(No. 264.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 August 1882)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: My Lords, if it be not passed 1922 this Session, the position of the Fishery Commissioners will be a very difficult one. The old Scotch Fishery Board has done good service; but since the resignation, some time in April, of the Secretary of the Board, who was practically the managing officer of the Board, there has been no regular fishery authority in Scotland. The arrangement of this Bill has caused considerable trouble to Her Majesty's Government, as it is well known there is no legislation so complicated or so dear to my native country as that connected with the fisheries. But at last the Bill has been got into shape, and it has been more than a month before the House of Commons. It has received the support of most of the influential bodies which had discussed the matter in Scotland. Being a Bill of a perfectly simple and straightforward nature, there is no reason why it should not receive your Lordships' approval. Indeed, I should not argue the case at all were it not for the exclamation which fell from the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale), who, it seems, has some objections to the Bill. The object of the Bill is simply this—to make a new Board, similar and more efficient, and give it the same powers as are enjoyed by the three Salmon Commissioners who at present exist under the authority of the Home Office in Scotland, and who had the right of inspection over a great branch of the fishing industry. The Bill proposes no new changes in the law. It is simply a Bill giving greater efficiency and greater scope, and I hope your Lordships will read it a second time.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
My Lords, I must ask first where the Bill is? The Bill is not printed.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
The Bill has been printed a month.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
I beg your pardon; not here.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
It has been in Parliament.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
It was amended in the House of Commons. The Bill is not here, and this Bill, which, the noble 1923 Earl says has been before the House of Commons, was certainly. introduced on the 18th of July, but it was not read a second time till the 11th of August, when all the Scotchmen had departed for the grouse shooting on the following day. That is what is called giving proper time for the consideration of this Bill. It was read a first time on the 18th of July; it was read a second time on the 11th of August; considered in Committee and reported on the 12th of August; and read a third time and passed on the 15th of August—that is, yesterday. That is the way in which this Bill has gone through the House of Commons. It is said the public know what is in this Bill.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
Hear, hear!

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITEEES)
I deny that the public know what is in the Bill. There is no extension of power, it is said, in the Bill. The Bill, as introduced, gave the Fishery Board power to take cognizance of everything connected with the deep-sea fisheries, and to take such means for their improvement as they think fit, and giving them full controlling power over everything. But on the last page the following Amendment was introduced by the Lord Advocate:—"Without interfering with any existing public authority or private right." Private right is reserved with regard to the herring fishings. The Bill went on to say the Fishery Board shall have general superintendence of the salmon fisheries in Scotland without prejudice or interference with the powers of district boards. But not one word is said here about "private rights"—not one word about the powers of inspection given under the Bill to Commissioners which they do not possess at the present moment. I can assure the noble Lord that it is the case that persons deeply interested in the matter are utterly ignorant of the way the thing has been carried on, and they have the strongest possible objection to the Bill. If, therefore, the House persists in passing this Bill under these circumstances, they are doing that which is a gross act of interference with private rights, and with proper legislative duty. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) imagined the Bill was dropped—that it was done with—when he went out of town.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
The noble Duke had no sufficient reason for that belief.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
Had anybody a right to bring in a Bill interfering with private interests and read it a second time on the 11th of August without taking any steps from the 18th of July? Is this a fitting mode of legislation, when noble Lords not in town have received no notice whatever of the provisions of the Bill? I cannot tell what the noble Lord may be disposed to do with reference to the Bill; but I never recollect so gross a case as this, and I hope the noble Lord will not persevere with the second reading of the Bill.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I have often had occasion to speak of the valuable services rendered by the noble Lord as Chairman of Committees. The noble Lord complains of legislation so late in the Session; but I am informed that this Bill does not change the law in any respect, and that if it does not pass it will create the greatest possible confusion. That being the case, I hope the noble Lord will not oppose the second reading. The Bill has been printed in the House of Commons for a whole month, and noble Lords interested in shooting and fishing in Scotland must have been aware of the nature of the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
The Members of the House of Commons who left town thought that the Bill was not to be gone on with—that it had come to an end—that it was dead. The noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) moved an Amendment on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill not to retain the old Commissioners. Up to this time it was intended to retain them. Is that a proper mode of dealing with questions of this sort?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I cannot help expressing surprise that my noble Friend should not have opened this matter when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was before your Lordships, and when the Motion was made by the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley). I did not see my noble Friend get up then and explain his objection.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
I did express an objection; but there was no Notice of any Amendment to the Bill. [Cries of "Order!"]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think my noble Friend knew what was going on.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
No, I did not.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
How was it, then, that he was aware it had been done?

