that you should be able to have a ready and cheap access to the bait which you require, and the anomalies which at present exist are very striking. In some places mussels are to be obtained for nothing, and in other places you have to pay a very heavy and even exorbitant price for them. I suppose there is only one way of dealing with that, and that is to authorise either the Fishery Board or the Local Authorities to obtain possession of these beds, paying, perhaps, some fair compensation to the owners; and having obtained possession, to offer them to all who require them for bait at an equal and moderate price. Here again, however, legislation was proposed by the Government. Whose fault was it that the legislation was not gone on with? That Bill of the Government was opposed by Mr. Marjoribanks and by certain other Gladstonian Members, and the threat of discussion, and the time which would be occupied in a lengthened discussion over the matter prevented anything being done. Now I give you a piece of practical advice. Do not hesitate to take half a loaf when you cannot get the whole. Now it is a noteworthy fact that one of the reasons why we raised objection to the Bill of the Government was, because it did not give the Local Authorities power to get possession of these mussel beds. The Government Bill made no such proposal at all, it simply gave the Fishery Board power to make general rules; the power insisted on by the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Bill, and this was one of the reasons why we opposed the Bill. Now, as to the question I and my friends raised, what are the facts? In 1889 the Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, reported, and I approached the Secretary for Scotland after the presentation of the Report, suggesting that the Government should bring in a Bill to give effect to our recommendations. The Secretary for Scotland said "No!" and that I had better bring in a Bill. I took that course. I brought in a Bill, but my Bill was refused a hearing even. The following year, 1890, I again brought in my Bill, with some slight changes, and a Bill was introduced by the Government, an emasculated form of my own Bill. That Bill was not pressed, and opposition was offered to my Bill. In 1891 a somewhat similar course was adopted. My own Bill was introduced, and the Government Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. It quickly passed that august Assembly, without amendment or discussion. It was brought here, and the Government proposed to take the Second Reading in the small hours of the morning, when it was impossible to have a discussion. I think, so far from treating that Bill with contumely or unfairness, we had too much forbearance. For what did we offer? If the Government would give my Bill a Second Reading, and let the two Bills go to a Select Committee, with instructions to produce a fairly sufficient measure from the two, we agreed to allow the Government Bill to be read a second time sub silentio. "Let us, we said, have a little give and take on this subject." But the Government met us with a non possumus and now they have the audacity to say that I and my friends are responsible for this matter not being dealt with. The advice of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to the fishermen in Edinburgh not to hesitate to take half a loaf is very good advice, and I cordially approve it; but it is our duty to see that this half-loaf offered us is really bread, and not a stone painted in its similitude. I have done with this part of the subject—the rival merits of this side of the House and the other—and I now proceed to another portion of the subject. I do not think I need labour the point about necessity for legislation, because it is admitted in every line of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I have referred, and, indeed, credit is taken to himself for the desire to see such legislation passed. More than that, the actions of the Government show the same admission. We find that in the first Session of this Parliament a Salmon Fisheries Bill was introduced, but we heard no more of it. But it was introduced, and so the need of legislation was admitted. Again, we have had the appointment of the three Committees I have alluded to, and a Government does not appoint such Committees unless there is a prima facie case for legislation. Again, we have the fact that in 1890 and 1891 Bills were introduced by the Government; in short, I think the necessity for legislation may be taken as admitted on both sides. And now I turn to the Resolution of which I have given notice. I may take it, I think, that, so far as the first two clauses of the Resolution are concerned, on the matter of principle we are agreed, and the only question is as to extent. Now, the proposal of the Government was that the Scottish Fishery Board should consist of nine members—five appointed and four elected by four districts of the fishing communities in Scotland. Now, really, I do not see how it is possible to divide the whole coast of Scotland into so few as four fishery districts. In England the division is into 17 or 18 district committees, and it seems to me that to divide Scotland into four districts is a physical impossibility. In my Bill I put the number as six, but I doubt whether those are sufficient. Try to divide the coast of Scotland into districts, and suppose we follow such lines as these: From the Tweed to the Tay, one division; from the Tay to the Moray Firth, one; for the northern counties of Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness, one; for Orkney and Shetland, one; for the Western Islands, one; for the west coast of Inverness and Argyll, one; from the Clyde to the Solway Firth, one. With extended areas such as these you get seven districts, and there would be the greatest difficulty in getting the members together and properly working the system. I know it will be objected that it would be undesirable to multiply the fishery districts, because the proposal is that each Fishery Committee shall appoint a member to the Fishery Board. I do not, for my own part, see a great deal of weight in the objection. It is the old objection, grounded on the fear of hon. Members opposite, and always raised by them when asked to give effect to the wishes of the chosen Representatives of the people. It seems to me, in regard to the Scottish Fishery Board, if the Government reserves the appointment of, say, the Chairman, a Sheriff to advise the Board on legal matters, and a good, sound, scientific expert, these three appointed members would be quite sufficient for your purpose, and that it would not matter whether it consisted of 10, 12, or 14 members. The interests are so varied you may fairly trust to the natural wear and tear, and the natural competition in the different districts, to prevent any combination of the members representing these different districts with a view of over-ruling the influence of the appointed members. My complaint is that, while we are at one upon the question of principle on these points, the extent to which the Government, up to the present, have shown themselves willing to carry that principle is altogether insufficient to meet the interests of the fishing industry. Now I come to the question of mussels, and on that question the agreement on principle disappears. We disagree, not only with regard to the extent to which we ought to go, but we disagree with regard to the very principles upon which legislation ought to be founded. I do not think there are many Members—certainly not many from England—who altogether realise the importance of the mussel to the Scottish fisheries. For I suppose that every Scottish fisherman for one-half the year uses mussels as the bait with which to catch the fish to which he looks for his livelihood. I think I cannot give a more remarkable instance of the importance of the mussels to the Scottish fisheries than to refer to the evidence given before the Committee in the year 1888 by one of the fishery officers. It appears from that evidence that, on an average of 38 boats fishing from Eyemouth in the three years 1885, 1886, and 1887, those 38 boats used in those years no less than 4,022 tons of mussels, equivalent to 250,000,000 mussels, and costing £7,664; that they caught 4,665 tons of fish, bringing them in the sum of £58,940. The average amount of mussels used per boat per annum was no less than 36½ tons, and the average annual cost was £70 per boat, representing about six or seven men. As a matter of fact, the result of these figures shows that it took nearly a ton of mussels to