§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,097, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for grants in aid of piers or quays."
1204§ (10.15.) MR. WEIRsaid he wished to urge the importance of checking the invasion of steam trawlers within the three-mile limit on the coasts of the Highlands of Scotland. Many of the fishermen in the villages round the coast of Scotland were in a very bad condition on account of the destruction which the trawlers caused by coming within the three-mile limit. The result was that many of these fishing villages were becoming depopulated. He could not understand why the Government did not see that it was of the utmost importance to maintain the line fishermen in their villages, because it was from them that a largo supply of men for the Royal Navy might be drawn. In the Report of the Fishery Board it was stated that owing to the success of the trawling industry several new companies had been incorporated last year in Aberdeen, from which port no fewer than thirty additional steam trawlers went to sea last year. The Scottish office ought to make an effort to secure mere fishery cruisers to prevent illegal trawling. He was not opposed to the trawlers, but they should get out to sea, and if they were found within the three-mile limit they should be prosecuted. The right hon. Gentleman tried to throw the whole onus of these prosecutions upon the fishermen, but how could they go out in the dead of night or indeed at any time to catch the trawlers? If care was taken to see that the cruisers at the disposal of the Fishery Board performed their duties the fisherman would be placed in a better position. More severe punishments should be meted out to illegal trawlers. No doubt the Lord Advocate would tell them that the Fishery Board cruisers had captured so many trawlers, but they expected them to make captures. There ought to be more energy displayed.
With regard to the question of fishing in the Moray Firth, it was said that an international conference was being arranged, and that the Fishery Board of Scotland would be represented. They had been told that this country was going to contribute £42,000 for this purpose, but they had not been told how much other countries were going to contribute. The Secretary for Scotland had refused to allow the question of the extension of the three mile limit to be dealt 1205 with at this conference by the gentlemen who would represent this country. For years he had called the attention of the Committee to this question, but dust had been thrown in their eyes and no communications have been made to the signatories to the North Sea Convention in the interests of the line fishermen. He also wished to state that he thought it was part of the duty of the Fishery Board to see that the small fishing harbours were put into a proper condition for the convenience of fishermen. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bring under the notice of the Fishery Board the necessity for making some arrangements for the clearing away of the sand which had accumulated in some of the harbours. In conclusion, he said that as it was the practice of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to remain silent if no Motion was made, he thought he had better protect himself by moving a reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,997, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Weir.)
§ (10.30.) COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)said he was sorry to differ from the hon. Member who had just sat down in regard to the line fishermen, because the greatest possible consideration had always been meted out to them. The particular case, however, to which he wished to refer had been dealt with in a most sympathetic way by the Lord Advocate, and he believed that if he could present a good case, the right hon. Gentleman would continue his sympathetic treatment. The case was a rather complicated one, but it would be understood at any rate by all the Scotch Members present. The case he wished to raise was in reference to the lease of some very valuable fishing rights in the Firth of Clyde. By this lease certain number of poor fishermen had been deprived of a right which they had hitherto exercised of collecting mussels for bait from the scalps in the Firth of Clyde. These scalps had been worked by a number of fishermen in very poor circumstances, to whom this privilege meant a good deal. It was true that a 1206 complaint was made that they were impoverishing the mussel beds by this practice, but this was open to question. Some time ago, for the ostensible purpose of preserving and improving these mussel beds, a lease was given to an individual, against whom he (Col. Denny) had not a word to say personally, but the circumstances of granting the lease formed a matter of grave dispute, and ultimately was brought before the Scottish Courts, who gave a decision which deprived these men of this means of livelihood. He did not wish in any way to impugn the impartiality of any Court, but he thought it would be much more satisfactory to get some of the very large questions involved settled for good and all in the House of Lords, and so these men wished to carry an appeal to the House of Lords. He wished to impress upon the Committee the fact that these men were among the very poorest in the community, and they were in great straits to find the means to defend themselves in Court. For an appeal there appeared to be an Order in the House of Lords whereby a deposit of £200 required to be made by the appellants before proceedings could be commenced. It would be just as reasonable to ask these men for £2,000, because they could not find the money, and he would ask the Lord Advocate whether it were not possible to have the matter so adjusted that the men might be heard and the case thoroughly argued. He did not know whether the Lord Advocate was in a position himself to grant the concession, but he hoped his right hon. friend would give him some leading as to how the case could be heard with the least possible delay, and the minimum of expense, because it was a matter of the greatest importance to a considerable number of poor men. No stone had been left unturned to find out whether the Fishery Board had acted ultra vires, or had been within their rights in taking away from those men an occupation, they had followed for years and letting the beds to one individual. He repeated that against that individual he had nothing personally to say. He was an expert on fisheries and fishing questions, and must be assumed to have a knowledge necessary for improving the scalps. But whether he were qualified or not, that did not appeal to the minds of men who had been put out of their occupation at the will of a Board whose action and 1207 whose powers they question. He would ask the Lord Advocate if he would, in any way he could, facilitate the appeal to the House of Lords in order that the matter might be set at rest once and for all.