Lords Sitting of 1 December 1893

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—POPULATION GRANT.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYcalled the attention of the House to the withdrawal of the population grant from the school at Llantrissant, Anglesey, and other schools; and moved for a Return showing the number of grants withdrawn, and of grants made for the first time to schools by the Education Department, since 1st January, 1892, and the reasons for the withdrawal; and also asked the Lord President how he reconciled his statement that those who promote education in other than voluntary schools are not enemies to religion, with the fact that in 40 per cent. of Board schools in Wales the Bible is prohibited, and in another 40 per cent. of schools where it is read comment is prohibited. He said, that in a newspaper called The School Guardian, of November 18, an article appeared headed The Latest Turn of the Screw, which said—
  "The President in the House of Lords, and the Vice President in the House of Commons, are always loud in their assurances that every possible consideration shall be given to voluntary schools. …. Unfortunately there is a wide difference between the public assurances given by these gentlemen in Parliament and the changed and ever-changing attitude of the Department which they are administering. We absolutely refuse to place the blame upon the shoulders of the permanent officials. The entirely new departures which are now constantly and unexpectedly taking place must be attributed to responsible officials, and we do not hesitate to say that every one of these new departures is in the direction of making more difficult the existence of voluntary schools."
  That article from a newspaper which he had not heard of before placed all the blame on the responsible heads of the Education Office. He thought that Her Majesty's School Inspectors ought to share in it, and he hoped some of their Lordships would express their opinion on that point. The noble Lord proceeded to state certain facts which had been brought to his attention with reference to deficiencies in schools in which Sir Thomas Acland was interested.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): I beg the noble Lord's pardon for interrupting, but I must point out to him that the schools he is referring to have nothing whatever to do with the question of which he has given notice. He is giving a variety of particulars with regard to which I have had no notice whatever.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked whether the noble Earl preferred that he should give them to the Press and not to the House?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Lord misunderstands me. He can go on if he likes, but I can give no answer to points upon which he has given no notice. I am perfectly willing to answer him on the points of which he has given notice.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he could not put this matter on the Notice Paper, for had he done so orders would have been given, and the point would have been lost. It was open to the Vice President to give what answer he liked, either by the noble Earl, or through the Press, but the noble Earl surely would not interfere with the liberty of speech in that House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am not saying anything about liberty of speech; but it is altogether contrary to the Rules of this House, when notices are formally given of certain questions, that noble Lords giving them should proceed to discuss other matters entirely. To make an attack upon my Colleague without giving any notice is utterly contrary to Order, and I object to the noble Lord going on with it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he would pass over that part of his remarks, and go on with the rest. It was difficult to say whether, as The School Guardian asserted, the permanent officials of the Department were not responsible. It was clear that Her Majesty's School Inspectors had acted like what the Natural History Books called the lion's providers or jackals. The last time that complaints had been made in the House against the Education Department, the Lord President had implied that the Inspectors caused the

  215
  dissatisfaction, and he said that the Department must trust the Inspectors they employed. There was a limit, however, to such trustfulness. The Foreign Secretary would not place such implicit trust in all Her Majesty's Consuls. Now, most of the School Inspectors were what is commonly called prigs, and they could not help being so, for they were mostly men taken fresh from the Universities, and at once invested with too large a discretionary power over public and private purses. This was the general opinion of them; he had known of an exception—the late Mr. Norris, who died about two years ago. As an instance of the mental disposition of the School Inspectors, he might mention that, before the Education Act, one of these Inspectors desired to expunge from Gray's Elegy the two lines—
  "Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
  Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood,"
  on the ground that it would teach the children that Oliver Cromwell was an innocent man. Perhaps after this lapse of time the Department had arrived at a correct understanding of the meaning of the poet, and in its present temper and frame of mind it might want to have these lines expunged, because they might not wish the children to be informed of the guilt of Oliver Cromwell. These lines reminded him of those that immediately preceded them about village Hampdens, and since the speech of the late Prime Minister at Preston, who appeared to hope for a crop of such men in order to resist the exactions ordered by the School Inspectors, perhaps the Department would require this line also to be expunged. There was a circumstance which in some degree excused Her Majesty's School Inspectors, and that was that the conditions under which they acted exactly resembled the circumstances, position, and functions of the Nuisance Inspectors. Both these classes of Inspectors had to justify their existence by finding fault and picking holes; but Her Majesty's School Inspectors, being men of more education, ought to be superior to such a temptation. There was another alternative motive for the harassing conduct of the School Inspectors besides that of possessing wooden minds, but he would be unwilling to
  216
  believe it—namely, that they were too pliant servants of the Department, and that they were too subservient to the views of the Vice President. Then there was the case of the Rector of Phillack in Cornwall, whose grant due on the 1st July was not paid till the 10th or 11th of this month after notices of questions had been put down in both Houses of Parliament. In this instance the stringent orders of the Vice President were to blame, and not any want of common sense on the part of the School Inspector, who from 1870 till the present Government came in had given no great reason for complaint. With regard to Llantrissant School, for years it had received a population grant of £10 under Article 104, and a year ago it received an additional population grant under Article 105. Both of these had been withdrawn on the ground that the school had a sufficient endowment. The endowment consisted of £33. He would not complain of the withdrawal of the grant under Article 105, which seemed to leave discretion to the Inspector or to the Department; but the grant under Article 104 stood on a different footing, and he had been informed by one who ought to know (Lord Sandford) that there was no right to withdraw it. According to his own view it stood on the same basis as a publican's licence, which could not be withdrawn or withheld, except for misconduct of the publican, or a considerable change of circumstances in the locality. It must be noted that the endowment was a very old one, and that the Department must have known of it when this grant was first made many years ago. What made this conduct of the Inspector worse was the time chosen for this severity. The Rector had just obtained a master instead of a mistress, and had built a house for the master at a cost of £140. The official letter cutting off the two grants, or £20 a year, says—
  "The results in elementary subjects are creditable. The commodious house recently built for the teacher's accommodation will be a great boon."
  It also says—
  "A class subject must in future be satisfactorily taught throughout the school, as a condition of efficiency (Article 86 of the Code)."
  Judge-made law is often spoken of, and it generally makes sense of Statute Law, but Department - made