catch a ton of fish. There is no doubt about the correctness of those figures; and those figures, to a larger or smaller extent, apply to the whole of Scotland, and I am quite sure that every Member upon both sides of the House who is acquainted with the Scottish fisheries will bear me out in my statement. Now, what are the conditions of the Scottish mussel fisheries? In the Report presented to Parliament last year it appeared that the production of mussels from the Scottish scalps had, in the four years 1883–6, been 51,821 tons of mussels, and that in the four years 1887–90 they produced only 44,795 tons, and that the falling off in the latter years has been very remarkable. This decrease has been very marked and very serious. Under favourable circumstances the cost of mussels is about from 8d. or 9d. to 1s. a basket, or from 18s. to 25s. a ton. But the Scottish supply is absolutely inadequate, and consequently the mussels have to be brought from England, from Ireland, from Holland, in order to supply the Scottish fisheries. It can easily be understood that the cost of carriage is exceedingly great. Instead of costing from 18s. to 25s. a ton, they cost when imported from 35s. to 50s. a ton. Now, this, I hold, is a very serious state of things. You talk about supplying the wants of the Scottish people. Why do you not do so? I should like to see a little evidence of it in this respect. The Scottish mussel scalps are quite capable of supplying the wants of the Scottish people. At present these scalps are primâ facie the private property of the Crown, and can only be held by a subject by charter or by baronial grant conveying them in express terms. Under this state of the law all sorts of shadowy claims to mussel scalps have arisen, and many of these claimants have neither used the mussel scalps for their own benefit nor developed them for the benefit of the fisheries. I say that the Fishery Board should make an accurate list, or have an accurate list made, of all the mussel scalps along the Scottish coast; that every private title ought to be examined, and that where the title cannot be shown by private individuals, the right should be considered to vest still in the Crown, and that the Crown should deal with its property for the benefit of the people. The proposal I make is that all persons claiming mussel scalps should be required within a certain time to lodge statements of claim with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, Failing that, the mussels scalps should vest in the Crown. I do not think that that is a very outrageous or a very revolutionary proposal. It has the support of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) and the hon. and gallant Member for Argyllshire (Colonel Malcolm); and it has another supporter, somewhat unusual to me—it has the support of even the Scotsman newspaper. This is what the Scotsman says on the 5th July, 1890:— In our opinion it would have been an improvement if the Government Bill had proceeded, in accordance with the suggestion of the Committee, which has been quoted above, to deal with the question of title. Mr. Marjoribanks's Bill contains clauses upon this matter, which appear very practicable and useful. With the object of enabling the Fishery Board to make a list of mussel beds, and to arrange for letting these to the fishermen, proprietors are to intimate their titles to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and, failing such intimation, the right of property is to be held in the Crown. No one can take exception to this, which appears to be a most reasonable and proper scheme; and proprietors will, we think, be very grateful if the burden of protecting the bait beds, which in general is a most difficult one to discharge, is by this means, and for the public good, removed from their shoulders. I come now to the point as to the working of these scalps, which power I would give to the District Fishery Committees in Scotland. This was a point my Bill dealt with in the last three Sessions, but was left untouched by the Government Bills, though the rumour is that the shadow of coming events is likely to have caused a change in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that we may soon hear an admission of the justice of these demands. In regard to the question of sea police, it is a most important one, as there have been constant disputes amongst the different classes of fishermen who work the coasts, and the Report of the Fishery Board of last year clearly brings out the fact in these words— The Board must again express regret that the arrangements for the general superintendence of the fisheries, and more especially for protecting the waters closed against beam trawling, are so inadeqate…… Prior to the establishment of the present Board the duties imposed upon the cruisers chiefly consisted in carrying out the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Convention, preventing foreigners fishing in the territorial waters, maintaining order, and adjusting disputes amongst the fishermen and enforcing the provisions of the Fishery Acts relating to the lettering, numbering, and registering of fishing boats and signal lights. Under the present Board, however, their duties have become much more numerous and important. It is to these cruisers that the Board have now to look for the protection of the rights of line and net fishermen against the operation of trawlers and the due enforcement of the Statutes which have been passed in the general interests of the fisheries against trawling in certain areas. The Report asks that— In addition to the Jackal, an efficient gunboat should be placed at their disposal all the year round; that the Board's cruiser Vigilant should be replaced by a suitable steam vessel, and that each of these vessels should be furnished with a steam launch for special service. Now, it seems to me that these requests are exceedingly modest and moderate. I do not think they go far enough. It is evident that the more you endeavour to regulate the fisheries by means of legislation the greater force you will require to enforce those regulations; and if all the recommendations are accepted something will yet remain to be done in order to secure an adequate police arrangement along our coast. I hope, in regard to this portion of the question, the Government will give some satisfactory reply. I turn to the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Andrews, which proposes that power should be given to District Fishery Committees to issue licences to fishermen to fish for salmon on suitable parts of the coast of Scotland. If the Government choose to accept the Amendment, I have not a word to say against it. I admit it raises an important question, but it deals with the merest fringe of it. The right to catch salmon in Scotland is on exactly the same basis, and vests in the same manner and on the same terms, as the right to mussel scalps; and in my humble judgment the same principle should apply to the unchartered salmon fisheries of Scotland as I propose to apply to the unchartered mussel scalps of Scotland. Wherever it cannot be shown that a private individual has absolute title to salmon fisheries by grant or charter, whether in sea or fresh water, the Crown should deal with those fisheries, and should deal with them in this manner: that they should be handed over, under proper conditions, to Local Bodies for the benefit and general good of the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment does not go so far as I would wish. Had it done so I should have been glad to have accepted it, and it would have formed an important addition to my Resolution, though, strictly speaking, it should not, perhaps, have been included in a Sea Fisheries Resolution. I am afraid I have wearied the House in dwelling on a subject which, if I cannot call it dry, is, at any rate, a special and somewhat technical one. I speak on behalf of a class of men who, I think, are especially deserving of your interest and sympathy—men who go down, day by day and night by night, to the sea in boats, wrestling with the elements for their daily bread; men who endure many hardships, and who, by that hardship which they have to endure, bring an important addition to the wealth and prosperity of the country; men who bring a cheap and substantial change to the poor man's table and a delicacy to the rich man's—a food much appreciated by both classes. It is on behalf of these men that I speak, and it is in the interest of these men that I now beg to move my Resolution, and I ask the House to accept it without amendment or qualification.

