HC Deb 08 March 1898 vol 54 cc1059-88
MR. BUCHANAN

I rise to call the attention of the House to the constant infraction of the law with regard to trawling in the waters round the Scottish coasts, and to move— That, it is the imperative duty of the Government to see that the law is properly enforced. I will not attempt at this time of the evening to go into this subject fully. I could, if time permitted, say a good deal. This Question is attracting much attention at the present moment, and there is a widespread belief that the great diminution in the fishery at the present moment is largely due to the trawlers from foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, in speaking on this subject, admitted that it was solely due to that cause. I agree with him that it is solely due to that, and, if I wanted to adduce any witness in favour of my contention, I would quote the words of the Scotch Secretary himself who had stated that he had no doubt whatever that it was owing to this cause that the fishery had been absolutely destroyed. I think that is as strong a statement as could possibly be made for my purpose to-night, and, therefore, I shall not say anything further upon that point. What I want to lay before the House is this: That the law as laid down to regulate trawling has not been properly carried out, and a good deal of the difficulty has arisen because the law has not been applied quickly and efficiently, and where it required a legislative remedy that has not been applied. This trawling has had a most disastrous effect on all forms of deep-sea fishing. There are three points which I wish to lay before the House. I refer to what is known as the three-mile limit and to the thirteen-mile limit. The House is well aware that the Act of 1889 gave the Fisheries Board of Scotland the power to close the area for twelve months, and it was so closed in 1892, and since then there have been constant complaints with regard to the trawlers. I believe, from what the Lord Advocate has told us during the Session, and from the assurances given by the Fisheries Board, that during the past week steps have been taken to keep the English trawlers out of this area. But it is well known, and it is allowed by the Lord Advocate himself and the Scotch authorities, that foreign trawlers are there fishing day after day and week after week. Well, the Scotch law empowered the Fisheries Board to close this area, and it was legally closed. When the law was disputed the right hon. Gentleman himself took action on behalf of the Government, and the legality of closing the Moray Firth was confirmed by the High Court. There is no doubt that it is legally closed, and when these foreign trawlers brought their fish to Aberdeen the Lord Advocate stepped in and prevented them landing their fish in Aberdeen. The result was, however, that they steamed away down to Hull and Grimsby, and there they landed these illegally caught fish. I say that that was rendering absolutely vague and meaningless the statutes passed by this House upon the first day of the Session. I asked the Lord Advocate a question upon this subject as to what action he proposed to take. I put it to him that the law was being broken, that the illegally caught fish were being landed in English ports, and I asked him what steps were going to be taken, and he told me then that he hoped within a short time to be able to make a statement on that subject. Well, no statement, as far as I am aware, has been made by him since that time, and we have had the Scotch legal authorities and the Government, as a whole, winking at the breaking of the law, or, at any rate, taking no steps whatever to render the law of good effect. They may say that it is legislation that is necessary to remedy it. I do not think, however, that the Lord Advocate himself has absolutely committed himself to the statement that legislation is necessary, but, if it is necessary, then let the Government introduce such legislation. It is well known—and it must be known to the Lord Advocate—that such action has been taken by foreign countries with regard to this matter. Other countries have extended their powers forbidding trawling, and they will not allow them to land their fish in their ports; and they will not allow them to get their victuals in their ports either. I say that we ought to do the same, and not allow our English ports to be open to these foreigners. The second point is with regard to the three-mile limit. It is well known that the Act of 1889 gave power to the Fishery Board to close the three-mile limit to trawlers all round the coast of Scotland, but week after week, month after month, and year after year, we have made complaint that the law has never been properly or efficiently put into operation. I think I express the feeling of every Member who knows anything about the fishing communities when I say that the sea police is lamentably ineffective. I am perfectly certain that there is no part of the coast of Scotland that suffers more than the coast of Aberdeen. It is well known that most of the trawlers come upon that coast. If they have had bad fishing they just take a turn round Aberdeen way. There have been constant cases brought before the Courts of encroachments on that coast within the three-mile limit. It has been constantly promised that we are to have adequate fishery cruisers, and questions are constantly being asked with reference to these, but we are put off from day to day, and month to month, and still the cruisers do not appear. It is a great fraud upon the fishing population of this country that they should be deceived by the House of Commons passing laws of this sort and then not providing sufficient money to put them into operation. Then, with regard to the 13-mile limit, it is well known that in the Bill of 1895 a proposal was brought forward by the late Government that the territorial limit should be extended to 13 miles for fishery purposes. The Bill passed this House originally with this clause in it, and it was in a late stage of the Bill, on the motion of Lord Salisbury himself, that a proviso was introduced that this clause should not come into operation until the Powers of the North Sea, who joined in the Convention of 1892, had agreed to make similar regulations. It was pointed out to Lord Salisbury at the time that this would render part of the statute ineffective. Immediately after Lord Salisbury became Prime Minister. Now, surely he should have insisted on arrangements being made whereby the proviso he had himself introduced should have been rendered capable of taking effect. He has done nothing of the sort, and we have been deluded from year to year with false hopes on this subject. Only a few months after the present Government came into office Lord Balfour of Burleigh said he was about to take action in this matter, and was going to get the Foreign Office to obtain the consent of the North Sea Powers to join in a convention, but nothing came of it. We have put Questions on the Paper month after month on the subject. It was stated that there were disagreements between various Departments of the State. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would publish the correspondence which took place between the various Departments. He declined to do that, and so things went on, until towards the end of last Session, by good luck, we had a chance of obtaining some information. On the 12th August, on the discussion of the Foreign Office Vote, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs told us something we did not know. Not only had the Government done nothing then, but when they were specially invited by the Powers bordering on the North Sea to enter into a conference on the subject they declined to do so. I say that is a gross dereliction of duty. What has happened? The case with regard to the east coast of Scotland is bad enough, as regards the west coast it is even worse. With regard to foreign trawlers we have been prevented from getting the benefit of the clause in this statute, because nothing is done in order to bring the North Sea Powers into a convention. The west coast has therefore had to do without the extension of the limit, and we have had to do without any steps whatever being taken by the present Government to make that statute effective. I say, therefore, that the terms of my Motion are ample to justify what I say, that we have upon these three specific branches of this subject a good ground for calling upon the Government to make the law effective by better administration for the purposes for which it was intended, and that, at any rate, the regulations laid down with regard to it, being regulations under the law, shall be obeyed as the rest of the law is obeyed.

