NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL. (No. 259.) (Hansard, 19 May 1893)

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he objected to this and to every other clause in the Bill, because the provisions could only be enforced by adopting in times of peace methods that ought only to be resorted to in times of war—namely, search and seizure. Under this Bill foreign cruisers would be enabled to search a British vessel, examine her papers, and if the commander of the vessel were not satisfied with them to seize her, and take her into port. This was a most dangerous power to give. He had no objection to the enactment of laws against the exit from our ports of vessels likely to be engaged in this noxious and harmful traffic; but he did object to giving this power to foreign vessels over English vessels. A certain amount of spirituous liquor was necessary at times for sailors, and what they ought to provide against was the abuse of it. The Bill had been intro- 1374 duced into that House under circumstances which were extremely discreditable to Her Majesty's Government, who had tried to smuggle it through the House after 12 o'clock without giving the slightest information as to its object. The French Government bad refused to accept it on good and substantial grounds. Her Majesty's Government had been in possession of the Correspondence that had taken place with regard to the Convention for the last three months, and yet it was only when they had succeeded in smuggling the Bill through its Second Reading that they had condescended to lay that Correspondence upon the Table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had told them he knew nothing of the Correspondence when he introduced the Bill.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,) Sheffield, Brightside
Oh, no! What I said was that I had not the full Correspondence before me in printed form; but I knew its purport was indeed generally known.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he had not understood that; but he would, of course, accept the statement. Still, he thought they had good cause for complaint, inasmuch as endeavours had been made to push forward the Bill after 12 o'clock when there could be no discussion. The French Government had refused to ratify the Convention on grounds which were extremely valid. Lord Salisbury was of opinion—as he himself was—that if France stood out the traffic would not be stopped, but would be carried on under the French flag.

THE CHAIRMAN
This more properly arises on Clause 1. Clause 3 simply creates penalties for infringements of the Act, and has nothing to do with policy.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
admitted that, but thought he should have some latitude in view of the attempts to smuggle the Bill through without discussion. He held that the Government ought to move that Progress should be reported, in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of reading the important Correspondence just issued before they were called upon to consider this most silly and mischievous Bill in Committee.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
I could not have believed that any hon. Member in this House would have delivered such a speech as that to which we have just listened. As has been pointed out, by Clause 1 the House has confirmed the Convention, and by Clause 2 has imposed penalties for exchanging or selling spirits. The other clauses are subsidiary. The circumstances of the Bill are simple. In 1886, after the greatest evils had prevailed in the North Sea Fishery, a Convention, including France, was entered into for the purpose of putting down the abominable system of "cooperage." That Convention was confirmed in 1887, and an Act was passed, promoted by my Predecessor, of which the present Bill is au exact copy, with the exception that it leaves out France, who, for reasons set forth in the Correspondence, practically because we are in Egypt, decline to join us in the Convention.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. France objected to the Convention on the ground that this was an attempt on the part of England to dominate the North Sea.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
Exactly. But France has agreed to a similar Convention, which is now actually in force, and the Convention of 1886 extends over exactly the same area as this. When I came back to the Board of Trade last year, I found that Lord Salisbury had agreed to set up a separate Convention leaving out France; and as a result a Convention was entered into, and it required a new enactment, giving France the option of coming into the Convention. What was said by France herself on this subject? A French Commission sat upon it, and reported that the trade in alcohol had been carried on by persons devoid of any sense of morality on board vessels flying the German flag; that shameful advantage was taken of all the vices of fishermen, who were detained by prostitutes, and when their reason had been destroyed by intoxication the men were stripped and robbed. There wore most scandalous orgies, succeeded often by scenes of robbery and murder. A more terrible statement has never been placed on paper.

§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)
The same thing goes on among English sailors.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
Yes; under the influence of this system of floating brothels. This Bill is intended to put down these evils; and, in the face of what promises to be sheer obstruction, I say that no Bill ever had such claims upon this House, and that in the interests of our fishermen, and by reason of our pledges to other Governments, we are bound to place this enactment on our Statute Book as soon as possible.