  217
  law not only introduces into elementary schools subjects which are not elementary, but imposes pecuniary burdens beyond what are necessary under the Act of 1870. He now moved for a Return according to the Notice.
  He would now ask the Lord President the other question on the Notice Paper. A short time ago the Home Secretary said at Leeds in defence of the line now taken by the Education Department that—
  "The Liberal Party were quite as anxious as their opponents could be that children should enjoy the advantages of religious education. But there was a great difference between religious education and sectarian education. Parliament 20 years ago insisted that sectarian and denominational religious teaching should not be allowed."
  Now, with the great variety of sects which existed in this country, how could the Liberal Party hit upon any religious teaching which should not be that of one of the sects? In order that any religious teaching should be able to traverse that of all these sects, without merging in that of any one of them, it would have to be of so minute a character as to resemble Euclid's definition of a point—without parts or magnitude, and therefore to be useless in providing the advantages referred to by Mr. Asquith. There was another error in the Home Secretary's defence: he had spoken of 20 years ago, but now the circumstances were entirely altered. Mr. Forster's Act was avowedly intended to supplement the voluntary schools and to teach the "Three R's" to children then outside of these schools, or, as they were then called, "the gutter children." Mr. Forster contemplated a rate of 3d. in the £1; with that the School Boards could not make much of a splash, but they had continued a course of encroachment upon their original functions; they had plunged in building expenses in teachers' salaries; besides teaching the "Three R's" they taught Algebra, and they had crushed out of existence many of the voluntary schools. In many of the Board schools, 40 per cent. of them in Wales, religious teaching had disappeared. Were parental rights to be disregarded, and the children of parents, the majority of the parents in this country, to be deprived of religious teaching? Mr. Asquith went on to say that the Liberal Party
  "were not going to allow funds compulsorily contributed by members of all denominations,
  218
  and of none to be applied to the teachings of this or that particular school."
  The answer to that was the complaint that the funds levied from people of all denominations were applied only to the teaching of those who were of no denomination; in other words, the whole country had to pay for Agnostic teaching to please a few Agnostics. The Lord President might perhaps repudiate the term agnostic, but where did he find Mr. Asquith's anxiety for religious teaching in the 40 per cent. of Board schools in Wales where religious teaching is prohibited? The Bishop of St. Asaph had said publicly that where there was some religious teaching the central doctrine of Christianity was set aside, or not taught, and as the Education Department upheld such teaching it must be inferred that the head of that Department was a Monophysite, and that the Vice President, if he was anything at all, was also a Monophysite. If they did not hold that doctrine they were the more to blame for allowing that doctrine to be taught to the children of parents who wished for Christian teaching. There was a Spanish proverb respecting one man doing the work of two—"No se puede hacer de un diablo dos," which meant literally, "You cannot make two devils out of one." It was just possible that the people of Behar and the victims of the Education Department might say that this proverb was not always true.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend has called attention to the withdrawal of the population grant at the school of Llantrissant and at other schools. I have no doubt noble Lords are aware that under the Act of Parliament the population grants are given to schools where the population is so small that there is a difficulty in finding sufficient funds, but if funds are otherwise provided the grants are not necessarily given. In the case of the Llantrissant school, the facts are that at the beginning of the current year the school started free of debt, with a grant of £20 18s., which included £5, representing the final payment of fee grant for last year. This sum, with the fee grant of £11 or thereabouts for the current school year, would make a total of £31 18s., which, with the endowment of £33 and the £2 voluntary contribution, would

  219
  more than meet the ordinary expenses of maintenance. Payment of any grant under Article 104 or 105 was, therefore, considered unnecessary for the efficient conduct of the school, and the managers were so informed in the Report. Where the conditions laid down in the Code for grants under Articles 104 and 105 are satisfied those grants are uniformly paid, unless the Education Department are satisfied, on looking into the accounts, that they are not required for the continued efficient conduct of the school, or that they are being applied merely in reduction of local support. It does not appear to be necessary to make the special Return asked for by my noble Friend, because the information required may be readily obtained on reference to Part IV. of the Annual Reports for 1891–2 and 1892–3 (containing respectively a full statement of the grants to schools for the inspection years ending August 31, 1891 and 1892), and to Part IV. of the Annual Report for 1893–4, containing a similar statement for the inspection year ended August 31, 1893, which is now with the printers, and will shortly be laid before the House. In these Returns the schools which have received grants, under either Article 104 or Article 105, are indicated by distinctive marks. The Education Department has no information relating to religious teaching in School Board schools later than that contained in the Return to an Order of the House of Lords dated May 15, 1888, made on the Motion of Lord Harrowby. From that Return, which was ordered to be printed on December 20, 1888, it appears that in 39 per cent. of the Board schools in Wales the Bible is not read at all, and that in 70 per cent. of the remaining Welsh Board schools the Bible is read without comment. The percentage of English School Boards so prohibiting or restricting Bible reading in their schools is exceedingly small. My noble Friend has drawn certain conclusions, and, I suppose, intended it to be implied that the Welsh are not a religious people. I do not myself pretend to any special acquaintance with Wales, but, whatever else is said about the Welsh, I have always understood that they are a very religious people, and, although it may not have been wise for them to exclude Bible teaching, it would be unjust and
  220
  untrue and wrong to the Welsh people to argue that they are averse or indifferent to religion. That is my answer to my noble Friend.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked how soon the Reports would be out?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the greater part of them were already issued.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYbegged leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved, that in line 21 the words after "three members," "in this Act referred to as appointed members," be struck out, as no reference whatever was made to them in the Bill, to which they seemed not to relate, but to have been taken from Mr. Marjoribanks's Bill of 1892.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the noble Lord was quite right, and he had himself made a note of the Amendment for Standing Committee, intending to deal only with matters of importance and of principle at this stage.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 21, to omit the words, ("in this Act referred to as appointed members.") — (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to omit the words, providing that there should be eight representative members of the Board, with the view of inserting words leaving the number to be hereafter fixed. He thought it would be desirable on many grounds to leave the number undecided at present. If the number of fishery districts had been practically settled in the minds of the officials at the Scotch Office, surely it would be better to put them in a Schedule, and let them