DR. CLARK

I have very much pleasure in seconding the Motion. It is time that our coasts were protected from the encroachments of these trawlers, as some of our most valuable fisheries are being destroyed. We brought the case before the Fishery Board, and also before Parliament, and at last we got legislation for the purpose of trying whether we could prevent the trawlers from coming back. I take the Bill introduced by the present Solicitor-General, who was then a private Member, by which power was given to the Fishery Board to prevent the fisheries from being destroyed. The result of the first experimental restrictive measures carried out by the Fishery Board in the Moray Firth was in a very short time to prove that the old white fishing had been destroyed by the steam trawlers. There was evidence before the Fishery Board to prove that the reason why our fisheries were being destroyed was because of the constant trawling of the steam trawlers. Our first complaint is that, so far as this law is concerned, the Government have not attempted, as it ought to have done, to see that the law is respected. They have had a couple of slow patrol boats, totally unfit for the work, and they have hung about instead of patrolling, which they ought to have done, and they are practically useless. The result is that the poor fishermen out there have had, at their own cost, to hire a steamer to do the work which the Government should have done. Not only do you refuse to carry out your own law, but you will not even aid those who are trying to do it by hiring steamers for that purpose. As far as our own trawlers are concerned, we are able, when we see their numbers, to have them punished, and they are being punished continually, but it pays them to pay the fine. There is a second class of trawlers, which we are at present unable to influence, but we might be able to do so if we had proper cruisers there. Only yesterday there were seven of these trawlers, either Dutch, German, or Danish, trawling in the Moray Firth and around that coast, and they came within the three-mile limit. If English trawlers were to go trawling off the coast of Biscay they would be liable to have their boats confiscated, but here there are no gunboats to enforce the law, hence these foreign trawlers treat our law with contempt, and I think this reveals a very bad condition of things. My hon. Friend points out that when those German or Danish trawlers come into our Scotch ports they are not permitted to land. But what do they do? As my hon. Friend says, they make for the nearest English port and land their fish there. It seems, therefore, that the Scotch law is of no effect in England, but I hope it will be bye and by, as the English fisheries require protection. When I sat upon a Select Committee, almost every witness who came before that Committee was in favour of the limit being extended. I want to see Scotch law run in England, so that if trawlers bring fish to English ports they cannot land it. Another point about which I am anxious to obtain information is with regard to the curious action of the Foreign Office. The old three-mile limit was a gunshot. It was increased to 13 miles, because the new guns carry 13 miles. The change in the law was made in the House of Lords, and we expected that Lord Salisbury would do something to carry the intention of the clause into effect. We have put question after question to the Under Secretary, and the only answer we can get is that the Foreign Office will not put themselves into communication with the Governments of the North Sea Powers. For what reason the Foreign Office refuse to carry out this proviso I am at a loss to understand.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,) Buteshire

The remarks of the hon. Member who proposed the Motion now before the House do not seem to me to have much application to the terms of his Motion. I do not see that the hon. Member need have mentioned the moot question, for I think it is a moot question, as to whether trawlers, as a matter of fact, do cause harm to the line fishermen or not, in order to found the Motion which he asks the House to accept. So far as I am personally concerned, I am practically in accord with the hon. Member. I know it is a matter of opinion that has to be decided upon evidence which, like much other evidence that is given, is very conflicting. But, so far as my humble opinion is concerned, it goes without saying that, if you allow trawlers to pursue their avocation in certain waters, then looking to the advantages that they have of disregarding wind and weather, and also their likelihood of taking immature fish, it is common sense to suppose that the result will be that the preserve which is overrun by trawlers will, undoubtedly, in the course of years, deteriorate. But I do not think, Sir, there is any necessity for us to debate that question, because I cannot see that it has any foundation for the hon. Member's Motion. I think, myself, that Parliament really took a side on that matter several years ago, when it initiated what I will call anti-trawling legislation, because, unless there was some idea prevalent among the majority in Parliament at the time, I do not see how Measures could be supported which not only make it possible for the Scotch Fishery Board to close certain areas to trawlers, but make it imperative that trawlers shall not pursue their occupation within the three-mile limit. Accordingly, I think we started to-night with the fact that there is such legislation in existence, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen has correctly detailed that legislation. Then he says there are three points to bring before the House as to trawling in Moray Firth, the three-mile limit, and the 13-mile limit. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member rather forgets the terms of his own Motion. He begins— to call attention to the constant infraction of the law with regard to trawling in the waters round the Scotch coasts, and to move that it is the imperative duty of the Government to see that the law is properly enforced. Mr. Speaker, unless undue weight is placed upon the word "imperative," unless imperative means that the Government is to forego every other duty in favour of its duty to trawlers, there is nothing in the Motion, I think, which we cannot heartily accept. But, then I say that I am not at one with the case which the hon. Member attempted to make out. Accordingly, I shall venture to make a few remarks upon what has been done by the Government with regard to all these three points. First, he spoke about the Moray Firth. The history of the Moray Firth has been this: It was put by the statute within the power of the Fishery Board to prescribe an area, or areas, within the Moray Firth, which should be closed against trawling, and, after investigation by the Fishery Board, they came to the conclusion that it was best so to proscribe trawling, and, accordingly, since 1889, I think it is, the Moray Firth has been closed to trawlers, with the exception of a brief period during which it was open for several weeks. Then there was a decision which did not commend itself to the minds of Her Majesty's advisers, but in respect of which decision the Moray Firth was opened for a period of several weeks. The hon. Member will recollect, and, I do not doubt he will not grudge me an acknowledgment of the fact, that I advised the Government at once that that decision was wrong, and I had the honour to be sent down specially to argue this case in Scotland, and my opinion has proved to be correct. The Moray Firth was accordingly closed. I think there is a curious discrepancy between the contention of the hon. Member who moved the Motion, and the hon. Member who seconded it, because the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, I think, accused the Government of winking at breaches of the law, or, at least, taking no steps to enforce it; whereas the seconder said, with regard to the home trawlers, that the action of the Government resulted in their being constantly caught and punished. These two statements are not consonant, because if the consequence of the action of the Government is that persons are constantly caught, it is difficult to reconcile that statement with the other, that the Government have been winking at breaches of the law, or, at least, doing nothing to give effect to the provisions of the statute. Sir, I think we have a better defence than that. I think I can show the hon. Gentlemen what we really have been doing. As hon. Members know, there are two vessels which are at the disposal of the Fishery Board—the Jackal and the Vigilant.