(9.45.) MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)

I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Member. For two reasons I do so: First, I think that this is a question for legislation; and, in the second place, I think the present time is an opportune one for giving effect to the Motion. I know that many Members in this House, representing English and Irish constituencies, envy Scotland for her Fishery Board. I admit as much as anyone to the full benefits which have accrued to Scotland from the possession of such a Board, but that is no reason why it should not be improved and its functions enlarged. On the question of the authority the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to pronounce upon the conduct of those who represent the feelings of Scotland I am not disposed to enter. But I really think that the people of Scotland—and especially the fishermen of Scotland—have taken the proper measure of the pronouncement of the right hon. Gentleman, and have passed it by with the silence it deserved. The rise and progress of the fishing industry of Scotland has advanced largely in recent years, as stated by the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board. I shall only bring under the notice of the House very briefly one or two facts to show the importance of the fishing industry in Scotland, and the necessity there is for adequately protecting that industry. The Report of the Fishery Board for 1889 states that the fishing industry of Scotland gives employment to 111,858 persons, and the number of boats at present engaged amount to 14,714; that the capital invested by the fishermen in boats, nets, and lines amount to £1,603,307; and that the gross value of the sea fisheries of Scotland, exclusive of salmon, amounts to £1,517,376, affording an income to every person engaged in the industry of £13 11s. 3½d. I am not going to say that that represents in any way an equal distribution of the wealth produced by the fishing industry; but I mention it merely to give hon. Members an idea of the surprising importance which the fishery industry is to Scotland. And I hope that, keeping that in view, the Government will accept the Resolution of the hon. Member, not in any niggardly spirit, but accept it as generously as they can. The enormous growth of the fisheries in Scotland was shown by the fact that whereas the number of barrels of herrings caught in 1889, which was the first year of the establishment of the present Fishery Board, was 1,397,507, in 1829 the number of barrels caught was only 27,528. Since the establishment of the Scottish Fishery Board in 1882 the institutions, the circumstances, and the necessities of Scotland have changed. I do not suppose that even the Lord Advocate, when he comes to speak on the Resolution, will attempt to defend the present constitution of that Board. It is a remarkable thing that on a Board dealing with the fishing industry the only industry strongly and permanently represented is the legal profession; but what the legal profession has got to do with the practical management of fisheries is more than I can understand. With reference to that part of the Resolution which recommends the formation of a sufficient number of District Fishery Committees, it is perfectly true that there is a necessity for this. I think it is a self-evident proposition to hon. Members who know the character of the fisheries in Scotland that it is necessary to have at the Central Board a representation of the different phases of opinion that exist in the fishery interests throughout the country. I should like to point out what has been already proved over and over again—the necessity that exists, not only as regards the culture of mussels, but of oysters. It has been pointed out over and over again that certain parts of the coast of Scotland are admirably fitted for the cultivation of oysters; and it is only reasonable that the persons selected for that particular district should be persons who pay particular attention to that kind of industry. With regard to the question of a close time for fishing, the difficulty is that what is recommended for, and believed in, as suitable for certain parts of the country is not suitable for other parts. If District Committees are established we could then leave the fixing of a close time to those District Committees. The present Fishery Board, for certain purposes, have already divided Scotland into districts, which shows that they recognise the necessity for dividing the country into districts. With regard to the title to the mussel beds there can be no doubt, I think, after the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman, that there is a likelihood of the mussel beds of Scotland being totally depleted unless some measures are taken for their protection. As to the enforcement of regulations, the right hon. Gentleman has stated the opinion of the Fishery Board on the subject; and it may be said that the complaints of the Board, are annual, that while powers have been given by statute to the Fishery Board the means of enforcing these regulations are withheld from them. The Board has complained over and over again on this subject. The Board has fixed certain limits within which steam trawling is prohibited. I myself in the month of January, have seen steam trawlers trawling regularly within the limits fixed by the Fishery Board; and they selected the Sundays for the purpose. By the Act of 1889 steam trawling is prohibited on the North East within certain limits. I have repeatedly seen in January trawlers coming five or six miles and trawling there on Sundays. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham stated, in reply to the deputation that waited upon him, that he thought it was a right thing to trawl, and that he would never do away with trawling; but I say that it is absolutely futile for the Government or the House of Commons to pass legislation on this subject unless they give the means of carrying it out. I would suggest to the Admiralty Authorities that, as they have, got a large number of ships which are not in actual service and upon which so much money has been spent, they could spare one or two of them for the purposes of protection on the coast of Scotland. I hope these matters will all be put right. I think the complaints of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick against the Government and the way they treated his attempt at legislating on the subject are well-founded, and I hope they will make amends at the eleventh hour. For my own part, I cannot see what substantial reason the Government can have for not accepting the Resolution and proceeding at once to carry it into effect by legislation.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a large representative element should be introduced into the Scottish Fishery Board; that a sufficient number of District Fishery Committees should be instituted to take charge of local fishery interests on the coasts of Scotland; that proof should be required of the titles under which Scottish mussel scalps are claimed and held; that power should be given to District Fishery Committees in Scotland to regulate, acquire, and work mussel scalps within their several districts; and that the regulations from time to time made in the interests of the various classes of fishermen working in Scottish seas should be enforced by an effective system of sea police."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