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
Because I heard the noble Lord move it.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I rise to Order. The noble Lord has no more right to break through the Rules of the House in this way than any other Peer, especially when the noble Lord on the Woolsack is addressing the House.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If my noble Friend did hear the Amendment put from the Bench opposite, and if he was going to object to the passage of this Bill, which, if not passed, would make it necessary to continue that Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, I am a little surprised that my noble Friend did not at that moment, when he heard the Amendment moved, rise and make his protest in sufficient time to cause the Act which provided for this subject to remain in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I do not even now know in what manner my noble Friend explains his silence on that occasion if he thought it necessary to object to this Bill. There was one thing which my noble Friend said, which I cannot help thinking would be of very great importance if there were anything substantial in it—that private rights were interfered with. I want to know how private rights are prejudiced by this Bill? My noble Friend failed to show that there were any powers which would interfere in any manner with private rights. My noble Friend did not point out that there were any such powers. He said there were larger powers of superintendence; but he did not refer to any words to show that private rights would be interfered with by these powers.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
I say that private rights are interfered with in this manner, that the powers given under the Salmon Fishery Act only extended to the sea fishings, and did not come inland. But I have a statement from the Commissioner of the noble Duke's (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's) fishings that under the Bill there would be 1926 an interference with the salmon fishings which never existed before. The best evidence of the Bill's interference with private rights is that in the other House, at the last moment, an Amendment was introduced by the Lord Advocate, which showed that they had carried the Bill further than was desirable in that direction. Why, in the case of the sea fisheries, should there be a provision against the infringement of private rights, while it was omitted in respect to the inland fisheries? The noble Lord says—"Why did I not introduce an Amendment on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill? "I was not aware that the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act was one of the Acts in that Bill to be continued. But when the noble Lord read out his Amendment, I said you had better be aware what you are going to do. I say this is a mockery of legislation. This House is treated in a manner that it is impossible to have any responsibility in regard to legislation if matters are to be carried on in this way.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
I do not wish to treat with disrespect any words which have fallen from so eminent an authority as the noble Earl. There is, no doubt, great inconvenience in the circumstances, that at this time of the Session measures are apt to come before the House when the House is in a somewhat attenuated condition. But I venture to say there is a precedent for legislation of a much more important character than this being hurried through at the end of an expiring Session. A law affecting private rights in a most eminent degree was passed by the late Government in the last Session of the last Parliament—I mean the Hypothec Abolition Bill. That was a Scotch Bill, which had a great effect on private rights. It was meant, if I am not mistaken—at least it was stated at the time—not to have an unfavourable influence on the elections. That Bill did create great animadversion in Scotland, and it would be a precedent for much more important legislation than this being carried through in the last week of the Session. As regards the question of private rights, the point is a very simple one. There is nothing in the 2nd sub-section of the 5th clause that affects the private rights contained in the Fishery Act of 1862. The reason why the reservation of private rights was put in as regards the deep-sea fishings 1927 was that the words seemed more novel and sweeping than in the previous Act. Every change that the noble Lord mentioned in the course of the Bill was a change of limitation and not extension. There is no extension of power worth speaking about given to the Board under the Bill. It gives the Board the power possessed by the Inspector of the Home Office, who will now be a Scotch Inspector under the Scotch Board, which the people of Scotland prefer. As regards the course of legislation, I will say just one word as to what passed in the House of Commons. It is quite true that there is a certain amount of scandal connected with this legislation. There was a Fishery Board (Scotland) Bill before the House of Commons which affected no part of England—England being so jealously excluded that the Tweed was exempted from the Bill because 12 miles of it were in England. Here was a Bill solely and purely Scotch. "Why did it remain in an incomplete condition for a month? Because it was blocked by the county Member for Sussex, doubtless interested in the industry of agriculture in Sussex, but having no claim to interfere with a Bill which affected the people of Scotland. If there is any scandal connected with the Bill, it appears to me it was in the blocking of the measure by the county Member for Sussex.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
I would simply say, with regard to one observation of the noble Lord with reference to the Tweed and its tributaries, that it comes under the Deep Sea Fisheries Act.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
That is struck out.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
Yes, at the last moment.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
That is another advantageous change.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
Would the noble Lord have any objection to add the words "or private rights," as he said private rights are not interfered with?

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
I shall have great objection, and for this reason, that it will accomplish the object which the noble Lord wishes—the preventing the passing of this Bill. There is no chance of passing the Bill if this Amendment is accepted. The Bill does not touch private rights.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Although I have no right to speak again, I am quite sure that the Bill will not affect private rights, in consequence of the operation of any of the words to which the noble Lord has referred.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
With reference to the passing of the Bill to which the noble Earl referred—theHypothec Bill—I beg to say that I gave strong opposition to its being pushed through at the end of the Session.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
As this has been practically a Committee stage of the Bill, I beg to move that it be now committed.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
I must say I am surprised at the course proposed by the noble Lord. We are not even to have the power of amending the Bill in Committee.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
As the noble Earl objects, I think it right not to press this proposal. We will take Committee to-morrow.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
How can we go into Committee on this Bill? It is not on the Table, and it is simply a monstrous thing.