  221
  be known. If the number were not settled fewer than eight would be desirable, because, as he had pointed out on Second Reading, it was difficult to see how the seaboard counties of Scotland could be divided into exactly eight districts, owing to their geographical position. As he could not say, however, that first-rate importance was to be attached to the Amendment, he would not occupy more time upon it.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 4, page 1, line 29, to leave out ("eight") and insert ("such other number of"). —(the Lord Balfour.)
  LORD PLATFAIRsaid, it was considered originally that four fishery districts might do for Scotland. Lord Lothian, in his Bill of the late Government in 1892, made five; and the Scotch Office was advised by the Fishery Board that for administrative purposes it would be better to have eight. It was upon that recommendation that the Bill had been drawn. If the Amendment were adopted, therefore, the same result would follow, the Secretary for Scotland believing on that recommendation that that was the proper number. As the noble Lord did not attach importance to the Amendment, and the Bill was constructed on the basis of eight Boards, he hoped the House would give power to make that number.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought the Government ought to have made up their minds as to the districts Scotland could be divided into. The proportion of eight members exclusively interested in the fisheries to three others gave an unreasonable preponderance. There was no subject in the world upon which so much difference existed between fancies, theories, and actual knowledge. Their Lordships knew what was done a few years ago in reference to trawling and bottom-fishing in reference to the breeding of fish; but it had now been discovered that nearly all the large fish deposited their eggs where bottom-fishing did not touch them. There would be eight men on these Fishery Boards entertaining such foolish views as against the remaining three, of whom one was to be the Chairman, another a Sheriff, and the third a scientific man who would probably attend to nothing but his business in scientific investigation. The official
  222
  members would find themselves face to face with eight professional men. The powers given to these Boards were very considerable, and the numbers seemed quite disproportionate.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYpointed out that all that was desired was that the number should be left to be decided afterwards by the Secretary for Scotland, for if the "eight" were retained it would predetermine the whole scope of the Bill, and, if necessary, he should certainly press for a Division.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN,as responsible for the Bill of last year, pointed out that the constitution of the Boards proposed by the Government was based upon the fishery districts of Scotland being eight in number. It was, therefore, difficult at this stage to accept the Amendment, because if it was to be left to the Secretary for Scotland to determine the districts the question would still remain open what was to be the constitution of the Fishery Boards. Had he been present on the Second Reading; of the Bill he would have expressed his views of the great difficulty in accepting the Government proposal that there should be eight fishery and only three nominated members. Its consequences had already been pointed out by the noble Duke. He was not going too far in saying that had he assented last year to the proposal of the then Opposition to divide Scotland into eight districts his Bill would have been opposed. He was strongly of opinion that difficulties of administration would arise upon these Boards, having the expenditure of funds which should be used in the development of the fisheries of the whole of Scotland, because it stood to reason each of the fishery members would represent entirely the district from which he came, and there would be continual conflicts as to the manner in which the money should be distributed and expended in the different districts. Expenditure might take place where it was not necessary at all. Therefore, having considered the whole subject with the advice of the then Fishery Board, he fully made up his mind to abide by his decision that the nominated members should be in the majority on the Boards. He must explain that that was not in any way from a dislike to the elective element on them.

  223
  Being the first to introduce that elective principle, he was anxious that the permanent members should be in a majority on the Boards in the interest of the entire fisheries of Scotland. The then Fishery Board recommended to him the revision of Scotland into five districts—and he could not conceive any fishery interest which could be more efficiently represented by a division into eight. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had given no reason for that division. The general principle on which he proceeded last year in his Bill was to form two districts on the east coast, one on the north and two on the west. He hoped the House would forgive this explanation of his views in what was really a Second Reading speech. The Government should have an opportunity of reconsidering the division into eight districts, though the present question was not so much the constitution of the districts as of the Boards. He would support any proposal of five districts— but in the meantime be felt a difficulty in supporting the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhoped Lord Balfour would insist upon his Amendment, the principle of which was that the number of members of the Fishery Boards, apart from the three to be nominated by the Crown, should be left to be determined hereafter. If eight were adhered to, they would be prejudging the question involved in Clause 5. Lord Lothian ought certainly to vote for its omission, otherwise it would be impossible for his proposition of five districts to be considered subsequently.
  On Question whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:— Contents 20; Not Contents 46.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsuggested that a better form for the Amendment would be "certain," instead of "such other" members.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to amend the clause by leaving out the words which enabled the Secretary for Scotland to
  224
  "Apportion and divide the seaboard counties of Scotland into eight fishery districts,"
  and to insert words empowering the Secretary for Scotland to determine the number of fishery districts. He thought it unnecessary to apportion Scotland into fishery districts at all. The purchase and development of mussel-beds which was the object of the Act was not a proper purpose for spending the money of the ratepayers in the various counties by Boards so made up. He particularly objected to the term "seaboard counties," and had never yet seen it in any Act of Parliament. The words he proposed to substitute would leave it to the Secretary for Scotland to suggest the number required. He would propose later that such suggestion or Order should lie on the Table in Parliament.
  Amendment moved,
  In clause 5, page 2, line 10, to leave out from ("to") to ("comprising") in line 13, and insert ("create in Scotland such number of fishery districts as may be therein provided.") — (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD PLAYFAIR,as this was practically consequential on the Amendment previously made, would offer no objection.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked whether the noble Lord was to be understood as willing to abolish the distinction between seaboard and non-seaboard districts? To take the case of the West of Scotland, he had a large herring fishery at his own doors, but the people there got no benefit from it, for the fish were all taken off to Glasgow which contributed not one penny, because Glasgow was not a seaboard county. The whole expense of working this Act was laid on the seaboard counties. This was a kind of burden unknown in politics, and he protested against the distinction between seaboard and non-seaboard. What did their Lordships think was the length of seaboard in his own county? No less than 2,300 miles! Unroll its shore, and it would stretch nearly across the Atlantic. Nevertheless, the fishing interest there was comparatively small. With the exception of a few of the locks there was very little fishing, and most of the county was not concerned in the fisheries at all. In one of the Hebrides, the island of Tiree, the people were very