(10.8.) MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

I, for one, entirely agree with the policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick. I do not propose, in the few minutes for which I shall occupy the time of the House, to go over the ground which he has already occupied fully and adequately. I wish simply to ask the attention of the House to one or two points, These are not points which come before me from a mere general study of the question; they are matters which have been pressed on me by my own constituency, and into which I have made such inquiry as my opportunities permitted, and as to which I am bound to say there has been much complaint — and there has been good cause for complaint—and I feel it is my duty, as the Representative of these people, to do what I can to get attention given to them. The Resolution covers, I think, nearly the whole of them. If it were carried into legislation in the terms in which my right hon. Friend has brought it before the House, I believe, so far, at all events, as the fishermen on the North-East Coast of Scotland are concerned, their grievances would be pretty well met. In the first place, to take the matter of the Scottish Fishery Board, there is no respect in which the Scottish Fishery Board has been felt to be more defective than its financial circumstances. I believe that Board is anxious to do all it can for the promotion of the Scotch fisheries; but it is cramped and hampered at ever turn, not merely for the want of powers or for inquiry and assistance, but because Parliament has not chosen to put at its command the means necessary in order to enable it to do its work efficiently. In the case of the construction of a harbour, for instance, the number of official formalities to be complied with and the difficulties and impediments thrown in the way are so great, that the result is that it is almost impossible for a small fishing district in Scotland, unless it has got powerful friends to back it up, to obtain funds for the construction of a harbour. But, suppose its gets over the initial difficulty of finding security, suppose it has got over the matter of satisfying the authorities in London that it can provide sufficient security, I what happens? It gets so much, but not enough to construct the whole of the harbour. Then it is driven to go to the Scottish Fishery Board again, and then it is told that they were prevented by the Legislature from advancing more than a certain sum and they could not give it anything. I must say it seems to me that this is not the way in which the fishermen of Scotland ought to be treated. They do not represent themselves merely—it is not the case of individuals or private persons coming and asking the Government for money. It is the case of an industry on which a whole locality depends; which strikes at the whole life of the whole line of the Southern Coast. It seems to me that if the Government had thought it right in the case of the Northern Coast to strengthen the hands of the Scottish Fishery Board they might do the same in the case of the Southern Fishery lines. There is one other specific point with which I shall venture to trouble the House. My right hon. Friend alluded to the case of the insufficient protection given to fishermen against trawling. Parliament has thought fit to pass a law which practically prohibits trawling along the East Coast of Scotland. One would have thought that, when Parliament thought fit to pass that law, at least it would have taken pains to see that that law was enforced. But that is not the case. When we come to see the machinery provided for the protection of the whole coast of Scotland, what do we find? For the protection of the whole coast of Scotland I believe there are only two vessels, and two only; one steamboat, the Jackal, which is useful in its way, and another sailing boat, which is wholly inadequate. The trawlers are nearly all worked by steam, and if they are looked after by a sailing boat, they have only to take her bearings and steam away from her, and carry on their trawling operations with impunity. The Jackal is so constantly required for other public purposes, for looking after other public interests, that she is ineffective for the protection of the interests of the fishermen against breaches of the law by trawlers. These are matters of great and pressing grievance which are brought before us by our constituents, and what answer have we to give them? We have not the opportunity for raising these matters, and if we do try to bring them before the public the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is said, has got to look after the guardianship of the public purse; but what is the use of passing a law if you cannot spend money enough to enforce it? I am glad to see the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place. I believe he has got a certain number of torpedo vessels, which are steamboats I believe; could he not spare us a few of these for the purpose of more efficiently administering the law for the protection of these Northern shores? Another thing which the fishermen complained of very much was this: the Scottish Fishery Board do all they can to enforce the law against trawlers, but unfortunately its action is a fine which does not cover what an expert trawler can make in the prohibited waters. The result is that it pays the trawler to violate the law and pay the fine, and he sometimes comes out of Court in triumph with a balance of £20 in his pocket. Surely the time has come when some attention might be given to this subject, either in the form of a Bill, such as has been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman or founded on the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution, or in the shape of a Committee, the business of which would be to see how the Scottish Fishery Board can be strengthened, what alterations in the law are necessary to protect the fishermen against trawling through these waters, so that finally, under legislative sanction, all that concerns a great industry may be put on a more efficient footing than is the case at the present time.

(10.24.) MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews, &c.)

I rise to move an Amendment to the Motion in line 5, after "Scotland," to insert— That powers should be granted by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to such District Fishery Committees to issue licences to fishermen to fish for salmon on suitable parts of the coasts of Scotland. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, regards my Amendment as in no sense hostile to the Resolution he has moved this evening. That was not my intention, and I am glad that my feeling in this matter has been properly understood. I feel, how-ever, bound to say that I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend should have thought it is duty, on a question of so great public importance, to occupy some 25 minutes of his speech with what I think I am not incorrect as describing as partisan recriminations. I was emboldened to put my Resolution on the Paper by the recommendations of the Committee, over which the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtownshire presided. If, however, it is thought that I am unnecessarily overloading the Resolution by proposing something which is not strictly germane I shall certainly not press my proposal, if any intimation to that effect reaches me from the Treasury Bench. But, Sir, the reasons which encourage me to bring this matter forward are these. I find, in the Report of the Committee in 1890, the following recommendations:— As regards the future administration (in tidal waters) that in developing the resources of the fishings, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have interfered on certain parts of the coast with the pursuits of the local fishermen, which they had been permitted to carry on without interference for a number of years. We recommend that the future policy of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests be directed to the encouragement of local fishermen, by allowing them to fish on suitable parts of the coast on payment of a licence, and under such restrictions as to length and fashion of net as the district fishery boards, or, where such have not yet been formed, as the Fishery Board for Scotland may decide. I assume, for the purpose of my argument, that such power is vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. If it is not so, then the proper form of my Amendment should have been that power should be granted to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to carry out what the Committee recommended. I am quite prepared to admit the contention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, that in adopting such a policy they would run the risk of diminishing the revenue of the Crown. But, in my opinion, some regard ought to be had to the rights, or at any rate the emoluments and advantages, of the fishermen on the coast. It was proved before the Committee that in certain districts in England the licence system has been enforced without detriment to the fish supply, what ever may have been the result upon the actual revenue. Now, Sir, there is a special case in relation to the rights of the Crown in salmon fishing, to which I should like to be allowed to refer. I mean the case of salmon fishing, ex adverso, of the Burgh of Crail. That case was brought under the notice of the Commissioners, and in their Report it is admitted that there had been something of the nature of harsh treatment of the Burgh by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, representing the Crown. Now, Sir, it seems to me that if the experiment of power to fish under licence be made, it might be made on that part of the coast of Fife where the inhabitants feel a grievance at having been deprived of some valuable property which they regarded as their own. I do not intend pressing the Amendment standing in my name if it is objected to, but perhaps it would be well as a matter of form that I should move it. I agree with most of the statements in the able and exhaustive speech of my right hon. Friend, except as regards the proof of title under which Scotch mussel scalps are held, as to which I reserve my opinion, and shall await the statement of the Government with interest.

