Lords Sitting of 21 May 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment (102).
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 3) [48 Vict. c. 14]; Royal Irish Constabulary Redistribution [48 Vict. c. 12]; Egyptian Loan [48 Vict. c. 11]; Highways [48 "Vict, c. 13]; Metropolitan Streets Act (1867) Extension [48 Vict. c. 18]; Industrial Schools (Ireland) [48 Vict. c. 19]; Registration (Occupation Voters) [48 Vict. c. 15]; Registration of Voters (Scotland) [48 Vict. c. 16]; Registration of Voters (Ireland) [48 Vict. c. 17]; Barristers Admission (Ireland) [48 Vict, c. 20]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders [48 Vict. c. 4]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) [48 Vict. c. 5]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) [48 Vict. c. 6]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5).[48 Vict. c. 7]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6) [48 Vict. c. 8]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7) [48 Vict. c. 9]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 1) [48 Viet. c. 10]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) [48 Vict. c. 11]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order [48 Vict. c. 12].

SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 102.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 102.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, this was rather an important Bill, and he must ask the indulgence of the House while he explained the reasons which had induced the Government to introduce it. He had been asked to postpone the second reading of the Bill till after the "Whitsuntide Recess; but it was felt to be desirable that the matter should be discussed as early as possible by this House and by the public generally, for it was one that had excited considerable interest among the fishermen of Scotland, so that a decision should be come to as soon as possible. He regretted that some of the noble Lords who had strong objections to the Bill were unable to be present to-day; but they had given him to understand that they would ro-discuss the principle of the Bill on the Motion to go into Committee upon it, and that they would propose Amendments in Committee. The Bill had two principal objects. In the first place, it gave to the Scottish Fishery Board power to make experiments and to collect statistics with the view of obtaining knowledge upon a very difficult and a very vexed question—the question whether or not the inshore waters on the Scottish Coasts were being over-fished. The second object was to facilitate the recovery of damages by fishermen in case of accidents and injuries to their nets and lines. The Bill was based on the Report, issued early this year, of the Royal Commission appointed nearly two years ago. That Commission was appointed because the fishermen generally on the East Coast of Scotland complained that the fishing on the coast was falling off—that there was less fish caught than formerly; and they attributed that to the increase of trawlers, especially of steam trawlers, on the inshore waters along the coast. They complained, also, that these vessels did great damage to their nets and lines. A great deal of evidence was taken on both these points. Inquiries were held at several places along the coast, and
  988
  the fishermen stated their grievances to the Commission. They explained, also, how it was that they considered the operations of the trawlers were injurious to the fishings. They stated, in the first place, that they believed these operations destroyed the spawn. They also stated that the trawl destroyed a large quantity of immature fish; that it destroyed the food of the fish, and generally disturbed the ground, frightened the fish away, and that in process of time the ground would be exhausted altogether. In order to obtain some information as to the value of these statements a very eminent naturalist—Professor Macintosh—was appointed to make experiments on board a steam trawler during nine months. He must say that the Professor had displayed very great heroism in the execution of this task, and not being accustomed to seafaring life he had endured very great hardships with extraordinary patience and courage; but the result was that he had amassed a very great amount of scientific knowledge. One of the statements made very frequently to the Commission was that the young fish moved inshore after they were hatched until they attained to a more advanced period of their lives, and that small immature fish were generally caught in shallow water, and that at certain times of the year they were caught in greater quantities than at other times. After taking the best evidence they could on this point, and comparing very carefully all that Professor Macintosh had to state on this particular subject, into which he had inquired for eight or nine months, the Commission came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible to form an accurate opinion upon any of these points. But as regarded the destruction of the spawn and of immature fish, he thought that Professor Macintosh fairly and definitively settled that part of the question by declaring that, with the exception of the spawn of herring, the spawn of all fish floated on the surface of the water, and that the trawl which worked at the bottom of the sea could do it no injury whatever. That was no new discovery, because several scientific men had come to a similar conclusion on more than one previous occasion, and in America and elsewhere many millions of fish had been artificially hatched, so that there was no doubt as to the history of

  989
  the spawn in this respect. As regarded I the destruction of immature fish by the trawlers, he thought that question was also finally settled; and the conclusion to which Professor Macintosh and the Commissioners arrived was, that there was no wasteful destruction of immature fish by the trawl net. The immature fish brought up by the trawl were not of the more valuable kind; and those so brought up, even if they attained to full age, would not have attained to any considerable size. He had already stated that there was one exception in which the spawn did not float on the surface—namely, the herring spawn, which remained at the bottom of the sea, and it might be—for they had no proof that it actually was so—injured by the trawl. But it was a fact that within the last few years, while steam trawling had been very largely on the increase, the herring fishing had increased also; and while he would not undertake to say that it was impossible that the spawn of herring could be injured by the operation of trawling, yet there was no doubt that many of the apprehensions on that point had disappeared. With regard to the questions of the destruction of the food of fish and the frightening of the fish away from particular grounds, and the necessity for protecting these grounds, the evidence was certainly not so clear as could be wished, and it was thought desirable that a more thorough knowledge should be obtained on these points. They had no proof whatever that cases of fish being frightened away altogether from fishing grounds had actually occurred. The question of gradual exhaustion was a more difficult matter. That appeared to be both possible and probable, and in certain cases to have taken place; and it was extremely desirable that scientific experiments should be instituted, in order to discover, if possible, under what circumstances exhaustion occurred, and how long such fishing grounds took to recover their fertility. To the fishermen this was undoubtedly a most important point, and their case in reference to it was a very hard one indeed. What they complained of was this—they said there were certain grounds on which they and their fathers had fished and toiled for many years, and had earned support for themselves and their families without difficulty, and
  990
  that these steam trawlers had now come into existence, worked upon the ground, and having caught up all the fish went away to fish elsewhere, leaving the ground useless for fishing purposes, and thus depriving them of the means of supporting their wives and families. That undoubtedly appeared to be a hard case, especially where the firshermen had expended money in constructing or improving their harbour, and must excite the sympathy of their Lordships and of every man who considered the question. But, in the first place, he must point out that the case was not one of trawling as trawling, but of over-fishing. All the Commissions—for there had been two previous Commissions—had reported to that effect. The Commission which reported in 1866—of which Professor Huxley and Mr. Shaw Lefevre and Sir James Caird were members—was appointed to inquire into the fish supplies along the coast, and whether particular modes of fishing involved wasteful destruction, and whether any restrictions should be imposed on existing methods of fishing; and they reported that beam trawling was not wastefully destructive, and that all restrictions on open sea fishing should be repealed. In 1878 another Commission was appointed, which inquired into the results of the use of the trawl as to the alleged destruction of fry and spawn, and also the question about restrictions being imposed on that particular method of fishing. That Commission also reported that beam trawling was not wastefully destructive, that there was no evidence of any decrease of fish on the coasts generally, but that at certain places where there appeared to have been a decrease in the amount of fish there was no evidence that this was due to over-fishing; but they stated that considerable injury had been done to the fishing gear by line trawlers, and that these had increased greatly since the introduction of steam trawling. Now, the Commission which reported at the beginning of this year was, in some points, in agreement with the two previous Commissions; but in one or two important points they differed from them. They reported that there was a falling-off in flat fish and a decrease of herring at certain places in the inshore waters; that in the offshore waters there was no decrease in