§ *MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)
said, there appeared to be a great deal of misconception in regard to the Bill. The International Convention of 1887, to devise means to suppress the floating grog-shops in the North Seas, was the result of negotiations between the British Foreign Office and the Maritime Powers of Europe. His right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham was the first to induce the Foreign Office to take up the question, and Lord Salisbury took steps to have the Convention assembled owing to the representations made by Sir Edward Birkbeck—a name that would be always held in respect by fishermen—and himself in 1887. That Convention was signed by all the Plenipotentiaries, and a Bill, ratifying that Convention, was passed by the House in five minutes in 1888. France alone refused to pass the necessary legislation; hence the new Convention in February last, which all the other Powers had signed and ratified, and which the Committee were now asked to ratify by passing the Bill before it. Therefore, France would now either have to come into the arrangement, or bear the responsibility of the "floating hells" carrying on their illegal traffic under her flag—a traffic the consequences of which to the moral and commercial welfare of the fishermen few hon. Members could fully realise. As to Clause 3 under discussion, it was entirely subsidiary to Clauses 1 and 2, which had been passed. His hon. Friend opposite objected to Clause 3. But they could not amend the Bill. They must now either take the Bill as it was, or nullify the proceedings of the Convention of February last. The House of Commons, in 1888, passed an Act ratifying the previous Convention, and Clause 3 of the present Bill was word for word in exactly the same terms as Clause 3 of the Act of 1888. 1377 England was the first to ask the Maritime Powers to outer into an engagement to deal with the evils complained of, and it was a matter of honour that we should do what was necessary on our part to carry it out. England, of all the Powers who had signed the first Convention, had not yet ratified the second Convention, and she was bound in honour to ratify it. It was believed, too, that France would come in as soon as the other Powers had ratified the Convention. That France thought it was necessary something should be done to protect the fishermen was proved by the fact that a Commission appointed by the French Government in 1889 to inquire into the subject fully recognised the evils of the existing system, and agreed that it was necessary something should be done to abolish it. He would read an extract from the Report of the Commission— After an inquiry ordered by the Government of Great Britain, the Commissioner charged with the Mission declared that the presence of 'floating grog-shops 'at the fishing grounds constituted a permanent source of disorder among the fishermen, and that the most detestable evils ran riot in these establishments; theft, abuse of confidence, threats, violence, brigandage, obscenity and fraud; drunkenness, pushed to its most extreme limits, produced as a necessary consequence outbreaks and indiscipline among the crews. To satisfy their passions the fishermen spent not only the resources destined for the maintenance of themselves and their families, but bartered away for beer and bad liquor the fish and fishing gear belonging to their masters. The Commissioner added that violent deaths had resulted from the scenes which took place on board this new kind of public-house. The statement that the men often bartered away the fish in order to obtain drink on board these floating grog-shops was perfectly true. Two skippers were brought before him, as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, for bartering away their employers' fish, and he was sorry to say he had to sentence them to hard labour. They had been respectable men, and were reduced to that condition by the evil influences of these grog-shops. If the Committee desired to keep up the morality of the fishermen, and earn the gratitude of the fishermen, and especially the gratitude of the wives of the fishermen, they would pass the Bill at once.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, there were two distinct parts in the Bill. They were all agreed as to the terrible effects 1378 of the spirit traffic in connection with the North Sea Fisheries, and that those evils should be stopped, or mitigated, if possible. But hon. Gentlemen should not try to rush through the Bill on pleas of that kind. It was not because a Bill was well-intentioned that it would be an effective Bill. He confessed he should like to have the present discussion postponed till a later clause of the Bill, because Clause 3, which they were discussing, limited the effect of the measure solely to British sailors. He thought the House should do everything it could to limit the traffic as far as British sailors were concerned. He was sorry to say that it was the conduct of British sailors mainly that had led to such legislation; and in the face of the extreme objection which France had taken to any Convention of the kind he thought the Bill should apply to British seamen alone, both in respect to selling intoxicating liquors and purchasing them from other ships. Therefore he had no objection to Clause 3, but he thought it was useless to go further, and pass a Bill which would be inoperative. The Bill was not limited to grog-shops alone. It might fall heavily on innocent British sailors. It did not apply only to fishermen who wanted spirits, but it might be applied to fishermen who, after a storm, wanted fresh rigging or an anchor. Another great objection to the Bill was that Franco did not come into the arrangement. It was all very well to say that a similar Bill was passed by the late Government; but things had altered very much since then. France was then a party to the arrangement. France refused to ratify the Convention now. The fact that France would be a party to the arrangement made the arrangement inoperative. Let them do everything, so far as they could, to legislate for British sailors; but it was idle to go further and pass an Act which would be inoperative, and which would possibly make them a laughing-stock. The mere fact that France refused to join in the Convention made it possible for the traffic to be carried on in the future just as in the past.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
No, no!