MR. HEDDERWICK

What is the rate of speed of those vessels?

*MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

I believe the rate of speed is superior to that of the trawlers. How does this matter stand? During the Christmas holidays the Jackal was laid up for an inspection of her boilers. The Fishery Board thereupon applied to the Admiralty, which also does its best to assist them, and they at once supplied us with the Cockchafer, which was allowed to remain even after the Jackal's boilers had been repaired, so that the two of them were in the area at the same time. Not only that, but the Vigilant, whose general patrolling ground was the west coast, was allowed to make an unexpected raid, which was carefully concealed, into the Moray Firth. At the same time the Admiralty detached the Gossamer for the purpose of exploring the seas in the neighbourhood of the Shetlands, the Starling, which was stationed at Stornoway, and the Onyx, which made various excursions into the Firth of Forth and St. Andrews. Notwithstanding all this, the idea has been so universally propagated that the Government were not doing their best, although, I think, very unfortunately, that the fishermen chartered a vessel of their own called the Tyne, which went to the Moray Firth at the same time. I remember question after question was put, and complaint after complaint was made at this time, yet with all these vessels what was the result? The Tyne not only never caught anybody, but it never saw anybody, and had to admit that the whole time she was out she could not find a single British trawler infringing the regulations in the Moray Firth. Not only that, but we got the usual alarmist telegrams. One from a fishery officer— Five trawlers sighted six o'clock this morning, trawling about 12 miles off. What was the result of all this afterwards? Here is what the Cockchafer says— On the morning of the 6th, boarded the Tyne, looking for trawlers in the Firth. At noon boarded Diana, trawling 21 miles southwest by south from Fifeness. Master of this vessel complained to me of the Tyne calling them Dutch bastards. The Tyne crew totally denied the charge. Hon. Members must not accept as gospel any alarmist telegrams from the different parts of the coast saying that trawlers are working up and down, and they must not draw the deduction that Her Majesty's ships are not doing their duty. Look at the hon. Gentleman's Motion. It is to call attention to the constant infraction of the law. That it must be an infraction of the law by a British trawler goes without saying. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is not an infraction of the law on the part of foreign trawlers. There is not a fraction of evidence to show that any one of these foreign trawlers has ever trawled within the three-mile limit. If I could make a law that would bind the foreign trawler not to trawl within the Moray Firth I should only be too happy to do it.

MR. BUCHANAN

Are the foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth doing a legal act?

*MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

Certainly. The only law that binds a foreign trawler is international law. At this present moment observe what the hon. Member is calling attention to as an infraction of the law. I would point out that as a matter of fact this infraction of the law is not true to the extent which is alleged. He has made no case against the Government as having permitted an infraction of the law. His complaint is not justified when he said that the Government had been winking at breaches of the law and had taken no steps to enforce it. The sum-total of the whole matter is this—that as regards British trawling within prohibited waters there has, as a matter of fact, been very great exaggeration. Wherever trawling has been going on we have done very well in the matter of catching trawlers. What other infraction of the law has there been? My hon. Friend knows perfectly well how the law stands. I rather think he had the honour to be a Member of this House when the Act was passed; and if he wanted it to be an infraction of the law to land fish caught within the prohibited area he ought to have moved an Amendment to put in "United Kingdom" for "Scotland." His Motion is that it was the imperative duty of the Government to see that the law is properly enforced. Accordingly, in speaking of this Motion, I am bound to take the law as I find it. The law is that fish that are caught within the prohibited area may not be landed in Scotland. The hon. Member is aware of what the action of the Government was. If it was not rhetoric it was unpardonable exaggeration on the part of the hon. Member for Caithness when he said that all ships should be confiscated. There is absolutely no power to do that.

DR. CLARK

I was only referring to the foreign trawlers trawling within the three-mile limit.

*MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

No foreign trawler has ever been caught within the three-mile limit or has ever been seen within the limit. What the hon. Member for Caithness has said has no application to the subject in hand, for the reason that no foreign trawler has ever been caught or seen.

DR. CLARK

Time after time I have seen them in my own district.

*MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

There is no recorded case, no case that is based on report, not only from our own vessels, but from the vessels of the Admiralty, of foreign vessels trawling within the three-mile limit. I think that finishes what it is necessary to say upon this question of the Moray Firth. To sum up I say that as a matter of fact we have accepted the law as it stands, and we have striven honestly to carry it out. We have done that by means of the forces at our disposal, and we have been ably seconded in the matter by the Admiralty. The area to which we have to direct our attention is a very large one, because it is the area of the whole coast of Scotland. The coast-line of Scotland is a long one, and it is not altogether practicable, in the matter of police, to keep your eye on every part of it. Here, again, are the exaggerations and denunciations which particularly obtain in the Moray Firth. We have doubled the ships in use for police purposes. I would remind the House that we obtained from the Treasury more money last year, and at the present moment the ships are building and will be delivered in August—one, a new cruiser, at the cost of £7,000, and one a picket boat, at a cost of £2,500. The hon. Member spoke of the 13-mile limit. Now, probably I could get rid of that by calling attention to the terms of his Motion. Under the existing state of the law there is no de facto prohibition of trawling within the 13-mile limit. That really ends the matter. The hon. Member made certain remarks, probably not within the terms of his Motion, and perhaps I ought to take very little notice of them. I am quite at one with him in my sympathy with the fishing classes, and in his desire to put down trawling, if it interferes with fishing. Still, at the same time there are other things in the world besides trawling; and I ask the hon. Member, with a knowledge of the state of Foreign affairs during the last two years, whether he considers this a favourable time to stir up this question of the North Sea Convention? I do not think he would like to stir it up. Considering the state of things in Europe, in the East, and in every part of the globe, and having regard to other and wider interests, we thought it was better to leave this question of the fisheries over for the present.

MR. J. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

I do not think any of us will deny that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman's belief about the facts may be, the law ought to be obeyed, and that it is a duty, seeing that the law keeps the Moray Firth closed, to enforce that law. The Admiralty and the Scottish Office can enforce it. I want to call attention to a very peculiar feature of the present question. It is this: we have passed an Act by which the Moray Firth is closed to trawlers belonging to our own country. No Scottish and no English trawler can ply its industry within those waters; but there is, I think, little or no prospect that we shall have any power to exclude foreign trawlers from those waters. The consequence is that every night there is a considerable number of those foreign trawlers at work up and down the Moray Firth, while our trawlers are debarred from entering the Firth, and our fishermen complain that a law passed for their benefit has turned out to be no benefit at all. That is a preposterous state of things. We are able to keep out our own trawlers and we are not able to keep out foreign trawlers. We are suffering at the hands of the foreigner, and Englishmen and Scotsmen are able to get no benefit out of the water. The result will be that the foreigner, having been allowed to come to our coasts by this admirable opening in the Moray Firth, will be likely to ply his trade more than he has hitherto done. Once they come to the Moray Firth they are likely to trawl a great deal more along the edge of the three-mile limit, or perhaps inside it. But foreign trawlers are able to come into the Moray Firth, and we have no power to keep them out, whilst British trawlers are not allowed to come in. We are able to keep out our own trawlers, but we have no power to keep out foreign trawlers. Under those circumstances I put it to the Lord Advocate whether it is worth while to keep up this prohibition against landing fish in Scotch ports? If it had the effect of keeping foreign trawlers out of the Moray Firth I could understand it, but if it is shown by experience that it has not that effect, then I do not see what use is gained by it. I put it to the Attorney General that if in his opinion the prohibition does not effect the purpose for which it was intended, there is no use in it whatever. The argument on which the closing of the Moray Firth was based was to ascertain by experiment whether or no the prohibition of trawlers would be for the benefit of line fishermen, and to see if the spawning grounds would be better and the supply of fish larger. There might be some justification for trying that experiment, but in order to try it carefully and thoroughly, you must keep out all trawlers, and I believe there are at this time no less than five foreign trawlers working up and down day and night. The facts connected with trawling are clothed in so much mystery that I will not commit myself to numbers. I have heard there were 11 trawlers working the Moray Firth, but I know there are five. At any rate, there are sufficient to prevent the experiment being carried out, and, if it cannot be carried out, the reason for which the Moray Firth was closed falls to the ground, and the Government ought to reconsider their position with regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend, that negotiations should be entered into with foreign Governments. I think the considerations to which the Lord Advocate has referred render it extremely unlikely that they would be successful, and I think my hon. Friend had better confine himself to insisting on the maintenance of the law, and also to calling the attention of the Government of the day to the absurdities of the present position.