  991
  the total take of fish in the North Sea; that beam trawling was not destructive of the spawn of cod or ling; that there was no proof of any injury to the spawn of herring; that there was no wasteful destruction of the immature fish, or of the food of fish, by the beam trawl; that the number of fish on particular grounds, especially in narrow waters, might be sensibly diminished by the use of the beam trawl; that it had not been proved that the use of the beam trawl was the sole cause of the diminution of fish in territorial waters; and that, in the absence of a proper system of scientific operations in the districts, it was impossible to discover the causes for the fluctuations in the fisheries, or even the degree in which they took place. The important point on which they differed from the previous Commissions was that they were of opinion that the number of fish in particular grounds, especially in narrow waters, might be sensibly diminished by the use of the beam trawl. That was a matter in regard to which they stood much in need of further knowledge. The Commissioners spoke, as well they might, with considerable hesitation on the point; but as regarded narrow waters, such as St. Andrew's Bay, or the Firth of Tay, there could be very little doubt that small areas such as these might very easily lose their productiveness by persistent beam trawling. Recent inquiries had shown considerable ground for believing that inshore fishing had fallen off, and probably from the causes which the Commissioners of 1866 thought it possible such a result might ensue—namely, the great improvement of all the appliances for fishing—an improvement which within the last 20 years had been very great indeed. The nets and lines were of much greater extent and better quality, and they were worked with more skill; and, of course, steam trawling had come into practice since then; and although, no doubt, the trawling was not a wasteful or destructive method of fishing, still it was a most efficient method, and very productive, in the sense that it caught a very great number as compared with the number taken by lines. In such small places as St. Andrew's Bay the presence of eight, or ten, or a dozen steam trawlers must necessarily produce a great increase in the amount of fish-catching in the district;
  992
  and from all the evidence of Professor Macintosh, and of the fishermen themselves, there seemed little doubt that persistent trawling in such very small areas distinctly diminished the quantity of fish in them. It might be said that if these grounds had a rest by the processes of nature they would gradually be re-stocked. This might be so or not; but there was no doubt that in St. Andrew's Bay, which was the part of the sea as to which they had the best evidence, the fish were smaller than they used to be, and it was the opinion of Professor Macintosh that the grounds never had sufficient rest in order to allow the fish to recover their normal size. On the other hand, however, they had an instance of the utter futility of stopping trawling in the hope that the fish on a particular ground might recover; this was the case of Dublin Bay. There was another instance of a different kind in the history of the trawling industry at Brixham. The number of trawlers there was very great, and the Commission of 1878 showed that no complaint had been made there that less fish were caught by the trawlers than had been caught during the last 100 years. When the last Commission visited this place, the evidence they received was of a conflicting and doubtful kind. It was, therefore, impossible to propose any legislation on this subject without additional knowledge; and the Bill was brought forward to give powers to the Fishery Board to acquire that knowledge. The evidence in the recent Blue Book on the subject of fishing was all of the nature of opinion; with the exception of Professor Macintosh, there was no scientific evidence on which a law could be based; and he believed it was the opinion of experts in connection with the Fisheries Exhibition, as it certainly was his own (the Earl of Dalhousie's), that it was impossible to base any fishery legislation on such knowledge as they at present possessed. This Bill would not satisfy the line fishermen along the coast—of that he was perfectly aware. The great mass of the line fishermen had been encouraged to expect impossibilities, or at least unreasonable things; and it was not to be wondered at that, in their eyes, their case seemed to be peculiarly clear and simple, and that all that was needful was to suppress trawling to a