(10.30.) MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanarkshire)

I have not the honour of representing a fishing constituency, but I was a Member of the small Committee to which my hon. Friend who has just sat down referred, and I confess I take a very strong interest in the recommendation he has backed up in his speech. If the Amendment he has made in the least possible aggressive form had been hostile to the Resolution, I could not have supported it. But the Amendment is not hostile to the Resolution. My hon. Friend says the salmon fishings in possession of the Crown should not be let out as they are now as a source of revenue, but made available to the industrious local fishermen by giving them licences to fish for salmon in the open sea. He said, as the House knows, that there is a very interesting divergence between the practice of England and Scotland. In England salmon are open to fishermen in the open sea if they get a licence to fish for them, and the object of the restriction is to prevent the species from being destroyed. The necessity of obtaining licences is obviously most proper. In Scotland there is no man who would not desire that fishing should be carried out in such a way as to secure the proper consideration of the breed of salmon. But whereas white fish is open to all to take, the salmon, simply because its flesh is pink instead of white, is made in some cases the private property of individuals, while the remainder is administered by the Crown as the patrimonial property, and fishermen have no right to fish for salmon in their waters. The industrious fisherman, I believe I shall have sympathy in saying, should be allowed to take salmon in the open sea. So soon as we restore that power to the fishermen there will be an improvement. I say restore, because the present stringent law is Judge-made law of very recent date. It dates from 1849, and was confirmed by the House of Lords a few years later. Previous to that the Crown did not derive a single penny from salmon fishing. They now derive a revenue about which they need not cavil much, because it only amounts to something like £6,000 a year. The Government might have given a little more weight than they did to the recommendations of the Commission which suggested that the system of licences prevailing in England should be extended to Scotland. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend who seconded this Motion has spoken in much too disparaging terms of the Fishery Board established in 1882; it was an important step in the administration of the Scotch fisheries. In selecting the Sheriffs of maritime-counties to sit on the Board, it was to a certain extent desired to give a representative complexion to the Board, and I do not think the at- tempt has been altogether unsuccessful. But I quite agree with the main purpose of my right hon. Friend, in saying that the time has come when we ought to make the administration of sea fisheries more thoroughly and frankly representative. The fisheries of Scotland are the harvest of the sea, and just as you give the toilers, who draw forth the harvest of the land, representation in the shape of County Councils and other institutions, so it is only right that similar interests on the sea should be represented, and I am glad to think that the principle which has been so well advocated to-night by my right hon. Friend is to be, to a certain extent, although to an imperfect extent, accepted by the Government. The Committee to which the hon. Member for St. Andrews has referred made a recommendation with regard to titles to salmon fishing inland, and they were of opinion that a great many of those fisheries, which in old time were of no value, had of late years been quietly annexed by proprietors, without any proper title to them. That may be a mistaken impression on the part of the witnesses; but it was recommended that the public authorities should examine into these titles. Some people have some delicacy in requiring men to show their titles, but I think that is false delicacy, and a somewhat unfair scruple towards the interests of the public; and I feel sure that there can be no objection to asking these private proprietors to prove their title. To me and to most of my friends it is a most unwelcome duty; but sometimes we must make complaints, and I think that if this coast had been, not in Scotland, but in England, or even in Ireland, we should not have had these complaints to make to-night. I hope the Government will be ready to make concessions to our reasonable demands, and that they will follow them up with practical legislation.

Amendment proposed, To be made to the Question, after the words "coasts of Scotland," to insert the words "that powers should be granted by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to such District Fisheries Committees to issue licences to fishermen to fish for salmon on suitable parts of the coasts of Scotland."—(Mr. Anstruther.)

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

(10.52.) MR. DUFF (Banffshire)

I will not follow my hon. Friend into the vexed question of the salmon fisheries, which is a legal question rather difficult to solve, but I shall be glad if the Law Officers of the Crown can throw some light upon it. At present it seems to be in an anomalous position, because a sea fisherman is not entitled to take salmon in territorial waters. He is entitled to do so outside them, but though he may catch a fish he cannot land it in order to dispose of it. Whilst I am perfectly willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Andrews, I wish to say a word or two upon the Motion, and to refer specially to a subject concerning my constituency on the Moray Firth. There are some points on which the Government have perfect power to legislate on which they have not gone far enough. On both sides of the Moray Firth the great complaint is as to the decrease of the fisheries due to the action of trawlers. It is believed that the water is being over-fished. In the Report of the Fishery Board for 1890 it is stated that the fisheries on the east coast of England had fallen off from 285,000 cwt. in 1887 to 137,000 cwt. in 1890. This was considered so serious that it was suggested that an International Congress should be assembled to consider the general question. I do not consider that trawling should be altogether abolished, for if it were, certain classes of fish could not be supplied to the public, but unless you impose some restrictions the fisheries will be exhausted, as they have been exhausted on the coast of England. The trawlers that used to fish the English coast are now betaking them selves to the coast of Scotland. I find from the Board of Trade Returns that the value of trawled fish landed on the east coast of England was £819,000 in 1887 and £509,444 in 1890; the total decrease in value in four years being £309,000. We have English trawlers coming in enormously increased numbers to Aberdeen, and if they are allowed they will reduce the Scotch coast to the same condition as the English coast. Only to-day, on coming-down to the House, I stopped at a fishmonger's and asked the price of soles. He told me 2s. 2d. the pound. "That is rather high," I said. "Why," he replied, "last week they were 3s. 6d." I remarked that he had been a long time in the fish trade, and asked what they were when he began. He replied "10d. a pound," adding, "They all come from the coast of Holland now; we never get them from the English coast." That is the result of over-trawling, and unless some steps are taken to protect the Scotch fisheries we shall experience the same result in Scotland. An Act passed in 1889 enables the Government to close the whole of the Moray Firth, and I want them now to do so; and I hope that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman rises he will tell us what is the intention of the Secretary of State in this matter. A great deal has been said about the necessity of giving effect to the law, and the Lord Advocate has been appealed to on this question too. I am in a position to know the view of the Admiralty and the view of the Lord Advocate. The view of the Admiralty is that in the Navy Estimates a certain amount should be taken for effective service in the Navy, but that from that Service you cannot detach a certain number of vessels for the particular purpose of protecting the fisheries. Now, I think in the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board you ought to take a certain amount for this purpose, and that could be handed over to the Admiralty. I am asked why this has not been done already, and my answer is, Because the Secretary for Scotland is not in the Cabinet. We ask you to enforce the law, and the only way to enforce it is to take a Vote on the Scotch Estimates. Until that is done, I feel quite sure we shall not have an effective sea police in Scotland. With regard to what steps are being taken to give us cruisers to protect these fishings, I am bound to say the right hon. Gentleman has answered rather generally, and that his words are not sufficiently definite. It is absolute nonsense to pass a law against trawlers and then have no means of giving effect to it. By so doing you will simply bring the law into contempt. I am willing to admit that the Government have made a movement in the right direction, but there is still a great deal for them to do. I regret that they have given no effect to the recommendations of the Commission with regard to mussel fisheries on the east of Scotland. There is nothing the fishermen feel more than the enormous price they have to pay for these mussels. I would quote an extract to the House from which it appears that the average price of Scotch mussels is about £1 5s. a ton, of Irish mussels £2 9s. a ton, and of Dutch mussels £3 3s. a ton, and a steamer arrives from Holland bringing the mussels along the East coast of Scotland. Three-fourths of the mussels the fishermen on the East coast of Scotland get are got either from Ireland or Belgium. On the coast of France they raise mussels to the value of £90,000, and on the coast of Scotland to the value of £11,000. I cannot help thinking, if some effect was given to the recommendations of the Commission presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), we should not be in the bad position we occupy in this matter, on which the Government might have legislated. I hope when the Lord; Advocate replies he will state to us what their intention is as to this, and that the Government will be able to enable those fishermen to raise their own mussels on the shores of Scotland.