*SIR M. STEWART

This is a matter of considerable importance, not only affecting the Moray Firth, but the Southern and Western coasts of Scotland as well. We could hardly expect this Committee to come to a decision in this matter without considering the importance of it with regard to the Western and Southern portions of the country. I think the case of the hon. Gentleman opposite was answered by the speech of the Lord Advocate, which showed very clearly that the Government could not be accused of being dilatory in the matter, but that they have looked very carefully into the matter with some measure of success. We cannot ignore the great truth that the North Sea Convention has done some good, and that if it had not been for that Convention we should have had scenes relating to the drink traffic as black and dismal as were ever portrayed in Zola's novels. The point I wish to address myself to is what is going on in the South and West of Scotland, especially the Solway Firth. There are places there where Foreign trawlers come night and day, and what has been the result? We had, a few years ago, some of the best sea fishing in Scotland, but the foreign and southern trawlers have come up and have simply devastated the spawning beds, and, instead of their producing large numbers of fish annually, there are very few now caught there. The result of that is that inhabited places have gone down, and you will not find now one man fishing where in times gone by you found ten. Now, that is a very bad thing for that part of the country, and if the law can do anything at all it ought to stop illegal acts. We had for a long time a ship stationed there, called the Jackall, but it was so miserably slow that the trawlers could always get out of its way. For years and years we made representations to this House, to both Governments, and little has been done. Both Governments are to blame. What we want is to improve our sea fishing, and to employ more men on it. That is the great object we have, so that by following an industrial occupation they can keep their wives and families in a respectable manner. I hope the Government will see their way to putting faster boats upon this duty. I am perfectly certain that if they do the animosity which exists between English and Scottish fishermen would disappear in a great measure. English trawlers come up from the South and break up our spawning beds and destroy our oyster fisheries, very valuable a few years ago, and I think it is time to put our foot down and see what can be done. We have had a very fair speech from the Lord Advocate, and I thank him for what he has done, and I hope he will continue his good work. So long as they do not confine their energies to the Moray Firth I shall be satisfied. You must remember that we have not only got good spawning beds, but also cod fisheries, and I want to see something done to benefit them. If I can make my voice heard in this House, it shall be heard to-night, because we have laboured these grievances year after year, and as I consider we want this Measure on the southern coasts, I am determined it shall be considered, as well as the Moray Firth. We know we have plenty of fish there, and these beds might be regenerated if they are only protected. One cod-fish will produce 60,000,000 in one year, and therefore it is not impossible to recover the ground we have lost. I do hope and trust that not only shall we have these improvements, but that the law will be carried out in its integrity.

CAPTAIN SINCLAIR

I was extremely glad to hear the hon. Baronet opposite take part in this Debate, because everything he said has supported the contention of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. I have a vivid recollection of the fact that within six months of the present Government taking office nearly all the Members, and defeated candidates, representing Scottish constituencies laid before the present Secretary the three points urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire to-night. I am sorry more of those Gentlemen are not here to support in the House the attitude they took up with regard to this question. No one can complain of the way it has been put before the House. I cannot but feel, upon the question as between trawlers and line fishermen, that the three mile limit was enacted, not in the interests of a particular class of fishermen, but in the interests of the fisheries, and upon that ground I regret exceedingly that the Government has not been able to meet my hon. Friend more than they have to-night. The whole blame of not negotiating with foreign powers lies on the present Government, and it is their fault that negotiations have not been entered into and offers made in this matter.

ADMIRAL FIELD

I do not profess to be versed in the mysteries of the Scottish Fisheries question, though I have been to Scotland, and was very glad to get away from it. But there is a Naval view to be taken of this question, which I do not think has been taken by any hon. Member who has yet spoken. I listened with attention and respect to the observations which fell from the hon. Gentleman opposite, and he expressed a wish that the law might be enforced by the Admiralty, and then he went on to demonstrate how impossible it was for the Admiralty to enforce the law if the trawlers come into the Moray Firth. Now, this service is a most unpopular one in the Navy altogether. You may say that that does not affect the question, but we want Naval officers and men for better work than this. I want to see them withdrawn altogether from this service. I should like to see this duty withdrawn from the Admiralty altogether, and a body of water police enrolled, such as you have on the Thames. You would then relieve the Admiralty from a very unpleasant duty, and you would satisfy the Scotchmen, because they would do their own work in their own way. I have heard a good deal to-night about slow vessels, but, as I have already said, I object to spending public money in this way. We want the money for more officers and more men, and I think it is most injurious to spend it in trying to do what is impossible. We cannot keep off foreign trawlers from within the three-mile limit. Why does not the hon. Member for Caithness propose an international congress, to get the limit altered to five miles? He will be a long time before he does get it altered, and when he does the limit will be broken at once. It can only be done by international agreement. I should be very pleased to see something more profitable engaging our attention, but hon. Gentlemen opposite must remember that we are not responsible for this Resolution. It is put down before the House. We do not want it, we dislike it very much. It calls up memories of the past, and we remember that we never have satisfied the Scotch Members, and never shall, unless we send the whole Navy to look after this matter. Now, the hon. Member for Caithness is a Scotchman, and has broad common sense, and if he would only turn his attention to bringing in a Bill which would leave the means at their own disposal, the Admiralty might be relieved of this unprofitable work, and everybody would be satisfied. My sympathy with the Scotch fishermen is very great, and I am sorry to hear that the fishing is falling off, and that wages are not so high as formerly was the case, but we are not responsible for that, you must blame the foreigners for that, and I do protest, as a Naval man, against Naval officers and men being used for this duty. We have had ships wrecked, and lives lost upon it, and yet the hon. Members for Scotland are not satisfied. As I said before, my sympathies are with the Scotch fishermen, they are a splendid race of men, and I should like to see thousands of them enrolled in the Naval Reserve, but I do protest against the waste of time and the badgering of the Admiralty in this matter.

MR. A. CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)

The question has been put before the House by the hon. and gallant Admiral who has just sat down from a Naval point of view, and now I desire to speak upon it from a consumer's point of view. I desire to ask the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House whether their speeches are to be taken as the initiation of an agitation against trawling outside the three-mile limit on the part of foreign trawlers? If it is the intention of those gentlemen to put forward that view, it is an unwise proceeding in this House to discuss it. Let me remind the House of what it may have forgotten. Trawling is the modern and cheap way of fishing, obtaining much fish at a nominal cost. From information and facts put before me, I find, and I think it stands to reason, that the cost at which fish can be obtained by trawling is infinitely less than that by which it can be caught by a line, which is the old-fashioned and precarious way, and attended with enormous danger. I might remind the House that there are not many Members connected with fishing constituencies who do not want the votes of the fishermen, and I desire to remind those gentlemen that the trawling industry is not one to be put down. So far as I can see, no case has been made against the Government for any change to be made, and I shall certainly give them my support.