  225
  good fishermen. They exported 20 or 30 tons of fish a year, but they did not use a single mussel. They baited their lines with crabs, and yet all the fishermen there were to be taxed for no purpose of their own whatever.
  LORD PLAYFAIRwas desirous of taking the Amendments in order, and the question raised by the noble Duke would come under the next. This was simply a consequential Amendment with regard to the eight fishery districts to which he had no objection.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PLAYFAIRmoved an Amendment for the division of the seaboard counties into fishing districts to be enumerated in a Schedule with the burghs included therein. The noble Duke's remarks would come in here. He was not sure that they ought to discuss then the counties to be placed in the Schedule as "seaboard," but certainly on the principle of the Bill the interior parts of Scotland should be left out. The only county he was in dispute about with Lord Balfour was Renfrew, but the noble Lord provided for exactly the same thing by exclusion. At the proper time he would show full reasons for including Renfrew, and at present would only move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 5, page 2, line 11. after ("Scotland") to insert ("as enumerated in Schedule A. appended to this Act, with the burghs included therein."—(The Lord Playfair.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYunderstood that these lines had already been struck out.
  LORD BALFOURpointed out that by the acceptance of the noble Earl's Amendment the words which this Amendment would follow were gone. It would be much better to wait for the Standing Committee when filling in the Schedule, and the words referred to in the body of the Bill could then be put in.
  LORD PLAYFAIRagreed that it would be difficult to insert the Amendment at present.
  Amendment) by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOURmoved—
  In page 2, lines 11, to leave out ("eight fishery districts") and insert ("such number of fishery districts as may be therein provided").
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved—
  In page 2, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("in making such apportionment and division").
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, his next Amendment was that regard, should be had, as far as possible, to the length of seaboard, the extent of the fishing population, and the fishing interest. That would avoid repeating the word "population."
  Amendment moved,
  In line 16, to leave out ("to") and insert .("of"), and to leave out ("and requirements of the population").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD PLAYFAIRasked why it was proposed to omit "requirements"?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, because it would mean anything—it would comprise anything in the world.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, noble Lords did not understand what the word was intended to include. It might mean boats and tackle, or anything else used by the fishermen in their calling.
  LORD PLAYFAIRthought the word was not very material, and if it was desired he had no objection to leaving it out.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYpointed out that the words "fishing interest" covered everything necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, his next Amendment was of some importance. It was to insert, after line 30, a provision directing every Order made or varied by the Secretary for Scotland should be laid for 30 days before both Houses of Parliament, and that if either House within that period resolved that the whole or any part of the Order so made ought not to be in force, the same should not have any force. As the Bill stood, the whole matter was left in the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland. He was to hear and consider objections, but he was absolutely unfettered in the way he should deal with them. There was not only the question of the members of the Fishery Committees, but the apportionment of the half of those members who were not directly elected from the fishing interest; and it was of the utmost importance that Town and County Councils

  227
  should have some right of appeal from his decision in the event of their not being satisfied. This Amendment was exactly in the words of the English Act of 1888, and there could be no objection to insert them in the Bill. Of course, it might not be called into requisition, but, on the other hand, large interests were involved, and it seemed distinctly a bad precedent to leave the ultimate decision of such important matters in the hands of the head of the Department. He hoped, therefore, as the Amendment followed the English Act, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would see no objection to giving an appeal to Parliament in this matter.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 5, after line 30, to insert a new paragraph:—"Every Order made or varied by the Secretary for Scotland under this section shall be laid for 30 days before both Houses of Parliament while in Session, and if either House within that period resolves that the whole or any part of the Order so made, or any variation thereof, ought not to be in force, the same shall not have any force, without prejudice nevertheless to the making of any other Order in its place. Subject to any such resolution every Order so made, or any variation thereof, shall come into force at the expiration of the 30 days aforesaid."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  LORD PLAYFAIEsaid, the reason for not putting it in as in the English Act was that it was thought advisable to follow the example of Lord Lothian's Bill of 1892, that its insertion would render the legislation cumbrous, and that it was not necessary to come before Parliament for all Orders or variations of Orders. The noble Lord would find he had inserted words which were not in the English Act "or any variation thereof;" so that every variation of an Order would require to be laid before the House. The Government considered, following, as he had said, the example of Lord Lothian, that the measure would work much more easily and quickly if those words were not there. They thought Lord Lothian's example was a good one, and did not, therefore, put it in.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the Bill went much further than the Bill of last year, and gave the Secretary for Scotland much greater power — the fullest power, in fact, to do anything he liked. It was, therefore, desirable to introduce this clause copied from the
  228
  English Act in order to guard against arbitrary action on his part.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANadmitted that the Bill, in its present form, followed that of last year, but he saw no objection to accepting the Amendment now, and hoped the noble Lord would see his way to accept it.
  LORD PLAYFAIRasked whether Lord Balfour was willing to omit the words "any variation thereof"?
  LORD BALFOURhad some doubts about that, because if the Secretary for Scotland might vary an Order, there would not be much protection. Having been sanctioned by Parliament, it might be varied by the Secretary six months afterwards.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it would come before Parliament as another Order. There was no other power of variation.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, in that case surely the words would do no harm. If it was provided that any variation had to be laid before Parliament all dispute would be avoided.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Lord was probably a better judge than himself in the matter; but if the whole thing had to be done by Order, every fresh Order must be laid before Parliament, and that covered the whole case.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he had intended to have the Amendment copied exactly from the English Act, but he had no objection to Lord Playfair's proposal, as the noble Lord accepted the main part of the clause.
  Amendment, as altered, agreed to.
  LORD BALFOURpostponed another Amendment that the Counties of Clackmannan, Kinross, Lanark, Peebles, Perth, Renfrew, Roxburgh, Selkirk, and Stirling, should not be included in any fishery district for discussion on the Schedule.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  LORD PLAYFAIRhad to move a very great alteration in this clause for the establishment of Fishery District Committees. In the Bill as originally framed the Fishery Board could, without the consent of the County Councils or the

