§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that when he presented it to their Lordships' House prior to the Easter Recess he stated that if it were their Lordships' pleasure to give it a second reading he should then ask them to refer it to a Select Committee. He felt the great responsibility devolving upon a private Member in bringing forward any measure connected with this very large and intricate subject—a subject involving a great amount of public interest, and upon which he regretted to say there was a needless difference of opinion. The great interest 693 that was felt in the matter was testified to by the fact that he had that day had the honour of presenting to their Lordships Petitions from the representatives of 11 of the largest salmon river districts having Fishery Boards in Scotland, all praying that their Lordships would take the course he proposed; and he had also presented a Petition from the two Associations in Scotland, formed for the purpose of improving the fisheries, praying that the Bill might be allowed to be sent to a Select Committee, and they agreed with the general lines of the legislation proposed by him. He had not sent to the public prints any of the Petitions in favour of his Bill; but he had noticed that the Memorials presented against it were always printed in the local papers, so that he had the advantage of seeing what those opposed to him said. He saw that the principal charge brought against him was that his Bill was conceived entirely in the interests of sport, and in the interest of the fishing rod. He was not altogether insensible to the interests of sport, and was, indeed, a student of the gentle art; but his Bill was not framed with the selfish object attributed to it. He disclaimed the impeachment, and assured their Lordships that his desire, and the desire of all those who acted with him in this matter, was entirely in the public interest. He would explain, as briefly as possible, his case, and he hoped to show to their Lordships that he rested his case entirely on public grounds, and he should avoid any allusion to those rather regrettable contests which had raged between the different proprietors—those situated on the coast along the mouth of a river, in the tidal waters of a river, in the middle parts, and in the upper waters. He held that all these interests were really identical, but with this qualification—that they were subservient to the great public interest of securing the largest and best supply of salmon. He would point out that that was a matter of which there was plenty of data upon which their Lordships could form an opinion. After inquiries by a special Committee of their Lordships' House in 1860, and by a Committee of the other House in 1861, an Act was passed in 1862, which was extended by an Act in 1868. These two Acts regulated the salmon fisheries in Scotland, except those of the Tweed and the rivers 694 flowing into the Solway, for which there were special Acts. After some agitation in 1870, special Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the working of these Acts, and the late Mr. Buckland and Mr. Archibald Young were appointed as such. They reported to Parliament on 23 points in which these Acts should, in their opinion, be amended — one being with respect to close time, both yearly and weekly; another with respect to restrictions as to stake-nets and fixed engines in the sea and at the mouths of rivers; and a third as to the removal of natural and artificial obstructions in rivers. Those recommendations were made in 1871, and people who were interested in salmon fishing hoped every day that something would be done to carry them out. It had, he believed, been promised and shadowed forth on several occasions that there should be legislation on the subject; but nothing, however, had been done, and it was not until 1882 that a step was taken in a certain direction. At the end of the Session of that year his noble Friend the present Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Rosebery) brought forward a measure to create the present Fishery Board for Scotland, and to place the salmon fisheries of Scotland under the superintendence of that Board. He (the Marquess of Huntly) cheerfully bore testimony to the very excellent work connected with the fisheries in Scotland which the Fishery Board had performed. Under the provisions of the Fishery Board Act, the Board appointed Mr. Young as Inspector of Salmon Fisheries, and instructed him to go round every salmon river in Scotland and to make a special Report upon it; and he thought every Scotsman would agree with him that the excellence of these Reports, and the care, the assiduity, and the attention which Mr. Young had paid to the matter, were deserving of the greatest credit. Further, the map that was presented with the Report, showing the extent of the fisheries in Scotland, was one of the most valuable ever presented to Parliament. Mr. Young, in his Reports, took up the thread of the Report of the Commissioners of 1871. He had gone round each river in Scotland, and he confirmed almost exactly, in all particulars, the representations of the Commission of 1871. Strictly upon these Reports the Bill he now brought forward was framed. 