  993
  certain extent. Bat there were a few intelligent fishermen who would recognize in the Bill a sincere attempt, not exactly to meet their case, but to endeavour to obtain the knowledge necessary before they could take any steps to meet it. At present they had not sufficient knowledge to deal with it. Among the things which fishermen had been encouraged to ask by some of their friends was, that a sweeping prohibition of trawling within the three-mile limit along the coasts should be enacted. The grounds for this demand were twofold. They said that young fish flocked inshore for food and warmth, and were taken by the trawlers before they reached maturity; and, in the second place, they alleged that the trawlers did not work much within the three-mile waters, and would therefore not be much inconvenienced by a complete prohibition, whereas the old men and boys in the fishing villages along the coast in their small boats could not go far out to sea, and where trawlers worked near the coast no fish remained for the line fishermen. As to the first argument, it was really quite untenable, for, as a matter of fact, fish were hatched at all distances from the coast, and it was impossible to believe that they all Hocked toward the coast. The second argument involved a very large question. It really came to this—that an improved method of catching fish having been invented and approved of by various Commissions ought to be denied the right to fish in certain waters in order that the fish might be caught by those who practised inferior methods. He would not ask the House to consider that, because the Bill, although it gave power to the Fishery Board to prohibit fishing in certain places, only gave that power for the purpose of making experiments. The extent to which the falling off in the fishing was due to trawling was not known, and it was necessary that they should obtain that knowledge before legislation, if legislation were necessary, was introduced. He was not able to state to the House what use the Board would make of the powers the Bill would confer; but he did not suppose they would introduce any sweeping prohibition of trawling within the three-mile limit, because to do so would be, to a great extent, to defeat the very object of the Bill. It would spoil the experiments, because if all the trawling were
  994
  prohibited within the three-mile limit, it would be impossible to compare th9 results at those places where trawling or perhaps all fishing was prohibited with the results of the observations in those places whore it was carried on. But if the mass of line fishermen were not satisfied with this Bill, neither were the trawlers, who were extremely angry that there should be any idea, even in the way of experiment, of shutting them out from any part of the sea. They considered that they ought to be perfectly free to fish anywhere, and that it was an unwarrantable interference with their industry that the Bill should propose to limit them in any way. They had a Memorial from persons interested in trawling setting forth their views, and, as it seemed to him, with considerable point. They came to this—that trawling did no harm, and was extremely efficient, and that to hamper it in any way would be an altogether unjustifiable proceeding; and, further, that in the natural process of things the line fishing must be expected to give way to trawling, and that trawling should be encouraged rather than hampered, for the community would suffer very greatly if that kind of fishing were interfered with. Now, it was not proposed to hamper the trawlers in any way further than was necessary to conduct the experiments which were absolutely required in order to settle the question. Unless these experiments wore made and careful statistics obtained, it was perfectly certain that, from time to time, there would be outcries from the line fishermen that their fishing was being destroyed. This Bill, he believed, did all that it was possible or desirable to do at this moment. It would make it possible for the Fishery Board, not only to make experiments, but to supervise the fishing all along the coasts; and, in view of the grievances put forward by the fishermen, it was necessary that no time should be lost in procuring and in using those powers. As to what would be the future of the line fishermen as opposed to trawlers, it was not for him to say; hut he must say that, after the evidence which had been laid before the Royal Commission over which he had had the honour to preside, and after giving the subject grave consideration, he felt extremely sorry for the prospects in some respects of the line fisher-

  995
  men, because it was his own opinion that steam trawling was in the future bound in the nature of things to increase. He would advise the line fishermen not to encourage the whole of their family to take to the business of line fishing, as they frequently did now. Let them bring up one or two of their sons to other trades; and for themselves, if only they could save a little money, let them club together, buy larger boats, and go farther to sea. If they could manage to take to trawling themselves, as so many of the English fishermen had done, by all means let them do so. There would still be room left for some line fishermen along the coast; but they would have to contend with a new and more efficient mode of fishing, and one that was certain to increase and extend its operation in spite of all that they or anybody else could do to prevent it. There was no use in their trying to stop trawling. It was impossible, and would be unjustifiable, to stop it. The best thing they could do was—if only they could save money enough to do it—by increasing the size of their boats and going farther afield, or bettor still by adopting trawling themselves, as so many of the English fishermen had done, to endeavour to compete with them on more equal terms. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANhad not come down with the intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill; but after hearing the speech of the noble Earl he felt very much inclined to move that its second reading be deferred for six months. The whole gist of the noble Earl's speech was that he and the Commissioners knew nothing at all; that on every point except one further inquiry-was required, and that one point was that there had been a certain amount of destruction in the narrow waters. On every other subject the noble Earl seemed to know nothing; yet a Bill affecting the interests of a large class was brought in and based on that inadequate knowledge. There were objections, in his mind, to the Bill as it stood. In the first place, the Commission was appointed to inquire into the trawling over the United Kingdom, and yet their Report dealt almost entirely with Scotland
  996
  alone. It seemed to him that was a very unfortunate way of proceeding in a case like this, when there were only 37 of these trawlers in Scotland, and 700 in England. Why should they legislate for so small a proportion with a view to legislation for a larger number hereafter? If that sort of legislation were to go on, they would have one law for Scotland, and a different one for England and Ireland, and nothing could be more unfortunate than that. He had been very much surprised to hear the noble Earl say that they did not know what use the Fishery Board proposed to make of the powers to be given them under this Bill. But in exercising their power to make experiments, they might stop trawling at any part of the coast, or fishing of any kind whatever; and they might do so in a manner that might be extremely hard for the fishermen in the locality so dealt with. He thought it was extremely dangerous to delegate such powers to the Fishery Board, which was composed principally of the Sheriffs of Scotland, a paid Chairman, who was the late Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and the Secretary. But he had also to object strongly to Clause 7, which empowered sea fishery officers to award damages in cases of damage caused by one boat to another, for these sea fishery officers were not fitted to exercise such a power. They had no legal training, nor were they accustomed to take evidence; and it was not necessary, because the matter could be dealt with at small cost in the Small Debt Courts of the country. He hoped some better reasons would be given in support of this Bill when it reached the Committee stage. On one point, however, he entirely sympathized with the noble Earl, and that was in the need for some better protection for the line fishermen. He believed that the necessity for legislation had arisen almost entirely from the manner in which the trawlers had ridden rough-shod over the rights and feelings of the line fishermen. If they had shown any consideration for the rights and interests of those who, on account of the smaller size of their boats and other causes, were unable to move about to distant waters, as they, the trawlers, could, he did not think that legislation would either have been called for or been necessary. Although, as he had said, he felt very much in-