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he did not see how the traffic could be prevented under the circumstances. At all events, the operation of the Bill should be confined 1379 to our own sailors or fishermen, with whom alone we had power to deal.
Mr. Mundella rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he would like to hear some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade on the points he had raised. He would like to know whether the Government had taken into serious consideration the objections -which the French Government had offered to the Convention? An attempt had been made to pass the Bill without discussion after 12 o'clock, before some Members of the Government and Members generally knew anything of the serious objections raised to the Convention by France. Their action in objecting to the Bill being passed after 12 o'clock was, therefore, justified. He did not think the Bill should be discussed at any length that day; but he thought they should have some statement from the Government as to whether they had really satisfied themselves that in legislating without the concurrence of France we were not leaving out a very important factor in the problem; and whether, by passing this Bill, we should be able to stop this abominable traffic if it were possible for French vessels to carry it as heretofore? He believed the Act would prevent British people from indulging in the traffic, but did not think much good would follow, as France would still be free to carry it on.

§ SIR G. BADEN-POWELL (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would explain, by reference to the Correspondence, in what way he had come across the information that France was opposing the Convention in connection with some question of her claims in Egypt.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
My reference to that subject was based upon the state- 1380 ment in the Correspondence that France had complained that the English were dominating the seas, and that we had not, been sufficiently considerate to her in dealing with the Egyptian Question. I may add, in reply to the hon. Member for Preston, that France has always been an innocent party in this matter, because she has never supplied bad spirits to the fishermen. It is chiefly Belgians, Scandinavians, and sometimes Germans, who supply these vile and injurious spirits. France is alive to this great evil, and I hope, by-and-bye, France will come to a better understanding and join us. It was not the French Government that objected to the Convention. They did their best to get it carried, but the obstruction to this legislation came from the Members of the Committee of the French Chamber. This clause is simply a repetition of a corresponding clause in the previous Act. The House has already passed the enacting clauses, and, really, as there is nothing loft to discuss, I hope we will go through with the Bill.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
said, he agreed that very little time ought to be consumed in discussing the Bill; but he was bound to say that, in his experience, he had never known tactics less calculated to advance the end in view than the tactics of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had charged those who had brought forward Amendments to the Bill with obstruction.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
No; it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby.