(11.5.) MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I think the House is very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire for raising this discussion, and for that portion of his speech devoted to the subject of his Resolution. With respect to that Resolution, I do not think there is very much difference of opinion as to its substance, and I hope the Government will be prepared to accept the greater part, if not the whole of it. For myself, I would be prepared to go a little further than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick- shire with respect to mussels. I understand his proposal to be rather of a negative character; that mussels should be protected and left alone rather than cultivated. If we are going to cultivate mussels, I do not think these committees are the best means for doing so. The cultivation of mussels is a matter requiring great skill and a very considerable amount of science, and I doubt very much whether the district committees are best suited for this purpose. There is no doubt also that a certain amount of money would be required for the cultivation of the mussels. I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman intends to provide this money. I have very considerable doubts whether County Councils will consider themselves sufficiently interested to advance the money necessary for the purpose, say 1d. per £1 on the rates. And those County Councils who advance the money will naturally understand that the mussels should belong to them, and that they should get the profit when they have been developed. I think it would be much simpler and more economical that the Treasury should put at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland, for two or three years, say £2,000 or £3,000 per annum, for the purpose of cultivating mussels. It will be necessary to have this sum for two or three years, because some years must elapse before the crop will be matured. No doubt in time they would develop and improve if left alone and properly protected, but it is desirable the mussels, should be brought to maturity at the earliest possible time, because of their great scarcity at the present moment. I, therefore, think the House would do well to urge upon the Government to give Scotland £2,000 or £3,000 a year for the purpose of cultivating mussels. I also think there will be considerable difficulty in working out this district committee scheme for the cultivation of mussels. I am told there would be sufficient mussel scalps for the whole of Scotland if properly distributed, but along the coast of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire there are scarcely any beds, and some arrangement would require to be made by which the quantity of mussels could be divided all round the coast. It is only a few years since Holland took up the cultivation of the mussel, and now she is able to supply the coast of Scotland as well as her own fisheries. There are, however, in Scotland at the present time a large uumber of unappropriated mussel scalps, and if these were properly cultivated they would amply supply the whole of Scotland. I do not think there is much to be gained by calling on the claimants to produce their charters. Apart from those in the Montrose basin, there is not a mussel scalp in Scotland, that I know of, which rents at more than £25 per annum, and it would be far better for the Fishery Board to try to get the beds it desired by agreement, rather than undertake the expense of going to law to determine their ownership. If the Board had powers to acquire the beds by agreement or compulsory purchase that would be more likely to meet the necessities of the case. I hope the Admiralty will be prepared to place at the disposal of the Fishery Board more vessels for performing the duties of sea police. There is no use in passing a protective law unless it be enforced, and the people of Scotland are perfectly entitled to call on the Government to enforce the law they have made. The Fishery Board should be more representative of the fishermen, and should be clothed with greater powers than it possesses at present, such, for instance, as a general control of the fishing in territorial waters, with the exception of salmon; and if a Bill should be introduced dealing with the constitution of the Fishery Board, I hope that point will be fully considered. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the allowance to the Fishery Board for scientific and other purposes, and to see the Board doing something in the way of the cultivation of other sea fish than mussels. The experiments which have been made in the United States and other places have been so encouraging that I think an effort should be made to do something of the kind in Scotland.

(11.15.) MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.)

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said as to the cultivation of mussels, but I cannot agree that it is not desirable that an order should be made for the purpose of investigating the charters of mussel beds. As to the District Committees, they will have important duties; under the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) they will have the duty of returning a member each to the Scotch Fishery Board, and therefore I hope the districts will be sufficiently numerous; eight should be the least number. Men will be elected in each district having the full confidence of the fishermen, and then the Fishery Board will also have the confidence of the men, and I hope of the Government. I think we have a right to ask why the Government has not yet carried through any legislation dealing with the constitution of the Fishery Board, and the due provision of safeguards against steam trawling. I have not the least doubt that the members of the Fishery Board desire to do the best they possibly can, but it is notorious that none of them are practical men, and the Board does not possess one iota of the confidence of the fishing populations of the country. It has made regulations, but has not put them into force, and it has not been supported in carrying through those regulations by Dover House. We had the benefit of a short administration of that office by the First Lord of the Treasury, and that was regarded with confidence in Scotland. If you have a head of that office who is not in this Chamber, who has no strong policy of his own, and is not in the Cabinet, he can do very little to support the Fishery Board. Constant complaints are made of the manner in which steam trawling is allowed to go on. The vessels provided by the Admiralty have not the speed necessary, and the promised reinforcement of the sea police has not yet been put into active operation. The effects of steam trawling have, in consquence, been most disastrous in the Moray Firth, and there is the greatest privation of the fishermen in that locality and on the Forth. These, men are, perhaps, as strong, manly, and independent a portion of the population as you can find, and they have been driven to despair and almost starvation, by the want of sufficient checking of the depredations of the trawlers. I hone this great question will at last rouse the attention of the House, and that something may be done to put an end to what has been a scandal in the past.