MR. TENNANT

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down rather hints that those who are interested in this question are interested by reason of the fishermen's votes. Now, I feel constrained to repudiate that entirely so far as I am concerned. My hon. and gallant Friend sitting below the Gangway spoke about wasting our Naval forces upon this unpleasant duty. I maintain that it is the duty of the Government to see that the law is enforced, and if, in the exercise of that duty, they have to call in our Naval power, there is no "wasting" about that. Speaking for the constituency I represent, I certainly think it is the duty of the Government to enforce the law in this matter, in the interests not only of the fishermen, but also of the general community and the fish.

*MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON (Preston)

The exception I take to this Motion is of an altogether different kind from that which the Lord Advocate has advanced, and I think on the grounds I have to urge I ought to have the sympathy of, at any rate, the hon. Member for Caithness. I have not the honour of representing a Scotch constituency, but I would remind the House that this is not by any means exclusively a Scotch question. There are parts of England, including those on the West coast, where steam trawling is felt as a grievance, and as to which I have heard complaints of the spawning beds being denuded of their proper allowance of fish by reason of irregular trawling; and I think it only right that an English Member should rise and join in the protest made by hon. Members from Scotland—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The Resolution has relation to "trawling in the waters round the Scotch coast," and the hon. Member will not be in order in travelling outside the question of trawling in Scottish waters.

*MR. TOMLINSON

I was about to put myself in order by moving an Amendment. I would ask you, Sir, whether I shall be in order in moving to leave out the word "Scottish" and substitute the word "British"?

MR. BUCHANAN

I beg to move that the Question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER

I think the hon. Gentleman should, strictly speaking, have offered his Amendment before the Debate had gone its present length, and for this reason I feel bound, in the circumstances, to accept this Motion.

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Rickett, J. Compton
Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Roberts, Jno. H. (Denbighs.)
Ascroft, Robert Goddard, Daniel Ford Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Asher, Alexander Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Austin, Sir Jno. (Yorkshire) Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Schwann, Charles E.
Baker, Sir John Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm. Shaw, Thos. (Hawick B.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.) Harwood, George Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Hazell, Walter Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Billson, Alfred Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Spicer, Albert
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Holburn, J. G. Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Brigg, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Stuart, Jas. (Shoreditch)
Broadhurst, Henry Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Kitson, Sir James Tanner, Charles Kearns
Bucknill, Thomas Townsend Knox, Edm. Francis Vesey Tennant, Harold John
Burns, John Lambert, George Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Caldwell, James Leuty, Thos. Richmond Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)
Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Lewis, John Herbert Walrond, Sir William Hood
Causton, Richard Knight Logan, John William Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) MacAleese, Daniel Warr, Augustus Frederick
Clough, Walter Owen Maddison, Fred. Wedderburn, Sir William
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Maden, John Henry Willox, Sir John Archibald
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)
Doogan, P. C. Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm. (Bute) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudrsfld.)
Doughty, George Norton, Capt. Cecil William Woods, Samuel
Duckworth, James O'Brien, Jas. F. X. (Cork)
Dunn, Sir William Philipps, John Wynford TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fenwick, Charles Pinkerton, John Mr. Buchanan and Colonel
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Denny.
Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne Randell, David
NOES.
Anstruther, H. T. Charrington, Spencer Gunter, Colonel
Arrol, Sir William Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh) Hanson, Sir Reginald
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Heath, James
Bagot, Capt. J. Fitzroy Coghill, Douglas Harry Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth. (Down)
Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness) Corbett, A. Cameron (Glsgw.) Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-
Baird, John Geo. Alexander Cranborne, Viscount Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Johnston, William (Belfast)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwvn Edw. Kemp, George
Bill, Charles Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Kimber, Henry
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Finch, George H. Lafone, Alfred
Brassey, Albert Fisher, William Hayes Lawrence, Wm. F. (Lpool.)
Brookfield, A. Montagu FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swnsea)
Bullard, Sir Harry Flannery, Fortescue Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Butcher, John George Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Garfit, William Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex) Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Cecil, Lord Hugh Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lowe, Francis William
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Gull, Sir Cameron Lowles, John

Motion made, and Question proposed— That the Question be now put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 95.