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of narrowing the range of discussion, had introduced a subject which, if followed up, might have led to an interesting Debate on Egypt and the foreign policy of this country. It was an extraordinary thing to find a Minister, who was in charge of a Fishery Convention Bill, going beyond the province of the Bill, and charging a Committee of the French Chamber, which represented every section of the Chamber, with obstructive tactics. He did not wish to be drawn into a discussion on the Constitutional arrangements of the French Chamber, or on the foreign policy of this country; but no thanks were due to 1381 the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that such topics did not now make a large demand on the time of the Committee. With respect to the action of France, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman, from his observations, was scarcely a Minister calculated to approach France on this subject with the necessary conciliatory spirit; but he wished to know whether any steps had been taken by the Government to obtain from the Government of France some assurance that, while standing outside the Convention, they would, as a matter of French Municipal Law, endeavour on their part to put down what was universally admitted to be a grave scandal and reproach? If the Government had taken steps to obtain from the French Government some expression that they would assist to abolish this infamous traffic, it would have been far more satisfactory to the Committee than for the Minister in charge of the Bill to indulge in vain denunciations and strictures upon the Committee of the French Chamber.

*MR.GIBSON BOWLES
said, one little fact had escaped the notice of the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had stilted that there was no danger of French vessels engaging in the liquor traffic in the North Seas. Perhaps that was because the French had not hitherto engaged in the fishing. The fishermen were mostly Englishmen, Dutchmen, and some Norwegians. But it was stated in the Correspondence that the French people, and especially the inhabitants of Boulogne, were now beginning to fit out vessels for the North Sea Fisheries; and as the French would be the only persons allowed to engage in this traffic in the future they would be very much tempted to engage in the traffic on a large scale. He would also call the attention of the Committee to the fact that when the former Act was passed, in 1888, France had taken part in the Convention. But the situation was now entirely changed. France had taken no part in the present Convention, but not because, as the right hon. Gentleman had indiscreetly stated, she was jealous of our position in Egypt. There was no mention of Egypt in the Correspondence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby had 1382 quoted from the Correspondence of 1891 but he ought to have also quoted from the Correspondence of 1892. In the French Correspondence he found it stated —" England has tried to usurp the dominion of the seas."

§ MR. MUNDELLA
; Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
maintained that England had usurped nothing. What England sought to retain was her own dominion over the seas; but France stated that we had usurped the dominion of the seas, and had refused to join in the Convention in order to prevent English cruisers roaming about us the police of the seas. His objection to the Bill was that it would give power to any vessel of the five nations in the Convention to overhaul any merchant ship whatever in the North Seas.
Captain Norton rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
repeated that his objection to the Bill was that under it any English merchant ship going to the North Seas was liable to be seized by a naval officer of any of those five nations, and its papers searched and overhauled, and the vessel seized and taken into port. He denied the imputation that, had been made broadcast upon our fishermen—that they were drunkards, and that they desired to be protected by foreign cruisers. He knew them well; he had sailed for many years with them, and he undertook to say that there were no honester men in the country, and that a larger number of them were temperance men than of any other class.

§ MR. SNAPE (Lancashire, S. E., Heywood)
I rise to Order, Mr. Mellor. I desire to ask, are the observations of the hon. Member in Order on this clause? THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member is out of Order.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, the Bill would place the English fishermen, who, as he had said, were a temperate body of men, under the dominion of foreign cruisers. They occasionally required an anchor, or cable, or something of the kind after a storm; but the effect of this Convention would be that vessels 1383 would be indisposed to supply them with any of these things for fear of falling under the suspicion of being engaged in the "coopering trade." He contended that the Convention was unnecessary. The English fishermen were not drunkards, and did not need this legislation. Foreign cruisers, he contended, should not have the right to capture English vessels in the North Sea.
Mr. Mundella rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, hon. Members had asked how were we to Lope that France would come in? He would give them the answer in the words of the Commission to which the investigation of this question was deputed. On page 21 it was stated— The results of our not adhering to the Convention must be considered. It would none the less exist among the five other signatory Powers, who have decided to forbid absolutely the liquor traffic among the fishermen of their respective nations. What would be the consequence? Being hampered in their contraband trade, the floating grog-shops would not hesitate to fly the French flag under the pretext that France had not adhered to the Convention, and that, consequently, her flag would be protected against the pursuit of cruisers. Is it our interest to displease the neighbouring Powers by not lending them our moral and effective support in this work of improvement? Should we be right in sheltering under our honoured flag an immoral, shameful, and disgusting trade? With reference to the suggestion that English vessels would be put at the mercy of foreign cruisers, he pointed out that the moment a cruiser discovered a floating grog-shop its duty would be to call in the cruiser of the nation to which the vessel belonged, and ask them to take care of the case.