695 He (the Marquess of Huntly) had been told that he ought to have brought in a Bill of his own; but he preferred to cover, as far as he could, all the important recommendations of the Commissioners of 1871, as confirmed by Mr. Young's Reports. In the first place, the Bill rested upon an enlarged constitution and extended powers of the District Boards, and this was provided for in Clauses 8 to 16. The object was to make these Boards fairly representative of all the interests within their respective districts. The Bill proceeded on the same lines as the English and Irish Salmon Acts. Having enlarged the constitution and representation of these Boards, he proposed to give them larger powers, which included powers to rent, lease, or purchase cruives and nets; to establish and maintain hatcheries; to rent, lease, or purchase lands; to make regulations as to the use of gaffs; to issue annual licences for the use of cruives, nets, and rods on payment of duties, &c., as fixed by the Secretary for Scotland; and to levy assessments for debts contracted by the District Boards. He had seen the provision as to the issue of licences criticized; but in England that was a source of great profit and emolument to the Fishery Boards, and he could not see any objection to the proposal. He then proposed to give the District Boards the same powers to deal with the abatement of pollution as riparian owners had, and also a right to sue for the removal of obstructions to the passage of salmon in rivers and estuaries. That the right ought to be possessed by District Boards was evident to anyone who had studied the Report of Mr. Young, who computed the extent of water at present barred to the ascent of salmon at between 500 and 600 miles. For the purpose of enabling the District Boards to defray the expenses which they would incur in carrying into execution the provisions of the Bill, power was given them to levy assessments. He now came to a point of the Bill as to which he believed there was strong objection. Section 6 proposed to alter the weekly close time from 36 hours to 48, and also gave power to the Secretary for Scotland to vary the commencement of the close time in any district after inquiry. He had been told such an alteration would be the ruin of the coast proprietors; but he would remind 696 their Lordships that England and Ireland had pretty much the same arrangement as he proposed. In England the weekly close time was 42 hours, extendable to 48, and in Ireland it was fixed at 48. It would be absurd were he to propose legislation contrary to the Commissioners' Reports, in which it would be found that the unanimous recommendation was 48 hours. Some people, however, thought that time too long; and in the Select Committee, to which he trusted the House would consent to refer the Bill, their objections might be considered with a view to a definitive settlement of the question. There was also a proposal to provide an annual close time for trout and char. Another proposal which had excited opposition was that contained in Clause 19, which abolished the stake or bag-nets near the river mouth; and by Clause 20 it was proposed to give the Secretary for Scotland power to issue regulations for the purpose of limiting the number of nets which might be placed at the mouths of rivers. The latter provision was rendered necessary by the enormous increase in recent years in the number of nets set up in the sea; it was a question which had hitherto been really slurred over, and he thought it should be faced and finally settled. It was not his desire in any way to injure the property or rights of anyone; but, looking at the questions involved as affecting the general body of the community, he thought Parliament should step in to prevent any injurious action being taken by one proprietor against another. He would be told, no doubt, that the present law was sufficient to deal with all the cases that might arise; but he thought it would be easy of conclusive proof that it was not sufficient. He had read several characteristic letters from upper and other proprietors on the subject; and, having regard to all the circumstances, it was clear that some further legislation was necessary. He would repeat his regret that the matter had not been taken up by the Government; but he believed the Secretary for Scotland would be sufficiently impressed with the necessity for further action, and that he would be disposed to agree to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee, where he hoped they would be able satisfactorily to arrange the matter. The Bill aimed at securing the public 697 interest, and though, he had heard that a Party Whip had been issued he could not see how it could in any sense be regarded as a Party question. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
LORD BALFOUR, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he would ask their Lordships not to give the Bill a second reading, in spite of the suggestion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) that the Bill should afterwards be referred to a Select Committee. In saying that he (Lord Balfour) did not say that he was against all amendment of the present law; but he believed he should be able to show that there were in the Bill provisions that it would be most unwise for the House to appear to sanction, as they would do by reading it a second time. The noble Marquess disclaimed any idea or supposition that he was desirous to legislate in favour of one class of proprietors more than another. He (Lord Balfour) could not but think that the noble Marquess, in making that disclaimer, admitted that there was some ground for suspicion. All he could say was, he thought it would puzzle the noble Marquess to point to one provision in the Bill which was not in the interests of the upper proprietors, and to some extent hostile to the proprietors in other parts of the rivers. All previous legislation in regard to the taking and catching of salmon had been framed with the view of reconciling the conflict of interests between different classes. On all rivers there was a conflict of interests between upper and lower proprietors; and in the case of the Tay and Tweed this was complicated by a conflict of interests with what were called the middle proprietors, whose interests were different from, and to some extent hostile to, those of other proprietors. The ruling Acts in Scotland in regard to salmon fisheries were the Acts of 1862 and 1868; and his position was this—he maintained that if any alteration was to be made in the provisions of these Acts it should only be done on the initiative of the Government, and after a careful and exhaustive inquiry conducted by an impartial tribunal, and 698 having regard to the different interests concerned. There was considerable agitation and conflict between the different classes of proprietors and various interests before the Act of 1862 was passed. An exhaustive inquiry was undertaken, and, after all, the settlement then arrived