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid that in the Vote before the Committee there was a reduction of £2,000 in connection with the scientific investigation hitherto carried on by the Fishery Board of Scotland for some years. The discontinuance of that grant was, as the Committee were aware from what fell from the President of the Board of Trade the other day, connected with the larger undertaking now entered into by this country, in combination with other North Sea Powers, to carry out a scheme of investigation in the North Sea. He should like to point out that any international investigation of the North Sea need not necessarily conflict with the work hitherto carried on by the Fishery Board of Scotland. Everyone connected with the fisheries of Scotland, and of the United Kingdom generally, must welcome the inception of that enterprise which was due to the Stockholm and other conferences, and to which this country had agreed to contribute, for three years, a sum of £16,000. They welcomed that, because it would lead not only to further knowledge, but also to further co-operation as to the fish food supplies of the countries bordering on the North Sea. He thought, however, that it was to be deeply regretted that the work carried on hitherto by the Fishery Board of Scotland should be discontinued in that summary fashion. The grant had been discontinued, but no information had been vouchsafed as to what that continuance actually meant; or whether it was now actually too late to consider if it were advisable or not. It was only too much to be feared that the scientific work of the Fishery Board had already been discontinued. That seemed to him to be a very serious matter. In the first place, they did not spend too much money in this country on scientific investigation—that was not a fault they had—and secondly, they had interrupted the good work which had been proceeding for a 1208 number of years. Hon. Members representing English constituencies might remember the various monographs which had appeared on various fishing subjects—there was a remarkable one on the salmon—and which were all the work of the Fishery Board of Scotland. Not only was the discontinuance of that work a loss to scientific work generally, but it was in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the last Committee of this House which inquired into these matters. Three years ago, a Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, considered a Bill introduced by the Board of Trade, and the result was that that Bill was dropped, and in the Report of the Committee would be found the following words—
The Scotch Fishery Board had accumulated some valuable statistics, but their investigations have been hampered by inadequate means. They have no more money at their disposal, and the vessel which they have for scientific investigation is undoubtedly too small. Yet such as they are, they are the only investigations made by any department in the Kingdom devoted to that subject only.Then the Committee went on to say that no effort ought to be spared to provide for the adequate equipment of a Government department in charge of the subject so that they might effectively pursue scientific investigation. The competency of the work of the Fishery Board had never been questioned, the only complaint being that they had not an adequate equipment to carry it on. Their vessel, as was known to all Scottish Members interested in the subject, was never able to go to sea far from the coast, and had never been properly equipped for scientific investigation; yet in spite of these deficiencies, their work had been most valuable. What he wished to put before the right hon. Gentleman was that there was room for local scientific investigation as well as for international scientific investigation. At present they knew nothing as to the scheme of the North Sea investigation, but it must be obvious to all that an examination of the currents, the sand banks, and the breeding grounds of the North Sea would be most valuable to this country, but it should not conflict with the scientific work which had hitherto been carried on in the creeks, estuaries, and inlets of Scotland, Everyone knew that the great 1209 increase in trawling had led to a diminution in the demand for mussels and other bait; but it had always appeared to him that mussels could be cultivated, not only for bait, but also for food. There was not the slightest reason why mussels and other shell fish, valuable for food, should not be welcomed by the humbler classes; and he was not without hope that scientific investigation would enable them to cope with the supply of that form of food. He by no means wished to discourage the larger effort which was to be carried out in the North Sea. He himself pleaded for it, and joined in recommending it; but he hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it would not be allowed to interrupt or interfere with the work of the Fishery Board. That Board was the only Government department which had been carrying on this particular kind of work, and it would be a great loss to the country if it were discontinued. Of course, they would have to remember the year they lived in, and the answer which would be given to all who pleaded for extra expense; but there was a distinction in the case he was now pleading. He did not plead for an expense which had not hitherto been incurred, but for a Vote which was about to be discontinued. The importance of the herring fishery was peculiarly grave in Scotland, and on Scotch grounds alone he maintained that there ought to have been more deliberation before the work of the Fishery Board had been given up. He wished further to know what steps would be necessary to discontinue that work. Had the Board still got their ship; was it too late to remedy what seemed to him to be a great mistake; and what precautions had been taken that the country should not be at a loss by the discontinuance of the work? He put these questions on behalf of several of his hon. friends; and it seemed to him that it would be a matter of very great regret if the work of the Board were to be discontinued.