  997
  clined, after the statement of the noble Earl, to move the rejection of the Bill, he should not do so on that occasion.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSexpressed his satisfaction at the determination come to by his noble Friend not to move the rejection. Living on the coast, he had had good opportunities of becoming acquainted with the heart burnings that existed on this subject; and he was thankful to Her Majesty's Government for introducing the Bill. It was impossible to abolish trawling altogether. It was a well-known fact that 35 tons out of every 100 tons of fish brought into the London market were the produce of trawling. His noble Friend had objected to legislation for Scotland which did not apply to England; but he would point out that the geography of Scotland, as regarded the sea, was different from that of England. In Scotland they had very narrow seas and filths, and it was in these that damage was done by trawlers. The line fishermen worked close inshore, and the trawlers often were to be seen, eight or ten of them, coming close inshore among them, and they often cut the lines of the fishermen, and did a great deal of damage, and caused a very bad feeling; yet these steam trawlers generally rejoiced in giving to their boats such names as Pet, Harmony, and so on. He believed the line fishermen to be about the most industrious of Her Majesty's subjects; and, looking to the desirability of keeping up a supply of men for the Navy, it was undesirable to do anything that might be injurious to them. All he apprehended this Bill was intended to do was not to interfere with trawling as a general rule, but simply to regulate it within short distances from the shore in narrow territorial seas, so that this hardy race of industrious line fishermen should not be driven from the sea. No doubt, certain powers were given to the Fishery Board; but if these powers were excessive there was this security—that before any bye-laws passed by the Board became law, they must obtain the sanction of the Secretary of State. He thought this would be a sufficient security against any extravagant use of those powers, and he hoped the House would not object to the second reading of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYagreed that there were elements in this Bill
  998
  which might enable them to arrive at a solution of a question which was affecting the minds of the line fishermen in every district of Scotland. But he would point out that the chief ground on which the noble Earl moved the second reading was that it would enable them to collect statistics. Everyone would agree on the value of that; but on Clauses 4 and 7 very important powers were conferred on the Fishery Board. He thought that Board had done a great deal of good in Scotland. He must say that although any bye-laws they might frame would require to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, still the Bill put in the hands of the Board very large powers in framing those bye-laws, and also of appointing sea fishery officers, with heavy powers of awarding damages. These were points which were of great importance; and he ventured to suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether it would not be better to refer it to a Select Committee that these points might be duly considered?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he would be sorry if it were supposed he had said anything against the Fishery Board. All he had said about it was that he thought the powers here conferred were too great.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the noble Marquess complained that the Bill was based upon ignorance; but he thought he himself had stated that to the House. They did not know enough about fishing, and they wanted to know more. As to the reason for dealing exceptionally with Scotland, it was to be remembered that the Commission had been appointed because of complaints that had come from that country. Besides, there was no Fishery Board in England. The recommendations of the Commissioners, so far as they applied to England, and could be carried cut, were being carried out by the Board of Trade. At present, he could only say that he had had no formal communication with the Scotch Fishery Board on the subject, though he had discussed the matter informally at some length. He would endeavour to obtain from the Board such information as would enable him, on the Committee stage, to make some statement as to the manner in which the Fishery Board intended to carry out the powers intrusted to them by the Bill, which he trusted would be satisfactory

  999
  to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian).
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 16 th of June next.

PARLIAMENT—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—WESTMINSTER HALL (RESTORATION).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTONasked the Lord Privy Seal, Whether the new buildings on the west side of Westminster Hall are about to be carried out according to the last recommendation of the Committee, with a two-storied building; and whether it is to be battlemented or with a plain parapet; and what is to be done with the windows in the roof; also whether it is decided to postpone raising and remodelling the two towers on the north front? The noble Lord said that their Lordships, in common with the public, had had no opportunity of forming an opinion as to the reconstruction of the west side of Westminster Hall. They had doubtless seen the screens on the spot which had been very usefully set up, and among their Lordships were men eminently qualified to judge which of the two designs should be preferred. He wanted to know whether the higher or the lower screen was to be chosen; whether the flying buttresses which had so recently emerged from burial were to be buried again; whether the outline need be battlemented; whether the windows on the west side of the hall were to be darkened instead of being used as windows for the purpose of light; and whether the row of temporary skylights along the roof might not be enlarged in relief of the enormous space of roof, which was never intended to be so nakedly exposed?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he regretted that the noble Lord should have allowed himself to be demoralized by his former long experience in the House of Commons. That the noble Lord was so demoralized was shown by his having asked several Questions in addition to those which appeared in his name on the Notice Paper. The only answer he could give was to refer the noble Lord to the recommendations of the Committee; but he felt that this would be of no use, as they were already in the hands
  1000
  of noble Lords. As to the absolute and definite conclusion which the noble Lord in his speech had said the Government had arrived at in regard to this matter, he could only say that the Government had arrived at no conclusion, nor could they do so until the Report, the evidence, and the drawings were submitted, and had been placed in the hands of Members of both Houses; and when Members had had an opportunity of considering that Report and the drawings, the Government would endeavour to come to some definite conclusion as to what should be done.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he must take exception to the suggestion that he had asked more Questions than appeared on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked if an opportunity could be given to architects and others during the Recess of inspecting the model now in the Victoria Gallery?
  VISCOUNT BURYobserved that the flying buttresses were in a position which necessitated their being repaired, and asked whether they would be allowed to remain as they were now for any length of time?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYreplied that the Report of the Committee would be laid before Parliament almost immediately. The buttresses need not, therefore, be exposed for any considerable time; and in the meanwhile he should take care that they were preserved from the inclemencies of the weather. With regard to the model, he said he had no power to give admittance to the Victoria Gallery to anyone, whether qualified architects or not, to view the model; but he had no doubt that if application were made to the Lord Chamberlain he would afford facilities to architects and other artistic persons referred to to view the model during the Recess.