  229
  boroughs included in the fishery district, impose an assessment. During the Second Reading several objections to that struck him forcibly, and he thought a case had been shown for giving the County Councils the power of representing that they considered the estimates extravagant, or that the Fishery Boards were spending money unnecessarily in their work, and of enabling them to lay the matter before a competent authority—the Secretary for Scotland upon appeal in order to check extravagance. Therefore, this Amendment was proposed with regard to the election of the members before any assessment could be made. Its object chiefly was to prevent the great expense of a preliminary election before the ordinary elections which, according to the Scotch practice, took place every third year, the next occurring in 1895. A general election of the ratepayers for the counties cost sometimes as much as £200 or £300, and would cost £2,000 or £3,000 for the whole of Scotland. That was avoided by the Bill, because the fishery members (and it was only to them it applied) were appointed by the Board of Trade. The Government, believing in the representative principle, wished them to be elected by the ratepayers; but as their election now would cause great expense to the Scotch counties, they were willing to postpone the election of the fishery members on the District Boards until 1895. As the English Act gave the nomination to the Board of Trade, so, for the intervening time, with the view of preventing expense, they proposed to give the nomination to the Secretary for Scotland, and when the elections did take place to make them simultaneous with those of the County Councillors. In that way practically no expense would be caused by the election of the fishery members by popular suffrage.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 6, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (1), and substitute therefor:—
  "(1.) In each fishery district there shall be a Fishery District Committee, who shall be a Committee composed of such number of members (in this Act referred to as ordinary members) of the County Councils of the counties, and of the Town Councils of the Royal or Parliamentary burghs, and the Police Commissioners of the seaboard police burghs, comprised within the district as may be fixed by
  230
  the Order creating the district, or by any other Order of the Secretary for Scotland, with the addition of an equal number of persons (in this Act referred to as fishery members) representing the 'fishing interests' of the district, and distributed or apportioned among the said counties and burghs and police burghs, or any of them, as the Order shall direct.
  "(2.) So soon as an Order creating a district has been made—
  "(a.) The ordinary members shall be appointed in accordance therewith by the said County Councils, Town Councils, and Police Commissioners respectively, from among their own number, and shall hold office until their successors are appointed. There shall thereafter be an annual appointment of ordinary members in the month of December.
  (b.) The Secretary for Scotland shall nominate fishery members in accordance therewith, and those persons only shall be eligible to be so nominated who shall be included within the term 'fishing interests' as defined in this Act.
  (3.)—(a.) In the year 1895, and in every third year thereafter, being the year in which a county electoral roll falls to be prepared under the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889. the fishery members shall be elected (in accordance with regulations to be framed, as to the manner of conducting the elections and the mode of defraying the costs thereof in so far as not herein provided, by the Secretary for Scotland), by all persons on the County Electoral and Municipal Registers of Voters in the counties, burghs, and police burghs which fall to elect them respectively.
  (b.) The county and burgh assessors respectively, or other persons charged within a fishery district with the duty of the preparation of the County Electoral and Municipal Registers of Voters, shall, in the year 1895, and in every third year thereafter, prefix a distinctive mark (of which they shall have given due notice on the lists published by them) to the number or name of any county or municipal elector whom they shall respectively consider to be entitled, or who shall satisfy them that he is entitled, to-be included in the expression 'fishing interests,' and such county or municipal electors only shall be qualified to be elected as fishery members.
  It shall be lawful to object to the insertion or omission of the distinctive mark in this section mentioned as nearly as may be in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as to appeal and otherwise as in the case of any other entry in or omission from the Register or Lists of Voters.
  (c.) At an election each voter shall be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of members to be elected for the county or burgh or police burgh, or for any two or more of them for which fishery members fall to be elected, and for which he has a vote, but he shall not be entitled to give more than one vote to any candidate. The returning officers shall be appointed by the respective County Councils, Town Councils, and Police Commissioners concerned.

  231
  (d.) The election shall take place simultaneously with the elections of County Councillors in counties and of Town Councillors and Police Commissioners in burghs and police burghs respectively in the year 1895, and in every third year thereafter.
  (e.) The fishery members nominated by the Secretary for Scotland shall hold office until the election of their successors in 1895, as provided for in this section, and those subsequently elected shall hold office for three years, and any casual vacancies shall be filled by the Fishery District Committee from among those persons entitled by the provisions of this section to be elected; provided that any person appointed to fill any vacancy shall remain in office so long only as the person in whose room he was appointed would have remained in office.
  (f.) Where ordinary members fall to be appointed in terms of this section by a Town Council of a burgh or Police Commissioners of a police burgh, no County Councillor appointed under the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, to represent any such burgh or police burgh shall in a County Council vote upon such appointment; and where fishery members fall to be elected in terms of this section for a police burgh, the county electors within such police burgh shall not be entitled to vote in the election of fishery members for the county."—(The Lord Playfair.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYhad another Amendment on this clause—to substitute a new paragraph for Subsection 1. As he understood, the objection was not so much to the principle of the clause, but to the presence of Town Council or County Council members on these Fishery Boards. If it was determined to create these District Committees, let them manage their own affairs. He was, therefore, going to move a sub-section which would leave the working of the Bill entirely to the Fishery District Committees themselves, as against Lord Playfair's proposal to bring in representatives of seaboard burgh and County Councils, who really had nothing to do with the matter. In point of fact, there was no definition of seaboard districts in the Bill, and such a term was unknown in Scotland. But the noble Lord's proposal would absolutely fix the districts for which the Boards were to be elected. They would be fixed by the Secretary for Scotland absolutely, without any appeal from him under this clause. He would also point out that the County Council and Town Council members were to be elected for one year only, whereas the members were to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland for three years. Those were the main objections to the clause.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, Lord Playfair must not be surprised at noble Lords expressing their astonishment at the course which had been pursued in carrying this Bill through Parliament. This was a Bill supposed to be so perfect that in another place no discussion upon it was thought necessary, yet now an important sub-section was to be wholly struck out, and an Amendment consisting of 80 lines of print was sprung upon the House 24 hours before the Bill was to come on for discussion. The Amendment only reached Scotland yesterday, and those chiefly concerned had had no time to consider it. He quite agreed, however, that it was an improvement in some respects on the Bill as it stood before, because, as he understood, the fishery members would without doubt now be elected by all the County Council and police voters in the districts they were to represent. But, while admitting the improvement, he thought there was no franchise of that kind. You have a large electing body, but you strictly select the persons to be elected. Therefore, every person for whom the elector would have a voice was to be a person committed to one view, and it did not seem that there would be any great improvement in that respect. But on other grounds the Amendment was not a good one. He could not understand why the Town and County Council members were to be elected annually while the others were to have a three years' term of office. He could understand it in the case of the fishery members, but surely the Town and County Council members should have the same term of office as the others. The Amendment, by an insidious device, cast a greater burden upon the ratepayers than was contemplated by the original Bill. Originally the assessment upon the ratepayers was to be limited to ld.; but if this were carried they would have to pay the cost of the election over and above that amount, and to that extent the burden of the ratepayers would be increased. Again, there had been criticism upon the extreme difficulty of the invidious duty cast upon the assessors. They were, no doubt, very trustworthy persons, but they would have to interpret a very difficult Act of Parliament and to decide who were persons within the term "fishery interests." The