§ (10.10.) MR. ORR-EWING (Ayr Burghs)said he cordially agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that it would be a great pity if the funds of the Fishery Board of Scotland were reduced in any way on account of the North Sea investigation. That 1210 investigation, no doubt, would lead to some agreement being arrived at in connection with fishing beyond the three-mile limit; but there was great scope for inquiry within the three-mile limit. The hon. Member for Ross and other hon. Members had often mentioned that line-fishing had greatly deteriorated in the last few years, and the blame had always been placed on the trawlers coming within the three-mile limit. No doubt they came within that limit very often, and it was almost impossible to protect certain parts of the coast; but, at the same time, he thought the question depended almost more on the breeding of the fish than on the depredations of the trawlers. Everyone would agree that fish must breed somewhere, and if their breeding-grounds were destroyed, then, naturally, the fish diminished. The harm the trawlers did was in destroying the banks. The Fishery Board had been blamed very often, but he thought they had taken a step in the right direction in regard to the Ballantrae banks, off the coast of Ayrshire. These banks had been ruined, to a very great extent, in late years, not by trawlers within the limit, but by seine-net trawlers, and also trammel-net fishing; and the result was that the fishing all along the coast had suffered. The Fishery Board had now prohibited seine-net trawling in certain months, but they still allowed trammel-net fishing. The banks outside the three-mile limit had also been ruined, and, therefore, it was all the more important that the banks inside the three-mile limit should be protected. Seine-net trawling undoubtedly did very great harm to the banks, because the spawn was destroyed. On the other hand, trammel-net fishing also did a great deal of harm, as, when the net was hauled up, a great many dead fish fell out, and the banks for breeding purposes were destroyed by the dead fish being allowed to lie on them. He had mentioned the matter to the Fishery Board, and they informed him that they found in Loch Fyne that several dead fish came up in the net, but that, in spite of that, the herring returned to the lough every year. The case was, however, different from that of the Ballantrae banks. Everybody who knew Loch Fyne knew that it varied in depth from 1211 thirty to eighty fathoms, the tides were very strong, and the dead fish were swept away. On the Ballantrae banks the water, however, was only eight or nine fathoms deep, and the tides were very slack, with the result that the dead fish remained on the banks, and undoubtedly did a very great deal of harm. What he wished to impress upon the Committee was the necessity of prohibiting fishing on these banks during the spawning season, and, further, that the Fishery Board should do everything it could to encourage the breeding of fish within the three mile limit. That would not only be a benefit to the locality concerned, but would improve the fishing all round the coast.