DECLARATION OF PARIS, 1856—BELLIGERENT RIGHTS AT SEA.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which has never been ratified by Parliament or received the consent of the Sovereign; and to move—
  "That it is our duty to withdraw from this Declaration, and thus maintain our ancient

  1001
  maritime rights so essential to the power and the prosperity of the Empire."
  He thought, now that there was a reasonable prospect of peace, the subject could not be objected to as inopportune. As far as he knew, it had not been discussed since 1875. As their Lorships doubtless knew, the law of nations, until the year 1854, had always recognized the right of a belligerent to seize any goods in a vessel belonging to a hostile country and to issue letters of marque. This right enabled a Maritime Power to exercise against a belligerent nation its full naval force. It was said by some now that war should be carried on at sea according to the same principles which were recognized in warfare on land, and that on land war should be carried on with as much respect as possible for personal property and for the safety of non-belligerents. These principles, however, were certainly not universally regarded in all land warfare. How, for example, had war been conducted in the Soudan? A fortnight ago, the following description appeared in The Times:—
  "The enemy "being dispersed, 'breakfast' was the next order given. The village was looted and burnt. It was evident that the enemy had been taken by surprise, as we found many camel saddles and cloths, earthenware vessels, bags of dourra, and water skins. We also destroyed the well with gun cotton. … The Arabs fought bravely, but without that desperate courage which six: weeks ago cost us so dear. The capture of their herds must tend to exhaust their resources, and prevent future mischief. We have done the enemy all the harm we could—thus fulfilling the primary object of warfare."
  Now, it was undoubtedly the primary object of warfare to do the enemy all the harm one could. On sea there were no wells to be destroyed, no villages to be looted and burnt; the only thing to be done was to capture the enemy's goods. Lord Mansfield said—
  "The goods of an enemy on board the ships of a friend might be taken, and contraband goods going to an enemy, although the property of a friend, might be taken."
  And these were the words of Lord Eldon—
  "A war and a commercial peace is a state of things not yet seen in the world; there is no such thing as a war for arms and a peace for commerce; and the right of visiting and searching merchantmen on the high seas, whatever is the cargo, whatever the destination, is the incontestable right of the lawfully commissioned cruisers of a belligerent State."
  1002
  Lord Nelson, in 1801, said—
  "The proposition that free ships should make free goods was one so monstrous in itself, so contrary to the law of nations, so injurious to the maritime interests of the country, that if it had been insisted on we ought not to have concluded peace with those Powers while a single man, a single shilling, or even a single drop of blood remained in the country."
  Napoleon said—
  "The greatest blow that could be given to England would be to make her give up the right of search."
  Mr. Pitt, in 1806, said—
  "Shall we voluntarily give up our natural rights and expose ourselves to scorn, derision, and contempt? No man can more than I deplore the calamities of war; but will you silently stand by, and, admitting these monstrous, unheard-of principles of neutrality, insure your enemy against the effects of your hostility?"
  Lord Hawkesbury said—
  "His Majesty has expressed his unalterable determination to maintain the established principles of maritime law."
  Mr. Canning said—
  "The rule of maritime law which Great Britain holds is the ancient law and usage of nations. England has sustained wars rather than give up this principle."
  These were high authorities, and in the face of such authorities we should consider well before carrying out the Declaration of Paris. Her Majesty's Government should consider whether we had acted wisely in 1854. In that year one of the most extraordinary things was done, and no explanation of it had ever been given in Parliament. In 1854 we were going into the Crimean War, and Lord Clarendon, for whom he had the greatest respect as a statesman and gentleman, and against whom he would not say a word—ho was limiting himself to a statement of facts—on February 16 of that year, in reply to questions put to the Foreign Office, wrote as follows:—
  "All neutral property of a belligerent is lawful prize of war; such property will be condemned as prize, although its owner may be a native-born subject of the captor's country, and although it may be in transitu to that country, and its being on board a neutral ship will not protect that property."
  But on the 24th of March, 1854, the following Order in Council was issued:—
  "Her Majesty will waive the right of seizing the enemy's property taken on board a neutral vessel unless it is contraband of war. It is not Her Majesty's intention to claim the confiscation of neutral property not being contraband of war found upon neutral ships; and Her Majesty further declares that, being anxious as much as