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Rickett, J. Compton
Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Roberts, Jno. H. (Denbighs.)
Ascroft, Robert Goddard, Daniel Ford Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Asher, Alexander Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Austin, Sir Jno. (Yorkshire) Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Schwann, Charles E.
Baker, Sir John Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm. Shaw, Thos. (Hawick B.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.) Harwood, George Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Hazell, Walter Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Billson, Alfred Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Spicer, Albert
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Holburn, J. G. Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Brigg, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Stuart, Jas. (Shoreditch)
Broadhurst, Henry Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Kitson, Sir James Tanner, Charles Kearns
Bucknill, Thomas Townsend Knox, Edm. Francis Vesey Tennant, Harold John
Burns, John Lambert, George Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Caldwell, James Leuty, Thos. Richmond Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)
Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Lewis, John Herbert Walrond, Sir William Hood
Causton, Richard Knight Logan, John William Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) MacAleese, Daniel Warr, Augustus Frederick
Clough, Walter Owen Maddison, Fred. Wedderburn, Sir William
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Maden, John Henry Willox, Sir John Archibald
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)
Doogan, P. C. Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm. (Bute) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudrsfld.)
Doughty, George Norton, Capt. Cecil William Woods, Samuel
Duckworth, James O'Brien, Jas. F. X. (Cork)
Dunn, Sir William Philipps, John Wynford TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fenwick, Charles Pinkerton, John Mr. Buchanan and Colonel
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Denny.
Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne Randell, David
NOES.
Anstruther, H. T. Charrington, Spencer Gunter, Colonel
Arrol, Sir William Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh) Hanson, Sir Reginald
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Heath, James
Bagot, Capt. J. Fitzroy Coghill, Douglas Harry Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth. (Down)
Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness) Corbett, A. Cameron (Glsgw.) Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-
Baird, John Geo. Alexander Cranborne, Viscount Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Johnston, William (Belfast)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwvn Edw. Kemp, George
Bill, Charles Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Kimber, Henry
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Finch, George H. Lafone, Alfred
Brassey, Albert Fisher, William Hayes Lawrence, Wm. F. (Lpool.)
Brookfield, A. Montagu FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swnsea)
Bullard, Sir Harry Flannery, Fortescue Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Butcher, John George Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Garfit, William Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex) Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Cecil, Lord Hugh Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lowe, Francis William
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Gull, Sir Cameron Lowles, John
Lucas-Shadwell, William Pollock, Harry Frederick Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Pryce-Jones, Edward Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Macdona, John Cumming Purvis, Robert Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Maclure, Sir John William Renshaw, Charles Bine Webster, Sir R. E. (I. ot W.)
M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool) Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlpl.) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
M'Killop, James Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wharton, Rt. Hn. Jno. Lloyd
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Royds, Clement Molyneux Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Monckton, Edward Philip Rutherford, John Williams, Josh. Powell- (Birm.)
More, Robert Jasper Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Morrell, George Herbert Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptfrd.) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Newdigate, Francis Alex. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Mr. Tomlinson and Mr.
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Alexander Cross.
*MR. TOMLINSON

I will now, Sir, move the Amendment that I suggested—namely, to substitute the word "British" for the word "Scottish," and I have this reason for doing so. The hon. Member for Caithness referred to a matter which has come under my observation on more than one occasion in discussing Bills bearing upon the fishing industry and kindred subjects, and that is the inconvenience which arises from the difference in the law between England and Scotland. It appears to me that the Government will never be able to enforce the kind of restriction which is required on the action of foreign trawlers unless we have one law for the whole country, and foreigners are precluded from selling fish in ports throughout the whole coast of Great Britain. As the law now stands, I believe the hon. Member for Caithness was correct, when he said that a Scotch trawler might land his fish at an English port and an English trawler might land his fish at a Scottish port. I think if there is any virtue in the prohibition at all, the law should be uniform throughout the kingdom. It seems to me that it is idle to complain about the difficulty of obtaining an agreement between the nations of Europe extending the limit to 13 miles if we do not do what we can to prevent the foreigner profiting by poaching on British shores. In the interests of both English and Scottish fishing beds, it may be desirable to reconsider the policy of the Act prescribing the 13-mile limit until we have had a conference of Foreign Powers. But that is a matter rather outside the Motion before the House, and I will content myself with moving the Amendment.

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

I rise, Sir, to second that Amendment. My hon. Friends opposite will agree with me that it is very desirable to bring to bear as much influence as we can to get the last Scottish Act of Parliament on this subject strengthened as much as possible. The difficulty we now suffer from is that the foreign trawlers that come within the 13-mile limit catch our Scottish fish and land it in English ports, but if this word "British" is introduced instead of the word "Scottish," we shall get the whole support of English Members in assisting us Scotchmen in any representations made to foreign Powers. I think this is one of the most important things that we who represent Scottish constituencies can have to deal with. Our fishermen are an industrious, hard-working lot of men, and it is rather an anachronism in the 19th century that we should permit them to be interfered with by foreign steam trawlers. My hon. Friend the Member for the Camlachie Division said he spoke in the interests of the consumers. I also would venture to speak as a consumer. Anyone who has had the satisfaction of eating good Scotch fish caught on a hand line will thoroughly recognise the difference there is between that find fish caught by trawlers. The fish are thrown on board the vessels in a huge mass; they remain there during the time the ship is on her way to the port, and it stands to reason that fish caught on a hand line must be in every respect superior.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

I think the course of the Debate we have had this evening shows, at least, this: that no effective reply can be made to the case which I had the honour of presenting to the Committee on behalf of the Government. I do not gather that anyone has controverted the fact that the Government have done their best to enforce the existing state of the law. In fact, so far from that, we have had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen in which he complained bitterly of our enforcing the law too strongly. In that state of things, I think my view of the hon. Member's Motion as originally put before the House, was quite correct. It was a Resolution that I could fairly give adhesion to, because it was merely a pious opinion. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Preston expresses such a superabundance

of piety that I am most happy to accept it. Indeed, I fail to see how anyone can possibly object to the Resolution with or without this Amendment.

DR. CLARK

I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston would make nonsense of this Resolution. There are special laws for Scotland with regard to trawling, but there are no such laws for England, and it would be simply nonsensical for the House to declare that it is the imperative duty of the Government to see that laws are enforced which do not in fact exist.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'Scottish' in order to insert the word 'British.'"—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question put— That the word 'Scottish' stand part of the Question.

The House divided.—Ayes 73; Noes 117.