§ MR. ASHER (Elgin Burghs)said he wished to bring before his right hon. and learned friend, the Lord Advocate, the fact that there prevailed in all parts of Scotland interested in fishing a great deal of anxiety in regard to the alteration in the estimate for the Fishery Board of Scotland. The amount for scientific investigation had been reduced from £3,000 to something like £700. At first sight, that undoubtedly appeared to be rather a serious matter. Twenty years ago the Fishery Board were given a Vote for the purposes of scientific investigation. Those connected with fishery matters knew quite well that that investigation would necessarily extend over a long period of time, and it was hoped that it would result in the accumulation of such an amount of precise knowledge with regard to fishery matters as would probably lead to an international arrangement with regard to the fisheries in the North Sea. The alteration in the amount of the Vote had, however, changed that policy. No doubt, his right hon. and learned friend would say that the reduction of the Vote was due to the international arrangement made last year at Christiania for a simultaneous investigation by all the Powers bordering on the North Sea. No one, of course, objected to that, or desired any inquiry to be duplicated, but there was a very general feeling that it was by no means certain that the international arrangement would necessarily lead to the same matters being investigated as had hitherto been investigated by the 1212 Fishery Board. There was manifestly the greatest diversity of interests among the various powers bordering on the North Sea in regard to fishery matters, and he did not believe that this international arrangement had been entered into from the same point of view by this country and the other countries concerned. He had no doubt that important facts of a hydrographical and meteorological character would be ascertained as the result of the international investigation, but they would not cover the same ground as the scientific investigations of the Scottish Fishery Board. He always understood that the great object of the Scottish Fishery Board was to thoroughly investigate the habits of the food fishes frequenting our coasts, to follow up their life history and movements from the inshore to the offshore waters, with a view to those fishery regulations being adopted which would be best calculated to produce a large supply of fish for the market, and not unduly interfere with the development of the fisheries around the coast. Could his right hon. and learned friend satisfy the Committee that the nvestigation which would be carried on under the international arrangement would cover the same ground as had hitherto been covered by the Scottish Fishery Board? The general opinion was that, having regard to the extremely limited resources of the Board, they had done admirable work; and he believed that it was the universal feeling of Scottish Members that the Board should have their resources increased rather than diminished. It seemed to him that it was the duty of the Government to show good cause why the resources of the Board should be further limited. If the international investigation covered the same ground, then he was very far from saying that they should object; but unless the Government could satisfy the Committee on that point, he did not think they would be justified in limiting the resources of the Board. The Board had hitherto carried on their investigations under great difficulties. It was melancholy to read in their Reports year after year of the inadequacy of the means at their disposal. A vessel was 1213 placed at their disposal for scientific investigation, but in consequence of her unseaworthiness and the necessity for frequent repairs she was obliged to remain in harbour for the greater part of the year. Notwithstanding these disadvantages, their work for the past twenty years undoubtedly formed a most valuable record; and it seemed to him to be a very serious matter indeed if that work were to be stopped. He hoped his right hon. and learned friend would be able to satisfy the Committee that the investigation which was to be carried on under the international arrangement would cover the same ground, that the same inquiries would be prosecuted, and the same results ascertained, in order that such knowledge, with regard to the fisheries of Scotland and other countries, might be obtained as would enable them to demand from other countries an international convention for the regulation of the North Sea fisheries, which were now in a very unsatisfactory condition.
§ MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)said he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. They had read a great deal about the harm done by trawlers on the Scottish coasts, but he believed that the Scottish Fishery Board patrolled their own coasts so well that the trawlers which used to ply their trade there came over to Ireland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman two years ago what steps had been taken to protect the fisheries off the Scottish coast, and the right hon. Gentleman then said that the Admiralty placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board two small boats, and that the Board supplied two themselves. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be kind enough to inform the Committee how many boats were at present used for the protection of Scottish fisheries, and how many were supplied by the Admiralty.