  1003
  possible to lessen the evils of war, and to restrict its operation to the regularly organized forces, it is not Her present intention to issue letters of marque for the commissioning of privateers."
  How was that discrepancy between February 16, 1854, and March 24 of the same year to be explained? The fact was the abolition of our maritime rights was demanded by the Emperor of the French. The Plenipotentiaries at Paris bad no power whatever to go into the subject. Count Walewski proposed to the Congress to conclude its work by laying down the four following principles:—
  "(1.) The abolition of privateering: (2.) the neutral flag covers enemy's goods, except contraband of war; (3.) neutral goods, except contraband of war, are not liable to capture even under enemy's flag; (4.) blockades are not binding in so far as they are effective."
  But so little power had the Plenipotentiaries to deal with 1be matter that Count Orloff observed that, the powers with which he was furnished having for their sole object the restoration of peace, he did not consider himself authorized to take part in a discussion which his instructions had not provided for. And Count Buol, the Plenipotentiary of Austria, declared—
  "As regards the principles of maritime law which the first Plenipotentiary of France has proposed for adoption, that he appreciates their spirit and hearing, but that, not being authorized by his instructions to express an opinion upon a matter of such importance, he must, for the time, confine himself to announcing to the Congress that he is prepared to request the orders of his Sovereign."
  What was the opinion of almost all eminent statesmen on the subject? Mr. Disraeli said—
  "By the Declaration of Paris we have given up the cardinal principle of our Maritime Code; the whole maritime strength of the country is concerned if we have acknowledged the principle that the flag of a neutral covers the cargo. This must divert the commerce of the country into neutral ships. It will he a most serious blow to our maritime strength. If the carrying trade leaves our shores the mercantile population will go with it; this will destroy our naval power."
  Lord Derby said—
  "I look on this act of the Government as cutting off the right hand of the country."
  Lord John Russell, in 1867, on the Income Tax Bill, said—
  "The rules that free ships make free goods, and that the goods of a belligerent are safe in neutral ships, and the goods of a neutral safe in belligerent ships, have always been regarded as injurious to the interests of maritime coun-
  1004
  tries, and especially to the maritime power of England. Everyone who has looked at the arguments must see the rules were laid down as a blow to the maritime supremacy of this country, and I hope that no Minister of Great Britain will set his seal to a Treaty containing stipulations of this kind without the most cautious deliberation."
  They had the great authority of Mr. Stuart Mill against the Declaration of Paris. Mr. Mill, in 1867, had used these words with regard to the question—
  "I venture to call the renunciation of the right of seizing the enemy's property at sea a national blunder. Happily it is not an irretrievable one. The Declaration of 1856 is not a Treaty. It has never been ratified. It is not a permanent engagement between nations. It is but a joint declaration of present intentions; binding on us, I admit, until we formally withdraw from it. How war is to be humanized by shooting at men's bodies instead of taking their property, I confess, surprises me. It is not when the emergency has come, but before it comes, that we ought to form our resolution on this momentous subject."—(3 Mansard [189], 876.)
  He then came to the greatest authority of all—namely, the Select Committee on Merchant Shipping appointed in 1860. That Committee included, among others, the names of Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Horsfall, Mr. Bentinck, Mr. Liddell, and Mr. Dalglish. In their Report on the question of belligerent rights at sea, the Committee gave the following opinion:—
  "The question of belligerent rights at sea with reference to merchant shipping affects alike the British shipowner in the prosecution of his business and the general interests of Great Britain; and, therefore, the evidence given on this subject has received from your Committee that attention which its gravity demands. Great Britain formerly asserted principles of the law of nations with reference to the rights of belligerents and neutrals, though other nations defended maxims in some points differing from our own. But in the war with Russia in 1854, England having formed an alliance with France, both nations waived their rights to confiscate the enemy's goods on board neutral ships, as also neutral goods, in either case not contraband of war, found on board an enemy's ship. This mutual but provisional waiver of belligerent rights placed the Allies in harmonious action, and practically countenanced the principle that 'free ships make free goods.' Upon the return of peace, the Declaration of Paris of April, 1856, signed by Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, gave a formal sanction to this principle. Privateering was also abolished. America refused to be a party to a Convention whereby she would be precluded from resorting to her Merchant Marine for privateering purposes in case she became a

  1005
  belligerent. But this is not surprising, for the United States has obtained a recognition of the rights of neutrals for which she contended throughout a former period of hostilities; and Great Britain has surrendered her rights without any equivalent from the United States. Our shipowners will be placed at an immense disadvantage in the event of a war breaking out with any important European Power. In fact, should the Declaration of Paris remain in force during a period of hostilities, the whole of our carrying trade would be inevitably transferred to American and other neutral bottoms. From the evidence given by various witnesses, it appears that at a recent period, upon a mere rumour of war in Europe, in which it was apprehended that Great Britain might be involved, American and other neutral ships received a decided preference in being selected to carry produce from distant parts of the world to ports in Europe, whereby even in a period of peace British shipowners were seriously prejudiced. It seems, therefore, that the state of International Law with reference to belligerent rights affecting merchant shipping cannot remain in its present state; for while England may be involved in any great European war, the United States is almost certain to be neutral, and thus cur great maritime rival would supplant us in the carrying trade. Your Committee consider it their duty to call the attention of your Honourable House to the great importance of this question, which, if not solved during a period of peace, may cause incalculable embarrassment at the outbreak of a war. It is doubtless the Prerogative of the Crown to initiate proper measures to maintain the honour and guard the interests of the country in this respect. Your Committee, however, cannot but express their opinion that a compact like the Declaration of Paris, to which a great Maritime Tower has refused to be a party, may, in the event of hostilities, produce complications highly disastrous to British interests. As matters stand, England is under all the disadvantages of the want of reciprocal pledges on the part of the United States to refrain from privateering or from the attempt to break a blockade which, as heretofore, a sense of self-preservation might compel Great Britain to establish, while Powers so unpledged, urged by every motive of self-interest, would be in a position to inflict the deepest injury upon British interests, under the same unjustifiable pretences as were put forth during the war at the commencement of the present century. Your Committee have thought it their duty thus briefly to point out to your Honourable House the present unsatisfactory position of this question as it immediately affects British merchant shipping. They have done so in the confidence that the whole subject will receive due attention in that quarter where the responsibility rests of taking such measures, in concurrence with Foreign Powers, as may place the present international regulations on a better footing. Your Committee are aware that grave objections have been urged by high authorities against any further step in advance; but they cannot close this brief comment on so important a question without expressing a hope that your Honourable House will agree with them in the opinion that, in the progress of civilization and in the cause
  1006
  of humanity, the time has arrived when all private property not contraband of war should be exempt from capture at sea. Your Committee are of opinion that Great Britain is deeply interested in the adoption of this course. This country has at all times a much larger amount of property afloat than any other nation, and consequently requires a very large naval force to protect her merchant shipping, perhaps at a time when the whole of our ships of war may he urgently wanted to defend our shores."
  Considering that that had been the decision of a Liberal Committee, he thought that he was justified in taking that opportunity of bringing forward the question, when there had been a great amount of excitement felt with regard to the expectation of war. Privateers at sea were nothing more than volunteers on laud. If we did not take measures to prevent it, in case of war the whole of our carrying trade would be transferred lo neutral ships. There was one argument used in these times, and that was in reference to Free Trade—namely, that we were dependent upon, other countries for our supplies, and we could be starved by those supplies being cut off. In a really great Continental war we might possibly find provisions declared to be contraband of war. In 1793 such a thing really had happened, when the French Convention had declared provisions contraband, and in 1794 we had done the same thing ourselves. Only the other day, in the war with China, the French had declared rice to be contraband of war. By the Declaration of Paris England was giving up her most powerful weapons, and he thought that they would do well to consider whether they could not got rid of it. It had never received the sanction either of the Crown or of Parliament. It might, perhaps, be brought forward as an argument that, in the event of a war, the Treaty would of itself fall to pieces. He thought that that was not a dignified argument; but that it would be much better now in time of peace to fix upon the course we should adopt. He hoped that they would be led by the opinions of great men like Pitt and Fox, Greville and Canning, Collingwood, Howe, and Nelson, who had only one opinion upon the effect of such restrictions upon the supremacy of England. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Moved to resolve "That it is our duty to withdraw from the Declaration of Paris of