at was in the nature of a compromise. Like many other compromises, he did not suppose it altogether satisfied all parties; but they had been living under it for nearly 25 years, and a settlement like that should not be lightly disturbed, or, at all events, ought not to be disturbed in the interests of one class of proprietors more than another. He was not prepared to say that, after this lapse of time, there were not points in which that settlement might not with advantage be re-opened; but his position was that that should not be done at the instance of a private Member of either House of Parliament, and that it was not sufficient to introduce such a Bill, and ask for a second reading on a promise to move that it be referred to a Select Committee. A matter of that importance could only be dealt with adequately by the Government of the day, on the recommendation of the Fishery Board of Scotland, which was brought into existence a few years ago. He considered the Bill an entirely one-sided one in its character, and that its provisions were in flagrant disregard of the interests of all, except those who were purely upper proprietors, and, if he might so call it, the rod-fishing interest. He was not prepared to say there were not clauses in the Bill which might be useful and might be accepted; but he would like to show their Lordships how some interests were proposed to be dealt with. The interests of riparian proprietors and the public were altogether neglected, as were also those of the lessees of the lower river and sea fisheries. The Bill handed over natural obstructions in a river to the mercies of the District Board, while the proprietor was to have no right at all in the matter. These natural obstructions, which, in most cases, were natural beauties of the scenery, were to be dealt with for the construction of salmon ladders. There were some cases in which it was impossible to make salmon ladders without wholly destroying the natural beauty of the place. He would cite one instance in which a District 699 Board proposed to deal with a well-known bit of scenery. The Tay District Board, in whose jurisdiction the Falls of Tummel lay, had told them exactly what they wished to do with regard to these Falls. In a Report of two years ago they had suggested the building of a rough wall rising above the line of high water. That meant the line of winter flood, whereas most people went to see the Falls in the summer, when the water was at its lowest level. Not content with this the District Board still further piled up their horrors, because they promised to make the wall an imitation of the natural rock. He presumed that that meant an erection of cement and stucco, with, perhaps, imitation ferns stuck on it. He did not know whether any of their Lordships had seen the Falls of Tummel; but if they had, he did not think they would readily hand over the Falls of Tummel to a District Board, to be destroyed for the mere purpose of making a salmon ladder. He ventured to say that a Bill which handed over the natural beauties of the country to the tender mercies of District Boards would require a good deal more argument than had been devoted to it by the noble Marquess before their Lordships could be induced to assent to the second reading. He did not say that no amendment of the existing law was required; but they had a Fishery Board in Scotland, and he was credibly informed that at the present time the Fishery Board was engaged upon an inquiry with the object of producing a Bill for the amendment of the present law. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would agree with him in thinking that a matter of this importance was better left to be dealt with, in the first instance, on the authority of a responsible Government, guided by the Fishery Board; and he should be prepared to give a careful and impartial consideration to any proposal which might be made by the Government. In the meantime, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Balfour.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Earl of DALHOUSIE)said, the Government were greatly indebted to the noble Marquess for the great pains he 700 had taken with reference to this question, and for the trouble he had taken in drawing up and introducing into their Lordships' House a Bill dealing with this difficult subject. He was only sorry that the Government had no better way of showing their gratitude to the noble Marquess than by asking their Lordships not to read the Bill a second time. It was an extremely difficult and complicated subject; and the noble Marquess, with every good intention, had passed over some of the difficulties in a somewhat light manner. The noble Marquess had said that the interests of the upper and lower proprietors were identical in the matter; but he (the Earl of Dalhousie) doubted whether the Harbour Commissioners or Town Council of Aberdeen would agree to that, considering that the Bill represented to them a loss of some £30,000. It was to be remembered that there were certain statutory as well as other rights that had to be considered. In pursuance of the Act of 1862, the estuaries of rivers had been defined by Commissioners, and large sums had been invested both by private individuals and Public Bodies in the improvement of fisheries; and if the Bill of the noble Marquess were to pass these rights would be swept away without any compensation whatsoever. Another objection he took to the Bill was this—he readily admitted that some legislation dealing with the salmon fisheries of Scotland was desirable; but he did not think it was desirable to deal with the subject in this piecemeal and amending fashion. There were a great many Salmon Acts, and Her Majesty's Government were desirous that any reform should have a general and consolidating character. On these two grounds he hoped their Lordships would not read the Bill a second time. The subject was one which for several weeks past had occupied the attention of the Government. He had been in communication for some time past with the Fishery Board of Scotland, who had been considering the matter; and he could assure the noble Marquess that it was the intention of the Government at the earliest moment to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole subject.