  233
  proposed new Sub-section (d) provided that—
  "The elections should take place simultaneously with the elections of County Councillors and Town Councillors and Police Commissioners in burghs and police burghs respectively in 1895."
  How was that to be done? Were there to be different voting cards and the same polling booths, or were there to be different polling booths side by side, or how was it to be managed? Surely in county and burgh elections many different issues were put to the electors; but here the whole matter was to be complicated by fishery questions which had nothing to do with the general management of county and burgh affairs. Personally, he was not prepared to go quite so far as the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Huntly) and refuse to insert this clause in the Bill. The better course would be to insert it subject to consideration subsequently on the subsidiary points in Standing Committee, and to the acceptance or rejection of the Amendment in another place. He had serious difficulties about the contents of the clause, and would certainly not like, even if he consented to the insertion of this Amendment as it stood, to be bound to all its details; but he would be guided in his vote on the insertion of the clause on the discussion which might take place.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNobjected to the presence on the Fishery Boards of representatives of the Town and County Councils, and that would be the most important result of the Amendment. Fishery matters were not the proper business for which they were elected by the ratepayers. For that reason he would vote against the clause on a Division. Some of the arrangements with regard to first elections, and so on, might be accepted, but he would oppose the Amendment as a whole in order to support Lord Huntly's.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the importance of the Amendment really depended upon the power to be given to the Boards. He cared little how they were constituted if they were to have no other powers than their Lordships were disposed to give them; but there was a strong objection in some of the Scottish burghs to having this duty imposed upon them of electing men to act in matters with which they had nothing whatever
  234
  to do—they said it would complicate their elections, and they wanted to have nothing to do with the matter. The great City of Aberdeen had distinctly repudiated having anything to do with representation on these small Fishery Committees, and that, he had no doubt, would be the desire of a majority of the great towns and Royal burghs of Scot-land. The truth was, that this Bill was a monstrosity and had not been submitted in time to the people of Scotland. Their Lordships were now discussing Amendments which had only been sent out yesterday. These Committees were to have a rating power given them. He agreed with Lord Huntly in the general view he had taken, that a much simpler constitution would be far better; but the importance of the Amendment depended upon what immediately followed in the Bill, and whether power was to be given to these small bodies—a comparatively enormous rating power.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the noble Duke's objection went to the whole scheme of the Bill. By giving the Second Reading without opposition it was admitted that the Scottish people wanted a Fisheries Act, and the principle of the Bill was then acknowledged. The object of this Amendment was to save the ratepayers the expenditure of a preliminary election to start with, and not in any way to create a new precedent for giving the nomination to the Secretary for Scotland. It was exactly similar to the measure passed in 1888, where a nomination was given to the Board of Trade, and the reason for extending them beyond one year was because the Electoral Rolls would not be made up until 1895. Then with regard to the assessors who would have to regulate those Rolls and mark off persons interested in the fishery interests, Lord Balfour would see that by the definition given—"those engaged in the fishery interests"—the assessors would have very little to do and much less responsibility. Lord Balfour asked how this was to be managed. That was left to the Secretary of State and the County Councils, as was done constantly without difficulty. He was recently at an election in the United States where 8 or 10 different functionaries were elected upon one ticket. This was the simplest and easiest way, and practically there would be no difficulty. Lastly, as

  235
  to the assessment, which the noble Duke had described as the most important part of the Bill. These small bodies ought to have the power of recommending their accounts to the County Councils and stating what they thought should be given for their expenditure. This Bill was more limited than those of the late Government introduced in 1888 for England, and in 1892, through Lord Lothian, for Scotland, because in neither of them was the assessment limited, whereas by this Bill it was not to exceed 1d. in the £1. The clause was very important to the machinery of the Bill, which the Government were trying to improve by causing least expense to the people of Scotland and least friction in carrying out the Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANhad some difficulty in following the effect of the Amendments, but his own view was that it would be better to allow them to pass on the distinct understanding that the clause should be fully dealt with in Standing Committee. His noble Friend had referred to the assessment not exceeding 1d., but that could be dealt with later.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL),in reference to Lord Balfour's remark about changing the body of electors, said, the Bill made no such change. The noble Lord seemed, on the Second Reading, to be under the impression that the electors would not be the whole of the county voters, but only those who had fishing interests; but the clause provided that—
  "The fishery members shall be elected by all persons on the county electoral and municipal rolls of voters for the area comprised within the district."
  They no doubt could only elect certain people, but the electors were not changed.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, the misapprehension was not confined to himself or to Members of that House. Their Lordships would remember that the Bill had not been explained or discussed to any extent, and its supporters went about their constituencies giving the explanation he had put forward on Second Reading, that not only were the people whose names were marked with an asterisk to be eligible for the committee, but they were to be the electors for that committee. As it stood in
  236
  the Bill he thought it was not very clear, but if the noble and learned Lord declared that it was clear in his position and with his knowledge he was bound to accept his declaration; but almost everyone with whom he had discussed the Bill considered it could be read either way, and that on the whole its promoters intended, whether they had carried out their intention or not, to hand the matter over to a fishing interest constituency—at least, if they were to be judged by their own declarations. However, that was now made plain by the declaration of the noble and learned Lord. He would not further discuss it, having already said that he thought it was now decided in the right way. He was really in a difficulty as to the right vote to give on this clause. In fact, they were all in a difficulty. If there was to be a right of assessment, of course there must be representation of those assessed; but if there was not to be an assessment at the recommendation of the Fishery Committees, the reason for having the Council representatives upon them fell to the ground. He agreed with his noble Friend that they might accept the Amendment now, and deal with it in Standing Committee upon its details, because he felt strongly that in some form or other there would have to be an assessment. He did not like the form of the clause, but it was impossible to explain his views fully upon that point on this Amendment. While he by no means approved of this long Amendment sprung upon the House in Committee, he thought it should not be rejected at the present stage.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out, in answer to Lord Playfair, that when they read the Bill a second time they expressed no opinion whatever as to the constitution of these committees, which was the point now before the House. He would greatly prefer to see the Amendment thrown out. He thought the most unfortunate person under the Bill would be the county assessor, upon whom enormous labour would be cast in finding out every person in the county connected with fishing interests. Provided he were at liberty to vote for the total rejection of the clause, he would not now press the matter to a Division.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he would not divide the House on Lord

  237
  Playfair's Amendment, as the matter could be afterwards discussed upon his own Amendment to leave out the whole clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, he had already explained to the Committee very much the object of the next Amendment in regard to the assessment to provide for the expenditure of these small Boards. The proposal was that the Fishery District Committee should not, as the Bill proposed, have the power of assessing, but that they should have the power of submitting their accounts, and stating to the County Councils and those concerned that they would require a certain budget for expenditure. If the County Councils approved of that expenditure they would make the assessment accordingly; if they did not, they would inform the Secretary for Scotland why they objected if they thought the commendation extravagant. The Secretary for Scotland would then make a local inquiry, and find out the conditions under which the estimate had been made. If he was satisfied that the representation of the County Council was correct he would reduce the estimate; and if he was satisfied with the Committee's recommendation he would make the assessment for the purposes of the Act. That was a considerable improvement upon the proposal in the Act of 1888, and brought the County Councils into direct relations with the Fishery Committees which could only assess, therefore, upon full representations being made.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 6, page 3, line 31, to leave out from ("Clerk") to end of clause, and insert as new sub-sections: "(6) A Fishery District Committee shall submit accounts and estimates of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them to the County Councils and Town Councils concerned, and may recommend the said County and Town Councils to impose a special assessment not exceeding in any one year 1d. in the £1 of the annual value of all rateable lands and heritages in the fishery district as ascertained by the Secretary for Scotland in course of the annual distribution of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and shall allocate the amount to be raised in any year between the counties and the Royal or Parliamentary burgher comprised within the fishery district, in proportion to the annual value thereof as so ascertained respectively, and the amounts so allocated shall be certified by the Fishery District Com-
  238
  mittee to the several County Councils and Town Councils concerned on or before the 15th day of May in any year, and subject to the provisions of the following sub-section, shall be levied and collected by the said County Councils within the county (including police burghs) as an addition to the county general purposes assessment, and by the said Town Councils acting as such or as Police Commissioners as an addition to the burgh general assessment, or where there is no burgh general assessment as an addition to any other available assessment, and the amounts so collected shall on or before the 15th day of January next ensuing be paid to the Fishery District Committee without any deductions whatever.
  The special assessment aforesaid may be applied for the purposes of this Act.
  (7.) If the County and Town Councils or Police Commissioners representing more than one-half of the valuations and populations of both—