(11.25.) MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

I think the Government might now give the House their views on this question. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been presented, but I cannot sit down without saying, in the strongest terms, that I agree with all that has been said as to not putting the law in force. It is notorious—and I am sure the Government and Dover House know it—that every day trawlers are going into territorial waters, sweeping the sea, to the great detriment of the inshore fishermen. We have been told that an additional boat has been given for the Police Service, but it only steams 10½ knots an hour, while many of the trawlers go at much greater speed. The effect is that the trawlers come so much into the territorial waters that they can well afford to pay an occasional £20 or £30 fine. The figures given by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff) show that the trawlers cause a serious loss to the fishermen. The Fishery Board is most desirous to carry out the law, but it is entirely without the power to do so. Again and again has it acknowledged the necessity for building harbours on the coast of Aberdeenshire, but for the past seven years I have been constantly told that it is under engagements, which will absorb all their funds for the present year, and for some years to come. I agree that there will be some difficulty in the way of District Boards dealing with these questions, and there is a great deal to be said in favour of one Central Board, properly constituted, made up of men coming from the different dis- tracts, who would lay before the Board the necessities of each district, I deprecate the suggestion that both Parties must be up and doing because we are approaching a General Election and fishermen, have votes. My charge is, that both the present and past Governments have grossly neglected the great fishing industry for many years, though I believe there has been a disposition on the part of the present Government and Opposition to aid the fishermen. I have often pointed out to the Fishery Board the advantage which would be obtained in checking trawling, not only by giving cruisers, but by utilising the Coastguard Service and their means of telegraphic communication. There is another point I desire to mention. The attention of the Government appears to have been directed to the necessities of the West Coast, to the neglect of the East Coast. Special Votes have been given by the House for harbours and other works on the West Coast. If anything is to be done in the direction of the cultivation of mussels, a larger sum must be put at the disposal of the Fishery Board. The Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) has frequently acknowledged the grievances brought beforehim by the fishermen, but his plea has been that the Government were indisposed to give that assistance which he and the Fishery Board thought absolutely necessary. I hope, therefore, the Government will be able to say that this great industry, on which the livelihood of so large a portion of the population depends, will receive that attention which those who represent the people know has been so long denied to it.

(11.33.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I do not think there is much difference of opinion in the House, or any part of it, as to the general merits of the subject which has occupied us since 9 o'clock. But one observation will, I am sure, be received with general acceptance by every Member of the House. It was when the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) said there was no population in England or Scotland more deserving of the sympathy and support of the House than the fishing population along the coast of Scotland. Anyone acquainted with the character and circumstances of that population will cordially endorse the sentiment which fell from the hon. Gentleman. Now, Sir, it appears to me that this discussion, useful in itself, has diverged somewhat from the Resolution placed on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman. For example, the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Haldane), followed by at least, I think, one other Member, complained of the scant liberality with which the Imperial Exchequer has treated these fishermen in Scotland, especially in respect of harbour construction, and he pointed to the fact that while large sums had been given to the Western Highlands, nothing, at all events of a similar kind, had been done in Scotland, and only a small amount of £3,000 a year was allocated out of the money received from the Herring Brand for the purpose of constructing new harbours or improving old ones. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman says that Scotland has been badly treated, it has been treated incomparably better than England. I am not aware of any grant at all comparable with the grant to the Western Highlands of Scotland having been made to any part of England. Then, if the Herring Brand were abolished, the proceeds would not go into the pockets of the fishermen, and I do not think at present it is a burden on the fishing population. The right hon. Gentleman complained of the position of the Scotch fishermen, but, bad as their condition is, it is far better than the position of the English fishermen. For my own part, I desire to see every possible assistance given to the Scotch fishermen, but it is absurd to come to this House and complain of the difficulties they have to meet, when the speakers who make the complaint are bound to admit that the Scotch fisher-men are placed in a better position than their English comrades have ever been. I mention that as an illustration of the manner in which the Resolution is drawn, and I may add that there is not a single Word in the Resolution which deals with public lines or deals with the financial position in any way of the fishing population of Scotland. It was, I think, the right hon. Gentleman who raised the question of the line which ought to be drawn in the Moray Firth within which trawling was not to be permitted. That is a very important question, and one to which, as I happen to know, the attention of my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland is now turned; but it is not a question that comes within the purview of this Resolution.