  1007
  1856, and thus maintain our ancient maritime rights so essential to the power and the prosperity of the Empire."—(The Lord lamington.)
  EARL GRANVILLE,who was indistinctly heard, said: I wish to say only a? few words in reply to the Question put by the noble Lord and to his very interesting; speech. I believe that the noble Lord has laid down correctly the principles of maritime warfare as interpreted by eminent jurists in this country. I think, however, that it is a little late, 29 years after the time when the Declaration was agreed to, to criticize, even in the very courteous and effective terms used by the noble Lord, the conduct of Lord Clarendon, who enunciated the policy of the distinguished men with whom he was then associated. With regard to the proceedings in the Congress of Paris, I consider that the course which Lord Clarendon took was perfectly legitimate. The noble Lord says that the Declaration of Paris was never sanctioned by the Sovereign or by Parliament. I am not aware that the Constitution requires any international agreement of this sort, or requires an Act of Parliament for its ratification. As to the assent of the Sovereign, that was given by the complete approval which Lord Palmerston and his Colleagues gave, acting as servants of Her Majesty and on Her behalf, to the course which Lord Clarendon had taken. Lord Clarendon took exactly the same course as Lord Castlereagh did with regard to the famous Declaration as to the Slave Trade, which was acknowledged as binding by all the Powers who were parties to that Declaration. There is no doubt that we are bound by the Declaration, and there is no doubt that all the nations who acceded to the Declaration are equally bound by it. We are not bound by it with regard to those nations—and the only two principal nations are the United States and Spain—who have never acceded to it, and we are not bound by it with regard to any nation which thinks fit to infringe it. No Motion was ever carried in either House of Parliament in opposition to it. It was discussed in both Houses and criticized in very different directions; some thought that it went too far, and some men of great eminence argued that it did not go far enough. Into the merits
  1008
  of that controversy I am not disposed to enter; but no doubt we and the other nations who have acceded to the Declaration are bound by it up to the present moment.
  LORD COLCHESTERwas understood to maintain that the Declaration of Paris in regard to maritime capture was not in favour of the interest of humanity, because it was the interest of humanity that when war broke out it should be brought to as speedy an end as possible. It was said that some persons proposed to carry its principles further. He was not surprised if those who found that on the outbreak of war all their trade was transferred to a neutral flag favoured the notion of exempting all property at sea from capture. But to allow an open trade with the enemy during war would be the negation of the very idea of patriotism. As to its being a humanizing of man, Mr. Mill had well remarked that he could not see how war would be humanized by destroying men's bodies instead of their property. Again, the effect of the Declaration of Paris would be to give neutral Powers an interest not in the cessation of a war, but in its prolongation, because they would get the carrying trade of belligerents, which would pass under a neutral flag. The Declaration of Paris was, moreover, in the interest of Military as against Naval Powers, and would tend to strengthen and encourage those great military establishments which were natural instruments of aggression and conquest, as against naval power, which was rather the instrument of defence and the protector of the independence of nations.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION AT CABUL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether Russia has demanded to be diplomatically represented at Cabul on a footing of perfect equality with England? He desired to put that Question in consequence of the reports which had appeared in the Press. It was stated, not only that Russia had raised objections to the employment of English officers in the fortifications of Herat, but that the

  1009
  neutrality of Afghanistan had been demanded, and that England had been called upon to renounce any interference on her part in the affairs of that country. These reports were naturally of very great importance, and he could not but think that it was only due to Parliament and the public that Her Majesty's Ministers should state plainly whether any such demands had been made by the Government of Russia, and whether or not they maintained the policy of the inviolability of Afghanistan as our first line of defence. He could hardly think that Her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to receive any such propositions as those which were reported to have been made by Russia. He had listened attentively to what was said in the House a few days ago by the Secretary of State for India in reference to the defence of Afghanistan. What had fallen from the noble Earl had great force in regard to the fortifications that were necessary to be raised on the boundaries of India; but he had been struck by the fact that the noble Earl carefully abstained from any allusion whatever to what had hitherto been always considered the first line of defence of India—namely, Afghanistan itself. If Her Majesty's Government had changed their opinion on that point, and were prepared to maintain that Afghanistan was no longer worth our consideration, and that they might be content to create such fortifications as were necessary on the confines of India, the country had a right to understand clearly that that was the case. The Vienna Correspondent of The Times that morning used these words—
  "The alleged intention of the British Government to concentrate the defences of India in India itself is regarded as leaving the field clear for Russia's suggestion in favour of the complete neutrality of Afghanistan—in other words, for the elimination from that country of all British influence."
  It was perfectly clear since that speech of the noble Earl was made that such had been the construction put upon it, not only in India but in Europe generally, and in Russia itself. The best way for England to avoid a war with Russia was to lay down before Russia distinctly what our policy was. The noble Lord concluded by putting his Question.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The answering of this Question more pro-
  1010
  perly belongs to my noble Friend (Earl Granville); but as the noble Lord has made some remarks on my speech of the other night I will reply to his Question. In the first place, Russia has made no such demand whatever. Then, as to his observations, which seem to be based principally on Vienna correspondence in the newspapers, I do not think that that is an authority on the subject. It would appear that some observations of mine have been construed as a total abandonment of our position in relation to Afghanistan. If anybody has drawn such an absurd conclusion from my words they must have been deaf to what I really said. I said nothing of the kind. On the contrary, I have said that we have always regarded Afghanistan as being outside the sphere of the influence of Russia; that we maintain the principle which has always been maintained, I believe, by both sides of this House as to our position in regard to Afghanistan. I apprehend that the line of defence and also the line of offence to be taken up must be that which is most likely to serve the interests of India and of this country; but I object altogether to be bound by what the noble Lord quotes from the newspapers. I mentioned the line of the Indus the other night; but, at the same time, in answer to the noble Marquess, who inquired whether Quetta and other points were excluded from our contemplation, I said, "Certainly not." And I say again that our line of Frontier ought to be such as will give us a good defensive position, and also a good position for moving in any direction which the interests of India may demand. Beyond that I will not go. These are questions for military exports; but the point which the noble Lord has put forward must meet our attention, and I do not believe it has in any degree escaped the attention of my noble Friend near me.
  EARL STANHOPEasked when it was likely that the next Blue Book on the Afghan Question would be issued? He maintained that it appeared monstrous that the House and the country should not be kept in darkness as to the proceedings on this question.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the answer was simple. Until the Government had come to some conclusion in the negotiations with Russia, he sup-