  (a) counties, excluding police burgh, and

  (b) burghs and police burghs

  comprised within a fishery district respectively, resolve that the amount of the assessment recommended to be imposed by the Fishery District Committee is excessive, they may by further resolution, agree to make a joint representation to the Secretary for Scotland, who shall take into consideration any such representation, duly signed by the county clerks of the respective counties and the town clerks of the respective burghs or police burghs, and transmitted to him on or before the 1st clay of August in any year, and may cause a local inquiry to be held, subject to the provisions of Section 93, Sub-sections (1) and (3) of the Local Government. (Scotland) Act, 1889, and having regard to the nature and amount of the costs or charges incurred or to be incurred by the committee, the benefits expected to result there from, the prospect of ultimate recoupment, and the other circumstances of the case, shall determine what assessment (not exceeding the assessment recommended to be imposed by the Fishery District Committee) ought to be imposed, and his determination shall be final for the time being, and the assessment so determined shall be levied and collected and paid in terms of this section as the assessment for the year, but shall not be exceeded in that year, or, if so provided in the determination, in any of the three following local financial years; provided that no County Councillor appointed under the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, to represent any burgh or police burgh, shall in a County Council or its committees vote upon a proposal to pass a resolution in terms of this Sub-section."—(The Lord Playfair.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, this was the important part of the measure. It was the crux of the Bill, and he begged noble Lords connected with England not to suppose that this was a Scotch question, for if the principle embodied in the clause were adopted in Scotland they might depend upon it being brought across the Tweed, and

  239
  that very speedily. All the Petitions presented from Scotland fixed upon this clause as their great objection. The great Cities of Aberdeen, Dundee— Liberal and Radical—the Municipalities all along the seaboard of Scotland, the burghs whose Petitions he had presented, all equally implored their Lordships to protect them from an unknown impost and from the expenditure of entirely novel taxation for a novel purpose, the appropriation of the property of other men by Local Bodies for their own particular purposes. He would remind their Lordships that this was the most important question that had to be dealt with at the present moment in either House of Parliament. What powers of taxation were they going to give and for what purpose? The objections taken by the great cities of Scotland were, first of all, that this was a local taxation for the benefit of a special industry. He did not say there could never be a case in which it was legitimate to tax men for a particular industry, but he did say that if such taxes were levied at all, they ought to be levied by Parliament, having all the circumstances before them. In the second place, this tax was to be levied in absolute contempt of the Local Constitutional Bodies already formed by Parliament for the purpose of levying and administering local taxation. Lord Play fair said an important modification had been made. A very slight modification had been made. As the Bill stood originally, the proposal was that these local committees, half packed with men personally interested in the disposal of the rate, should have authority to levy a rate not exceeding 1d. in the £1—the original proposal was that they should have power to levy a rate not exceeding 31., without any check or control, upon all the ratepayers of the seaboard counties. A more outrageous proposal had never been made to Parliament. They had authority to go to the Councils in all the cities and counties and say—"You shall impose this 1d. rate on every one of your ratepayers; you are to raise a 1d. in the £1 and hand it over to us for our purposes." Lord Playfair confessed in his speech that the original proposal was not 1d. but 3d.—that was the amount actually contemplated by the Scotch Office if not by Her 'Majesty's Govern-
  240
  ment, for he believed some of the Members of Her Majesty's Government knew nothing about it—was to be handed over to these Local Bodies packed one-half by men who were personally interested in the expenditure of the rate. That was the proposal: that they should have the power of levying 3d. in the £1 upon the ratepayers in all the seaboard counties of Scotland! The next objection urged by the Councils he had mentioned was that these Local Committees were not disinterested bodies, but were, on the contrary, specially constituted as to half of them of men directly interested in the expenditure to be covered by the levying of these rates. The money was to be laid out by them upon their own calling without any specification as to how it was to be expended. As he had pointed out on a previous occasion, the Bill as originally framed would have given them power to levy rates for new boats and new lines. It was an absolute novelty as far as he knew in either England, Scotland, or Ireland. Reference had been made to the English Bill as a precedent, but that measure kept the rating power in the hands of the constitutional Local Authorities, the County Councils, though there might be objections to that, and he thought the powers of County Councils ought to be limited in that respect. But here the power was given to small Local Committees, which were not in the same position as County Councils at all, one-half of whom, he repeated, it was expressly declared should be interested in the expenditure of the rates. The mere announcement of such a purpose had been received, as far as he had seen and heard, with a universal shout of disapprobation over the whole of Scotland. [Lord PLAYFAIR: No; there have been Petitions.] His noble Friend said "no," and paraded a number of Petitions. What were those Petitions? They came from small fishing villages along the coast—that was to say, from the people who were personally interested, and who would themselves have the raising and spending of the rate. To show how severely this rate would fall in certain cases, he had found, looking through the Scotch Acts, that the amount which might be levied on the owners of heritages was 4d. in the £1, and now 25 per cent. was to be added for matters in which they had no interest.