(11.8.) MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that the hon. Member for Ross began his observations by referring to the number of complaints which were received from different parts of the coast as to the 1214 evils of trawling, and especially of drawnets. He should like to draw the hon. Member's attention to what was stated on page 48 of the Report of the Fishery Board of Scotland this year. The Report stated—
Complaints have reached the Board of encroachments by trawlers, and some idea of the extent of the work involved in their investigation may be obtained from a perusal of the following list of places visited.Two pages of places followed, and then the Report proceeded—It is a noteworthy fact that in the investigation of complaints recorded above, only four trawlers were detected working in closed waters.Without in the slightest degree impugning the bonâ fide character of the complaints, still it was a fact that in a great many instances complaints were made which were not well founded. They had a record of what all the vessels did, and the entries very often were that the complaints had been exaggerated. It was impossible properly to patrol a sea line like that of Scotland, but a great deal was done. In answer to the hon Member for East Waterford, he might say that the cruisers at the disposal of the Fishery Board during the last year were the "Jackal," the "Daisy," the "Vigilant," the "Brenda," the "Nora," and the "Mina," besides which they had occasional assistance from the Admiralty,
§ MR. POWERasked whether the six vessels referred to were supplied by the Fishery Board without any assistance from the Admiralty.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid they were in the continuous service of the Fishery Board, but, in addition, they had occasional assistance from the Admiralty.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the "Brenda" and the "Mina" were built by the Fishery Board under the new arrangement; the others were old vessels,
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYYes, but they were put at the disposal of the Fishery Board. The hon. Member must understand, however, that over and above their own fleet, the Board, had the occasional services of Admiralty cruisers. The hon. Member for Ross had drawn a sorry picture of the plight the line fishermen were in owing to the depredations of trawlers. He thought the hon. Member would admit that, so far as it was possible for one to take a side on this matter, he had always been a good friend to the line fishermen, and he would be very sorry to see any development of modern methods which put an end to their industry. At the same time, the question was full of difficulty. He commended to the Committee generally a perusal of the last Report of the Fishery Board, because he had been greatly struck by the somewhat different results brought out by that Report as compared with the figures that were before the Committee to which the hon. Member for Forfarshire had alluded. Last year was a good fishing year altogether, and there was no doubt that the taking of the line fishermen was a good deal up. So far as the figures of last year went, there was not that diminution in the catch of the line fishermen or of flat fish generally to which no doubt the figures of two years ago pointed. Whether or not that was merely a momentary improvement time, of course, would show. It was not a matter into which he could go in detail, but Members would really be well repaid if they would read that Report. With regard to Port of Ness, there had been a difficulty about the harbour there owing to the contractors. The harbour had now been transferred to the Congested Districts Board, and no doubt any representations addressed by the 1216 hon. Member to that Board would receive attention, although he could not promise that the Board would carry out what the hon. Member desired. As to the Fishery Board premises, the hon. Member had been more unfortunate than he (the right hon. Gentleman) had been, because whenever he had been there the policy had been that which no doubt the hon. Member had been pursuing in the East, viz., that of the open door.
The hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs had raised a question which had more than once been pressed upon the Fishery Board, viz., the great necessity of trying to cultivate the bait supply. But it had several times been pointed out that there had been great profligacy in the disposal of their own resources. The Fishery Board had been egged on by the House to take proper means for preserving and cultivating mussels. They found that in the Clyde there was a very valuable mussel scalp which was being really ruined by indiscriminate collection. He did not mean that he had no sympathy with the constituents of the hon. Member who were poor men and had been in the habit of taking there mussels, but from the wider point of view, of the bait supply of Scotland, mussels ought not to be taken indiscriminately. A proceeding taken in pursuance of the policy of the Fishery Board was objected to by the hon. Member's constituents, with the result that matters could not be arranged amicably and an action had to be brought in the Courts. The Court of Session—and he did not see why they should take a biassed view of the case the one way or the other—had held that the property of the scalps was in the Crown, and that they were properly dealt with by the 1217 Fishery Board. The hon. Member now said his constituents desired to go to the House of Lords, and that a deposit of £200 was required. That was a matter in which he had no concern; it was required by the Standing Orders of the House of Lords; but if they could not make the deposit it was open to them to appear in formâ pauperis. He assured the hon. Member that it really did not depend upon him, but upon the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, over which he had no control.