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that this was a question in which he was largely interested, and it was on account of that interest that he 701 took part in this debate. It was also a subject to which he had devoted a considerable amount of attention; and he thought that he had some practical knowledge of the working of the Acts now in existence. He considered that the Bill of the noble Marquess was one of the most unnecessary and arbitrary interferences with the rights of private property that had ever been proposed in that House. He said that advisedly. In 1862 an Act was passed appointing a Fishery Board, whose special duty it was to look after the salmon fisheries in Scotland. His objection to the measure before the House was very much the same as that of his noble Friend (Lord Balfour). They had a Fishery Board whose duty it was to attend to the salmon fisheries in Scotland; and he submitted that the proposed legislation, if it was necessary, ought to come from the Government of the day, advised by the Fishery Board of Scotland. When they ignored altogether the existence of the Fishery Board, it seemed to him that there was no use for the Act of 1862, and that they had better repeal it at once; but as long as the Act existed they had a responsible Body whose duty it was to deal with these salmon fisheries, and to whom they could apply. He preferred that class of legislation to a measure brought in by one who was so distinctly identified with the upper proprietors, and who was Chairman of the Association of the Upper Proprietors of Scotland. The noble Marquess must feel, to a certain extent at all events, prejudiced in favour of the upper proprietors. In his Bill the noble Marquess took credit for enlarging the powers of the District Boards; but he actually altered the constitution of the District Boards. He proposed to reduce the qualification of the upper proprietors from £20 a-year to £10, and he further proposed to reduce the frontage from half-a-mile to a quarter of a mile. Therefore, they might have persons on the District Board possessing the smallest possible amount of property; and it might happen that a man who had only a quarter of a mile of frontage and was only assessed at £10 a-year might be Chairman of the District Board, and have the casting vote over others who might be interested in the river to the amount of many thousands of pounds. It would be an injustice to 702 those who had a large stake in the river. Another objection he had to the Bill was on account of the enormous power it gave to the Secretary for Scotland. By one stroke of the pen from the Secretary for Scotland a person might be deprived of his property, without the power of appeal and without getting any compensation, such property probably having been in the possession of himself and his ancestors for hundreds of years, and granted by Royal Charter. That was a power that no man ought to have. He hoped their Lordships would refuse to read the Bill a second time.
§ LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS, in opposing the Bill, said, he hoped it would be withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRESsuggested that the whole question of the working of the Salmon Acts should be referred to a Select Committee. This would satisfy the promoters, and if it was granted he hoped that the noble Marquess would withdraw the Bill.
THE EARL OF KINTOREsaid, he agreed with those noble Lords who held the view that the Bill ought not to be read a second time. The Bill would fall by its own weight; and, moreover, if the matter was to be dealt with at all, it ought to be done by a Government Bill. In supplement of what had been said by preceding speakers, he mentioned that he was himself acquainted with many instances in which the existing regulations were constantly violated, to the immense loss of the upper proprietors, who were entitled to protection. On those grounds he was glad to think that the rumour was true that the Secretary for Scotland was about to introduce a Bill; and he was sure all their Lordships desired that it should be fair in the interests of all parties.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he had insuperable objections to the Bill, although he considered that, in any legislation upon the question, consideration and sympathy should be shown to the upper proprietors, for the reason that the take of fish in the lower waters was entirely dependent upon the spawning grounds in the upper water. He could not, however, support the provisions of the Bill. As in the Bill before the other House, the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, he objected to putting all such legislation in the hands 703 of the President of the Board of Trade, so he opposed the present Bill as vesting too great powers in the Secretary for Scotland, whoever he might be.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, with reference to the proposal to refer the question to a Select Committee for inquiry, said, he hardly thought, in the circumstances, it was at all necessary. They had a Fishery Board in Scotland which had been considering this matter for some years, and they had on more than one occasion made large and ample proposals for the amendment of the law to Her Majesty's Government. The Government had, upon those proposals, within the past week drafted a Bill which was now under consideration both by the Fishery Board and Her Majesty's Government. He thought, under those circumstances, the idea of appointing a Select Committee was one which his noble Friend (the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres) would hardly adhere to.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that he had stated that, in his opinion, this was a question for the Government; and, of course, after the statement of the noble Earl, he should withdraw his Bill.
§ Amendment, Original Motion, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.