AYES.
Asher, Alexander Fenwick, Charles Philipps, John Wynford
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) Pinkerton, John
Baird, John Geo. Alexander Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Baker, Sir John Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Randell, David
Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Rickett, J. Compton
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful Goddard, Daniel Ford Roberts, Jno. H. (Denbighs.)
Billson, Alfred Gull, Sir Cameron Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Brigg, John Hazell, Walter Shaw, Thos. (Hawick B.)
Broadhurst, Henry Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Brookfield, A. Montagu Holburn, J. G. Spicer, Albert
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Buchanan, Thos. Ryburn Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Burns, John Johnston, William (Belfast) Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Caldwell, James Kitson, Sir James Tanner, Charles Kearns
Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Knox, Edm. Francis Vesey Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Causton, Richard Knight Lambert, George Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Clough, Walter Owen Leuty, Thos. Richmond Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lewis, John Herbert Wedderburn, Sir William
Crilly, Daniel Logan, John William Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Denny, Colonel Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)
Doogan, P. C. MacAleese, Daniel Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudrsfld.)
Doughty, George Maddison, Fred. Woods, Samuel
Duckworth, James Maden, John Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Dunn, Sir William Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Dr. Clark and Mr. Tennant.
NOES.
Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Anstruther, H. T. Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Monckton, Edward Philip
Arrol, Sir William Finch, George H. More, Robert Jasper
Ascroft, Robert Fisher, William Hayes Morrell, George Herbert
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose Morton, Arth. H. A. (Deptford)
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Flannery, Fortescue Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm. (Bute)
Bailey, Jas. (Walworth) Forster, Henry William Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.) Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur B. Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds) Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Nussey, Thomas Willans
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Garfit, William Pollock, Harry Frederick
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Pryce-Jones, Edward
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's) Purvis, Robert
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bill, Charles Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlpl.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gunter, Colonel Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brassey, Albert Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hanson, Sir Reginald Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Bucknill, Thomas Townsend Heath, James Rutherford, John
Bullard, Sir Harry Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth. (Down) Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Butcher, John George Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Kemp George Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Cecil, Lord Hugh Kennaway, R. Hon. Sir John H. Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Kimber, Henry Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Lafone, Alfred Walrond, Sir William Hood
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc) Llewelyn, Sir Diilwyn- (Swnsea) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Charrington, Spencer Loder, Garald Walter Erskine Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Lpl.) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Coghill, Douglas Harry Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Wharton, Rt. Hn. Jno. Lloyd
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lowe, Francis William Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Cranborne, Viscount Lowles, John Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lucas-Shadwell, William Williams, Josh. Powell- (Birm.)
Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.) Macartney, W. G. Ellison Willox, Sir John Archibald
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.) Macdona, John Cumming Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Maclure, Sir John William Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Davenport, W. Bromley- M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- M'Killop, James Mr. Tomlinson and Mr.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Cochrane.

Question put— That the word 'British' be there inserted.

The House divided.—Ayes 101; Noes 89.

AYES.
Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme) Brodriek, Rt. Hon. St. John Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Anstruther, H. T. Brookfield, A. Montagu Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc S W)
Arrol, Sir William Bucknill, Thos. Townsend Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bullard, Sir Harry Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Baird, Jno. Geo. Alexander Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.) Cecil, Lord Hugh Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds) Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Fisher, William Hayes
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.) FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Flannery, Fortescue
Bill, Charles Charrington, Spencer Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Coghill, Douglas Harry Garfit, William
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Brassey, Albert Cranborne, Viscount Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's)
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Macartney, W. G. Ellison Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Macdona, John Cumming Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Gunter, Colonel M'Killop, James Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo. Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm. Monckton, Edward Philip Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hanson, Sir Reginald More, Robert Jasper Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Morrell, George Herbert Walrond, Sir William Hood
Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Morton, Arth. H. A. (Deptford) Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm. (Bute) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Kemp, George Newdigate, Francis Alex. Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Nussey, Thomas Willans Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Kimber, Henry Pryce-Jones, Edward Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swnsea) Purvis, Robert Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlpl.) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W. Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Lpl.) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Lowe, Francis William Royds, Clement Molyneux TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Lowles, John Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Mr. Tomlinson and Mr.
Lucas-Shadwell, William Rutherford, John Cochrane.
NOES.
Ascroft, Robert Finch, George H. Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Asher, Alexander Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Forster, Henry William Philipps, John Wynford
Baker, Sir John Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arth. B. Pinkerton, John
Bayley, Thomas (Derbysh.) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Pollock, Harry Frederick
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful Goddard, Daniel Ford Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gull, Sir Cameron Randell, David
Billson, Alfred Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hazell, Walter Rickett, J. Compton
Brigg, John Heath, James Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Broadhurst, Henry Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth. (Down) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Holburn, J. G.
Burns, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Spicer, Albert
Butcher, John George Johnston, Wm. (Belfast) Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Caldwell, James Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Kitson, Sir James Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Causton, Richard Knight Knox, Edm. Francis Vesey Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Lafone, Alfred Tanner, Charles Kearns
Clough, Walter Owen Lambert, George Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgw) Lawrence, Wm. F. (Lpool.) Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)
Crilly, Daniel Leuty, Thos. Richmond Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Davenport, W. Bromley- Lewis, John Herbert Warr, Augustus Frederick
Denny, Colonel Logan, John William Wedderburn, Sir William
Doogan, P. C. Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Wilson, John (Falkirk).
Doughty, George MacAleese, Daniel Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)
Duckworth, James Maclure, Sir Jno. William Woodhouse Sir J. T. (Hudrsfld.)
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Maddison, Fred. Woods, Samuel
Dunn, Sir William Maden, John Henry
Fenwick, Charles Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Morton, Edward J. C. (Devnpt.) Dr. Clark and Mr. Tennant

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved— That it is the imperative duty of the Government to see that the Law with regard to Trawling in the waters round the British coasts is properly enforced.

The House adjourned at 12.5.