That brought him to the most interesting point which had been raised, viz., the diminution of £2000 in the Vote for scientific investigations. The reason was simple enough. As a result of the Christiania Conference an agreement had been come to that there should be an international investigation, hydrographical and otherwise, in the North Sea. Those who sat on the Committee of two years ago would remember that the real question with regard to flat fish was whether there had been any diminution, and whether that diminution had been checked by certain alterations in the places in which trawling and so on was permitted in the North Sea. The views on the point were not at all unanimous. It was obvious that the investigation must be a thorough and expensive one, and the scientific investigations of the Scottish Fishery Board were all in that direction. He could not say that the investigations would be absolutely the same, but according to a letter written when this matter was arranged, it appeared that the attention of the Conference was particularly directed to the fact that—
in the practical development of the scheme, primary attention should be given to the probable effect on flat fish, in which alone, it appeared from statistics and evidence, any 1218 serious diminution in the North Sea could be traced.That, he thought, was what they wanted to get at, so that the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs might assume that the investigations of the Conference would be directed to the really practical part of the scientific investigations conducted by the Scottish Fishery Board. The question then arose whether Great Britain should go into the scheme with the other Powers. Everybody would agree that it should. But it involved an expenditure of £35,000 or £40,000 over five years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel justified in agreeing to that expenditure without stipulating that he should not have the same thing going on at home. An arrangement was therefore come to between the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was made a distinct part of the bargain on the part of the Scottish Office, that the grant should be dropped only during the time these investigations were going on, and that the moment the investigations were over, the Board should have the same claim to a proper subsidy for scientific investigations as before. He hoped that statement would satisfy hon. Members. If money were unlimited one would like to do both, but under the circumstances he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be expected to continue this grant as well as bear the cost of the international investigation.
§ (11.25.) MR. BRYCEthought the policy of the Government in dropping the allowance of the Scotch Fishery Board for their investigation was exceedingly penny-wise. The value of those investigations was that they had been continuous. Exceedingly little had been 1219 known about the habits of these fish, and the Lord Advocate himself had admitted that the, results disclosed in the last Report had been a surprise to him, although he had carefully followed the matter all through. It was of the utmost importance that the investigations should be kept up from year to year. He was certain that the value of the investigations which had taken place, and of those which had been promised in the future would be greatly diminished if an interruption took place for two or three years while the International Conference was conducting its investigations. Surely a more short-sighted policy than that of dropping these investigations for the insignificant saving of £2000 a year could not be conceived. Continuity was everything in scientific investigations. It could not be expected that the scientific staff engaged by the International Conference would give the same attention to the local coasts as the Scottish Fishery Board had given. Take the case of the Moray Firth. He did not wish to pre-judge that question, but it might turn out that it was right to close it, or it might turn out that nothing was gained by closing it. But that was a problem for local investigation, and the International Conference could not be expected to give the necessary attention to it. The same would apply to the Ballantrae banks; there, too, there might be need for local investigation. On putting these facts together, he was driven to the conclusion that a more unwise, undesirable, and unsuitable economy than had been effected in this matter was not to be found in the annals of our financial policy.
§ MR. MACONOCHIE (Aberdeenshire, E.)supported the Vote, and said the 1220 board had undoubtedly done very good work in recent years. At the same time, speaking with some experience, he did not see and reason why they should try to teach their neighbours how to compete with them. He remembered how some years ago the Peterhead curers very kindly taught the Norwegians everything they knew, with the result that in a few years the Norwegians became then-keenest competitors for the German trade. As to the question of flat fish generally, it should have been known to practical men for the last fifteen years, that the only method by which a better supply could be secured, was that of restricting the landing of under sized fish. Last year a practical proof of what a close time meant was afforded by the strike which caused the large Grimsby fleet to be confined to harbour. When those boats were again able to get out they found a better supply and quality of fish than they had had for a very long time. With regard to the Fishery Board he thought it was not treated at all fairly. The funds at its disposal were so small that it could not secure the results it ought, or would otherwise do. By helping the Board to develop the fisheries a very good investment would be made, because it would be enabled to secure a better supply, and that meant a cheaper article of food for the public at large. Only recently, even with the small means at its command, the Board had agreed to supply young shell fish—crabs and lobster—to certain parts of the coasts, as a trial to see what could be done. The Crab and Lobster Act, by restricting the size, was now admitted, even by the men who at first most strongly opposed it, to have done more to improve the industry than anything else had done. As to harbours, it 1221 was often forgotten that Fraserburgh held a unique position. There was no town of equal size, as far as he knew, which had borrowed and repaid so much for the building of harbours for the development of fisheries, and in his opinion it was justly entitled to exceptional treatment. Fraserburgh supplied more fees to the Fishery Board than any other town in Scotland, and was fairly entitled to some assistance in the upkeep of its harbour.
§ MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)said that if anything had emerged clearly from the discussion, it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had successfully raided the somewhat attenuated provision made for scientific investigation under the Scottish Fishery Board. It would have been all very well if the same ground was to have been covered, but nobody pretended that the investigations in connection with the International Conference had anything to do with the fresh water fisheries of Scotland. The truth was that, put it as they liked, there was no answer to the case made by his hon. friend. The hon. Member for Forfarshire had pointed out that the two investigations were wholly different and covered different ground, but unfortunately they were in the position of not being able to resist the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which had been laid heavily upon the Scottish policy of investigation. He could not look upon this as otherwise than a matter of national concern, for the information published in the special reports in regard to the work done by the officials of the Scottish Fishery Board was very valuable. Upon that ground alone, he for one, would go to a division as a protest against 1222 the action of the Government. Upon other matters he was glad to say that the statement made by the Lord Advocate and the report of the Board were most satisfactory. The provision now made for policing the seas contrasted very favourably with the condition of things which prevailed ten years ago. He was glad to see that out of twenty-six prosecutions twenty-four had been successful, and as a result the policy of enforcing the law within the three-mile limit had been fairly successful. He could not sympathise with the hon. Member for Dumbarton in regard to those men who lived by gathering mussel scalps, for he thought the mussel beds ought to be energetically protected. He thought the Fishery Board was a competent one as far as the resources put at its disposal would permit. He had always found that the Chairman and Secretary to the Board were most ready and willing to assist in promoting any enlightened policy which was suggested to them, and to their merit in this respect he wished to add his testimony. But it was impossible for any Board to do its work properly if it felt that at any time its funds might be raided in the way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raided them upon this occasion.
§ (11.40.) MR. DOUGHTY (Great Grimbsy)said that the scientific research which had taken place under the Fishery Board of Scotland and the information which they had been in the habit of publishing from time to time had been of great service to fishermen. Therefore he thought it was a great pity that this work should be stopped by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He understood that this had been done in order to assist some kind of an international research which was about to take 1223 place. He did not view with any great favour international inquiry. An international inquiry generally continued for a number of years, and, in his opinion, such an inquiry would end with very little general advantage to the fishermen of this country and what was likely to be done would be in the direction of educating foreign fishermen and instructing them in the few advantages which our fishermen possessed at the present time. He was very pleased with the very high testimony which had been paid to the British trawler by the Lord Advocate in his speech, and he was very glad to hear that there had only been four convictions of trawlers fishing within the three-mile limit. He thought that showed that the trawlers themselves were doing their best to carry out the law. He thought, however, that it would have been more to the general advantage if the sum devoted to police trawling had been reduced rather than the sum of money devoted to scientific research along the coast of Scotland. With regard to the Moray Firth he did not think there was a greater scandal than that which went on every day there. A number of hon. Members seemed very desirous of defending the rights of the line fishermen in that particular constituency, and it was a very unfortunate thing that line fishing was a failing industry. This was not the fault of the trawlers, but it was due to the effect of general conditions. A much superior instrument had been produced for the purpose of catching fish and it supplied the general market, and the consequence was that the ordinary line fishermen suffered in their income and their industry. That was the real cause of the grievance 1224 of the line fishermen, because superior catching instruments were now supplying the market which used to be supplied by the line fishermen. The Moray Firth had been closed against British trawlers with the idea that the line fishermen would derive an advantage, but the question was, had they effectually closed Moray Firth against trawlers? Certainly it had been closed against English and Scotch trawlers, but it had been left open to German, French, Swedish, and Norwegian trawlers, and foreign trawlers were taking advantage of the law which excluded British fishermen from fishing in the Moray Firth. When this law was passed it prevented the selling of any fish caught in the Moray Firth in any of the markets in Scotland, and the consequence was that the fish was brought down to Hull and Grimsby to be sold there. There could be nothing more absurd than to exclude British fishermen, and at the same time give the whole advantage to the foreigner. If this injustice were continued a little longer there would be as many trawlers as were required, and the English gentlemen who had invested their money in Swedish and Norwegian companies would get all the advantage out of fishing in that very large arm of the sea. This restriction closing the Moray Firth ought to be withdrawn and the regulation prohibiting trawling within the three-mile limit ought to be maintained there as it was maintained along other parts of the coast of Great Britain.