  1011
  posed that every man of business would think it singularly imprudent and injurious to the Public Service to produce the documents to which the noble Earl had referred.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, Parliament had been most distinctly promised by Mr. Gladstone that the further Papers up to the time of the Penjdeh tight should be presented before the Whitsuntide Recess.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, lie could not go beyond what he had just stated. The documents regarding the interviews with the Ameer could not be produced while negotiations were going on. It would be contrary to every principle of business to do so. That was the only reason why the documents had not been produced. It was the duty of the Government, when they were actually engaged in an important negotiation, to see that documents which would prejudice them or place them at a disadvantage should not be produced.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he did not for one moment presume to ask for documents referring to negotiations which were pending, but only for Papers relating to the Penjdeh incident and the Rawul Pindi Conference.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Further Papers which have been promised will be presented.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was speaking with regard to particular matters referred to in their communications with the Ameer.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: Will the Papers be produced during the Recess? The Prime Minister promised them last week.
  EARL GRANVILLE: We hope to be able to do so.

EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)—OCCUPATION OF SUAKIN.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are now making arrangements for the occupation of Suakin by a Foreign civilized Power; and, if so, when such arrangements are likely to be completed, and with what Power they are being made? He said that very considerable interest had been shown in this matter since the debate which took place some
  1012
  days ago, and the very remarkable speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had had a great effect in rousing public attention to this matter. Before this Government came into Office, and when he was in "another place," frequent complaints were made that the then Government did not take Parliament into their confidence on questions of foreign affairs. In these circumstances he thought they were not asking too much of the Government to take their Lordships so far into their confidence as to say before they separated what were the real intentions of the Government with respect to Suakin. He asked the Question because there appeared to be much doubt as to the intention of the Government. As far as they had been able to make out, it seemed to be the intention of the Government to hand Suakin over to some civilized Power; but they read daily in the Press telegrams to the effect that the Government did not intend at present to hand this port over to a civilized Power. He believed that public feeling was beginning to be roused as to the importance of this question. Two nights ago there appeared in an evening newspaper, which was a strong supporter of the Government on Russian questions, an article in which the point referring to the disposal of Suakin was happily put—he meant The Pall Mall Gazette. It was a notice to the effect that Suakin "was to be given away;" that it commanded the road to India; indeed, this advertisement put the whole question in a nutshell. The Pall Mall Gazette was not alone in looking upon this Red Sea port as of importance to us in our communications with India. He found that Lord Hartington, in the House of Commons, made a statement to the effect that the ports of the Red Sea ought not to be in a position to tempt any other European Power to occupy them. He was at a loss to understand why, if that was the sound view held by the Government in March, 1884, the converse doctrine now held by them was the sound one. It might be that the public were now weary of the fruitless slaughter which had taken place in the Soudan; but wait until Suakin was again besieged by Osman Digna, wait until the friendly tribes who had trusted us had been slaughtered by the Hadendowas, and he was certain, when that state of things came about,

  1013
  that this arrangement with respect to Suakin would be viewed from one end of the Kingdom to the other with feelings of shame, indignation, and disgrace.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I was not in the least aware that The Pall Mall Gazette was a blind supporter of Her Majesty's Government, especially on Russian questions. I regret that the noble Earl, with all his eloquence, should not have given us his own words instead of reading a long leading article which many of your Lordships, no doubt, have had the opportunity of perusing. The noble Earl has done what he has often done before—he has given Notice of one Question, and he asks another Question instead. In his speech the noble Lord asked as to the future policy of the Government with regard to Suakin. I am perfectly ready to answer, not only his speech, but his Question. The whole question of Suakin is under the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. It is a difficult and complicated question. With regard to the Question put on the Paper, my answer is a very simple one. There have been communications with Turkey on the subject of Suakin, which were presented last year, and the noble Earl has the opportunity of reading them in the Blue Book. The other communications with Turkey, not yet attended with any result, will be presented in the Papers to be immediately laid before your Lordships. There have been no negotiations of any sort with any other Power.
  VISCOUNT BURY: Are we to understand that Turkey is the civilized Power to which Lord Hartington referred in the other House when he said that we were holding Suakin till arrangements were made forgiving it up to some civilized Power?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have nothing to add to the statement I have just made.

  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Ordered, that Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Friday the 5th of June next, a quarter past Four o'clock.