MR. R. W. DUFF

The Resolution refers to Scotch sea fisheries, and trawling certainly comes under that head.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No legislation is required for an ordinary line within which trawling is forbidden in the Moray Firth; that can be done by an Executive Act. Of course, if you are going to attempt to draw a line outside the limit of the territorial waters, I admit that is a very different Question. It is a question of International Arbitration, and without International Arbitration it is vain to attempt to draw a line in extra-territorial waters. That line would have effect only so far as our own fishermen were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman who opened this debate attempted in one part of his speech to make out that this was a question of Party politics; that it was a question on which the two sides of the House were acting in competition with one another, and he suggested that the Party of which he is an ornament had done a great deal more than those to whom he is opposed for the fishermen,, and he specially pointed his moral by an attack on the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Member for Berwickshire seems to have forgotten that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham is not now for the first time an advocate of the rights and claims of the fishermen of Scotland or of England. He has been so for many years. He was, during those years of fruitful legislation of which the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to boast, a Member of the Government, and in all probability it was to him that the legislation, spoken of with so much pride by the right hon. Gentleman, was due, considering that during those five years he was at the head of the office which more than any other has to do with the special interests of the maritime population of this country. It is not my business to defend the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. It is sufficient to know that now, as ever, he has shown himself an active and intelligent advocate of the claims of the fishermen, and the credit due to him for his proceedings in this matter is not likely to be diminished in the opinion of the population of Scotland by the Party attack which has been made upon him in this House. That brings me to the special point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and on this point I have very little to add to what I stated to a deputation I had the honour to see yesterday on this subject. The deputation consisted largely, if not entirely, of Members of this House, and many of the points advanced by the right hon. Gentleman were advanced by that deputation. One of the subjects which excited most interest, if I may judge from the speeches which I heard, was the question of what I may describe as sea police. This is a very important matter, and there is no doubt that the fishery regulations laid down by this House are in some cases neglected and in some cases openly defied. There is no doubt that it is the business of the Government to bring to an end a state of things which is incapable of defence, but I want the House to realise that the Admiralty must be seconded by local effort. The Legislature has no power over a trawler or any other kind of fisherman outside territorial waters. A trawler might lie, so to speak, on the very edge of the territorial waters during the day time, and as soon as night comes on it might pass within the territorial waters and commence poaching operations. If it puts out its lights and takes the obvious precautions which naturally suggest themselves to conceal its identity, the difficulty of protecting a coast line of the length of Scotland would be—I will not say insuperable—but, at all events, very considerable; and if the Admiralty are to cope effectively with a state of things of that kind, it must necessarily be with the co-operation of the District or other Local Authorities in existence or to be created. The hon. Member for Aberdeen has suggested that the Coastguard might be more largely-used in that matter; but I will point out that their services can only be made thoroughly effective if they were brought into co-operation with some Local Authority, in concert with whom they might take steps to secure the desired end. I do not propose to deal at length with the next point, the constitution of the Fishery Board. It is admitted on all hands, and has been admitted, in most practical shape, by the present Government, that the Fishery Board should have a more representative character given to it. The Secretary for Scotland proposes immediately to introduce a Bill dealing with that matter and with all the points touched upon in the Resolution. I must, however, deal for a moment or two with the burning question of the provision of bait for carrying on the fishing operations. Almost all the speakers have dwelt upon the difficulty and hardship now imposed on the Scotch fishermen from the fact that there is great difficulty in obtaining one of the three requirements of their industry. Fishing without bait is an impossibility. The difficulty of obtaining bait is great and is increasing, and that difficulty should be as far as possible diminished, if not wholly removed. But while we are all agreed as to the character of the grievance, which is more hardly felt on the East Coast than on the West, I cannot feel wholly satisfied with the solution of the difficulty proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He has suggested that powers should be given to the Local Authorities to buy beds, where the owner is willing to sell, and, where the owner is not willing to sell, to establish new mussel beds. It appears to me that a great part of the present difficulty arises from the fact that the old mussel beds have not been properly cared for and have gradually deteriorated, and are now wholly incapable of supplying the amount of bait which they formerly supplied and may be made to supply again. If the Local Authority is to be restricted merely to buying when the owner is willing to sell or going to the costly operation of establishing new mussel beds, it is evident that they would not be placed in the most advantageous position for remedying the evil under which they suffer. I am bound to think that in any Bill brought in to deal with this question, in addition to the powers suggested by the right hon. Gentleman there ought to be a further power of compulsory purchase under a Land Clauses Consolidation Act. That Act, as the House is aware, affords ample safeguards to private rights. It gives ample powers for compulsion when the necessity is manifest, and I see no objection, either in principle or practice, to allowing compulsory purchase under the safeguards and limitations provided by the law. With respect to title, I may point out that the money would not be paid until the owner had satisfactorily made out his real title to the mussel beds to which he laid claim. In my judgment, therefore, the Resolution in so far as it deals with the question of title, is unnecessary, and in other respects it is inadequate. In the Bill which my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland proposes to introduce he will be prepared to take the far more statesmanlike course of introducing the compulsory powers of which I spoke without taking away this question of doubtful title. This is, however, relatively a small matter, and I need not interfere with the general harmony which appears to prevail on both sides of the House; and therefore if I do not think the Resolution goes quite far enough, for the reasons I have indicated I have no objection to accept it on behalf of the Government as an important contribution to any legislation or proposals which the Government are prepared to introduce.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

I congratulate the Government on once more bending the knee before the expressed wish of Members of this House in regard to a Resolution for the second or third time this Session, and, to quote the words of a noble Lord, At the point of the bayonet a concession has been wrung from the Government by the expressed wishes of both sides of the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

When I made the few and humble remarks yesterday to the deputation to which I have alluded the point of the bayonet had not been presented.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

Quite true, but the point of the bayonet had been bared to the First Lord's breast, because my Resolution was on the Paper yesterday, and was in the hands of the First Lord of the Treasury when he spoke to the deputation yesterday. The First Lord of the Treasury finds fault, or at all events tried to insinuate, that I had done a very improper thing in introducing some element of Party politics into this question. In dealing with this question I never, before tonight, endeavoured to introduce any Party element into it, and I did so tonight because the ally of the First Lord of the Treasury, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, made a bitter Party attack in his speech on this subject at Edinburgh, and it was necessary that an answer should be given to that speech. I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice of my intention to allude to the question, but unfortunately he was better engaged elsewhere in entertaining his Party. One more point. I should like to congratulate the Government most heartily on having accepted, with regard to this question, the principle of compulsion. It is a principle which they have again and again and again refused to admit.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The compulsion to which I refer is under the Land Clauses Act of Scotland, 1845.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

I have no doubt we shall hear of this question of compulsion again, when the Small Holdings Bill comes up, and I hope we shall be as successful in obtaining compulsion on that measure as we have been now.

MR. H. F. ANSTRUTHER

The First Lord of the Treasury has made no reference to the terms of my Amendment, but I shall be quite willing to withdraw it on assurance that some principle of the kind will be included in the Government Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I quite agree with the spirit of the Amendment, and I have no objection to its being added to the Resolution. I do not think it would be expedient, however, to overload the Bill which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks) is introducing, but I think this is a subject that should be dealt with.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That a large representative element Should be introduced into the Scottish Fishery Board; that a sufficient number of District Fishery Committees should be instituted to take charge of local fishery interests on the coasts of Scotland; that powers should be granted by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to such District Fishery Committees to issue licences to fishermen to fish for salmon on suitable parts of the coasts of Scotland; that proof should be required of the titles under which Scottish mussel scalps are claimed and held; that power should be given to District Fishery Committees in Scotland to regulate, acquire, and work mussel scalps within their several districts; and that the regulations from time to time made in the interests of the various classes of fishermen working in Scottish seas should be enforced by SUB effective system of sea police.