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)called attention to the claims of the fishermen interested in the Clyde mussel beds. He said that it should be borne in mind that the fishermen engaged 1225 in mussel gathering at Port Glasgow had been so occupied practically from time immemorial. It had been said that the mussel beds were being ruined because they were being robbed by fishermen taking away the mussel scalps. That was a very serious charge, because the livelihood of a great many fishermen depended upon the mussel beds being maintained in a good condition, and the men were not likely to be guilty of destroying the means by which they obtained their livelihood. In 1878 these mussel beds produced 1,142 tons, but this total rose to 3,246 tons in 1897. That did not seem to indicate that the supply had been exhausted. These fisheries had been used freely by these men without let or hindrance for hundreds of years, but a year or two ago a change was made. The Fishery Board had leased the fishing rights in those beds to a scientific adviser of the Board. In that capacity this gentleman visited Port Glasgow and got the confidence of the fishermen and the fish merchants, and a few months after that visit he obtained from the Fishery Board a twenty-one years lease of those mussel beds at a nominal rental of £1 a year. The scandal of it was that in 1857, when a similar lease was granted to a contractor, the rental was £34 a year. The same fishing beds were now let for £1 a year to a Government official, who was in a position to obtain undue advantages over other competitors for the beds. Naturally the fishermen refused to be ousted in this way, and they continued to fish there. They were prosecuted at the police court, but the action against the fishermen failed. Finally, the
§ Lord Advocate appeared upon the scene in the capacity of prosecutor, and he obtained from the Court of Session, in the absence of the fishermen, an interdict to prohibit them from exercising their rights as fishermen. These men desired at the least possible expense to find out what were their rights in the matter, and they applied to the Lord Advocate, through their counsel, to state a case upon which a decision could be given at the least cost, but the Lord Advocate refused to adopt this line of procedure, and had it not been for a few well-to-do people in the neighbourhood, the decision would have gone by default. The men now desired to obtain a verdict from the House of Lords. It had been held that oyster beds were common property, and that the Crown had no more right over them than any other individual. The contention of these men was that the mussel beds were in the same position and were common property. He asked that the Lord Advocate, instead of applying the resources of the nation to crush these poor men should make it as easy as possible for them to have the case taken to the House of Lords by agreeing to have a case stated for counsel's opinion. Why should the Crown put these hard working men, to the indignity of requiring them to sue as paupers before they could obtain their rights. He thought the Crown officials were acting very harshly in not agreeing to this claim put forward by the fishermen.
§ (11.57.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 61, Noes, 110. (Division List No. 242.)
1227| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Caldwell, James | Delany, William |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Dillon, John |
| Asher, Alexander | Channing, Francis Allston | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Doogan, P. C. |
| Boland, John | Crean, Eugene | Ffrench, Peter |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Crombie, John William | Flavin Michael Joseph |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Mooney, John J. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Gilhooly, James | Moss, Samuel | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Murnaghan, George | Reddy, M. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Murphy John | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Haldane, Richard Burdon | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Leamy, Edmund | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Leng, Sir John | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | O'Dowd, John | |
| Lundon, W. | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Weir and Mr. Harmsworth. |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | O'Mara, James | |
| M'Govern, T. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| M'Kean, John | Pearson, Sir Weetman D. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F. | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Finch, George H. | Morgan, David J. (Walth'st'w |
| Arrol, Sir William | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fisher, William Hayes | Mount, William Arthur |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Galloway, William Johnson | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r. | Gordon, Hn. J. F. (Elgin & Nairn | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Gretton, John | Purvis, Robert |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Groves, James Grimble | Randles, John S. |
| Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks | Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Bignold, Arthur | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Renwick, George |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Brassey, Albert | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Bredrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Henderson, Alexander | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Hogg, Lindsay | Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight. |
| Butcher, John George | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Houston, Robert Paterson | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm | Spear, John Ward |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) | Law, Andrew Bonar | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Chapman Edward | Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Lawson, John Grant | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S. | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Cranborne, Viscoumt | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Denny, Colonel | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Doughty, George | Maconochie, A. W. | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Majendie, James A. H. |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ It being after Midnight the objection being taken to further proceeding, the Deputy Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To morrow.