§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)
said that, as one who had more fishermen in his constituency probably than any other hon. Member, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby and the hon. Member for Lynn, he hoped hon. Gentlemen on that side would not impede that clause, but would allow the Bill to pass. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Preston had said, that they had not been allowed to discuss the Bill; but the Government had not 1384 allowed them to discuss anything except the Irish Home Rule Bill, and when they discussed that they were closured. However, on the principle that half a loaf was bettor than no bread, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to pass.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, that the ground France took for not joining the Convention was that five other important nations refused to join. Were the Government, in order to make this Bill effective if passed into law, prepared to negotiate with Norway and Russia with the view to joining in a fresh Convention, for France, Russia, and Norway were all concerned in these fisheries, and had had no share in this Convention?

§ MR. MUNDELLA
stated that the Norwegian boats did not remain at the fishing ground, but simply ran out and home again, whilst Russian boats did not fish in this part of the North Sea. The discussion on the Bill had already occupied more than three times the amount of time his right hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks) had placed at his disposal, and he felt that he must carry out his engagement. Not a single Amendment had been put on the Paper in reference to any clause, and unless the Bill was at once passed through he should move to report Progress.

§ MR. HANBURY
would tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was his own conduct of this Bill which had led to the opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been constantly bringing charges of obstruction against the Opposition and against the French Government, who questioned his proceedings, and had done what he had done that day—namely, put down the Bill in Government time at an earlier period, very little objection would have been raised. He did not think it right this clause should be claimed to be taken now because they had not put down Amendments. The reason they had not put down Amendments was because they wanted the Bill to go through. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt his suggestion, and enter into negotiations with Norway and Russia.

SIR G.BADEN-POWELL
expressed the hope that the Government would recognise the importance of applying to those Powers that had not joined the Convention for support, as a vessel could, by hoisting the Hag of one of these Powers, prevent search by a cruiser.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
replied that if they found a vessel hoisted the flag of one of these Powers in order to sell grog they should feel it their duty to approach the Government of that Power on the subject. He expressed the opinion that the French people had not done anything in this direction—they had boon perfectly innocent of such proceedings.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, that very serious International considerations, and also the interests of the fishermen themselves, had made him feel it to be his duty to make a few remarks on the Bill. They did not wish to obstruct it, and never had justified any charge of obstruction, and they were now disposed to let the right hon. Gentleman have his Bill if he would behave nicely to them in future, and take what steps he could to avoid what might become an abusive practice of search, seizure, and capture of English vessels by foreign enemies.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, in reply to the hon. Member, he might point out that the Report from which he had already quoted stated that — The Convention of the 6th of May, 1882, relative to the police of the: fisheries in the North Sea was signed by the same Powers. Its object was much more important than that of the Liquor Traffic Convention, without presenting greater features of interest for our country. We accepted it, but it has not given rise to any incident concerning us. There is still less reason to fear the present stipulations, which, while protecting the morality and sobriety of the fishermen, will prove to be absolutely inoffensive.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
asked the House to consent to the Bill being read a third time.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, they had allowed the Bill to pass through Committee in spite of grave doubts; and he hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Third Reading to stand over. They had shown by their conduct that they were not disposed to do anything but what was generous; and, for his part, he should very much like time to enable him to communicate with his fishing constituents as to the Bill.

§ MR. HENEAGE
hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his objection, because, at the present moment, all the fleets were in the North Sea, and it was therefore important that the provisions of the Bill should be put into force at once.