  241
  Herring fishing had become the great fishery industry for Scotland. The fish went to Glasgow, Edinburgh, and even as far as Manchester, but all the small farmers and crofters in the seaboard counties, and the people in the towns along the coast, were to be mulcted 1d. in the £1 to support what was, after all, a rich and thriving industry.
  LORD PLAYFAIR: Not necessarily 1d.—not exceeding 1d.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it would come to be at least 1d. That alone would induce him to stand against the clause. He had received a letter from the Lord Provost of Aberdeen speaking in the strongest terms of the measure, and trusting that their Lordships would reject the Bill. That was from one of the most Liberal, if not one of the most Radical, cities in Scotland. Their Lordships should know how this Bill had come to be passed utterly unknown to the people of Scotland. A most extraordinary correspondence had been published lately which explained the origin and genesis of the measure. As he had said the other day, it would be called in America a "lobbying Bill." It was got up by some Members of the House of Commons privately, considered in the lobbies and bye-ways there, never considered by that House in any form, and no public Debate which called public attention to it. Nobody knew anything about it until Mr. Marjoribanks put it into the hands of the unfortunate Prime Minister. Mr. Gladstone said in Edinburgh, "Here is a grand Bill which is likely to pass without opposition in the House of Lords," and then people began to ask—"Is this the whole produce of your legislation for Scotland?" He never doubted for a moment that such a Bill would meet with opposition in the House of Lords. One clause in the Bill referred to the titles of proprietors of mussel-scalps, of whom the town of Inverness was one. The Town Clerk wrote to the Member for Inverness remonstrating, and stating that they had owned the mussel-scalps for 700 years— since the time of William the Lion, and no doubt had ever been cast upon their property in them; but under this Bill they were called upon to produce their original Charter, and unless they could do so they would be liable to have their property confiscated; and they wished
  242
  him to see that this injustice was remedied. In reply, Mr. Beith wrote a wonderful letter, which had now been published, to Mr. Macdonald, the Town Clerk of Inverness:—
  "I have received your letter. After a great deal of private negotiation with the Government and among themselves, the Scotch Members have agreed to drop all contentious clauses and endeavour to pass the measure through all its stages at 1 o'clock to-morrow morning."
  What a very nice arrangement!
  "It is the only chance of getting the Bill through, and we think it better to give up Clause 20 "—that was the financial clause—"and to drop all the clauses relating to the salmon fisheries" —to do what?—"so as to get the principle of the measure accepted by Parliament, with a view to working through next Session an amended and more perfect measure."
  The Scotch meant the Gladstonian Members chiefly.
  LORD PLAYFAIR: There was no Division.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLknew that. He knew very well that the Party opposite called their own majority the Scotch Members, and gave a very cold shoulder to all the others. Was there ever such a conspiracy to endeavour to get Parliament to adopt a new principle of private rating? They avowed that all they wanted was to get Parliament committed to the principle, and then they would go further next Session. That was the whole origin, genesis, and secret of this Bill. He repeated, that the moment its principle became known in Scotland there was a universal rebellion against it in all the principal Scotch cities and counties where any notice had been taken of the measure. It was a new thing which had certainly not yet been accepted throughout Scotland, and he entreated the House to adopt the Amendments which were absolutely necessary to remedy so unjust and dangerous a Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he could not understand that the principle to which they would be committed if this clause was accepted was so vicious and destructive as the noble Duke represented. It had been already acknowledged by Parliament in the English Fisheries Act of 1888. Under that Act the expenses were principally upon the county, and others upon an area to be determined by the Board of Trade. The assessment was not only on those

  243
  engaged in the fisheries, but the principle adopted and accepted by Parliament was that it might be legitimate to tax an area so fixed for the fishery expenses, and even for certain purposes to tax the whole county. That principle was adopted by noble Lords opposite who then formed the Government for England. Again, Lord Lothian's Bill of 1892 involved the principle of taxing areas not confined to the individuals engaged in the fishing industries, and placed some of the burden upon those who had no such direct interest. The House would, therefore, not be adopting an entirely new principle in our legislation, for it was involved in the Bill passed by Parliament in 1888 and introduced by a Conservative Government.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked whether, under the English Act referred to, the taxing body was half composed of persons who were directly interested in its expenditure?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)did not say it was, but although the taxing body was one-half composed of such persons, they were elected by the whole of the body taxed. It was only that for the persons elected a particular qualification was required.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Which is, to be interested on one side.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the purpose was to have a body dealing with the fisheries which understood something about them; and the taxation rested only upon those who were elected. The principle the noble Duke objected to was the taxation for a particular industry of anybody but those directly engaged in it; and that principle had been already adopted by Parliament. With regard to the manner in which the Bill was passed in the other House, the noble Duke described it as "a conspiracy." Unfortunately, owing to the difficulties of legislation in the other House, a great many useful measures could only be passed by such conspiracies, and if "conspiracy" meant that persons who were interested in Bills should see how they could remove that which was objectionable, and decide upon that to which no objection could be taken, it seemed to him to be a very rational proceeding. If that was a conspiracy, it seemed to be a very laudable
  244
  one, and the more of them there were the better.
  LORD BALFOURwould deal briefly with the suggestion that this Bill was founded upon or logically followed from the Fisheries Act of 1888, and that the Bill should be passed because of the precedent formed by the late Government. The English Act constituted fishery districts and Committees, but they were appointed in a wholly different way — partly by persons elected by the Central Authority, and by Boards of Conservancy, the remainder by the County Councils concerned who had to pay the assessment. The Committee had no direct power of rating at all, but sent a precept to the Councils in their district for the money they required, in certain proportions fixed by the Board of Trade in making the Order. But the County Councils were given complete control in all questions of salaries fixed by the Committees, and could refuse to pay if they thought them exorbitant. Very different powers were proposed to be given to the Fishery Committees in Scotland. Not only were they to be at least one-half elective, and that half with a direct interest in large expenditure, but they were to be allowed to go into business as proprietors of mussel-scalps, and so on. It was under that head of the Bill that the greatest danger was apprehended. It was feared that these Committees, elected largely by persons interested in the matter, might make unwise and improvident bargains which would impose heavy burdens upon the ratepayers for many years to come. The English Fishery Committees were not allowed to do the main part of the duty cast by this Bill upon the districts in Scotland which would cost most of the money. It was idle for Lord Play-fair to say there was any real control by the Town and County Councils over these Fishery Committees; and with regard to appeals to the Secretary for Scotland every obstacle was thrown in the way of their being successful. They must get—which was wholly new in Scotland—more than one-half the valuation and population; and though there might be a dozen different bodies concerned, everyone of them must concur in the representation before the Secretary for Scotland could take the matter up. Even if all the bodies con-

  245
  curred in saying the expenditure was extravagant that would not veto it. All the Councils might be opposed to it, and yet the Secretary for Scotland might, with the assistance of the Committee, impose an assessment of 1d. in the £1. The noble Duke was right in saying this was a wholly new principle. There was nothing like it in England or Scotland, and he reiterated their warning to the House to be very careful in introducing such a precedent. He adhered, however, to his previous statement that some assessment must be provided for hereafter. In Lord Lothian's Bill of last year it was very carefully limited to salaries and necessary expenses. The power of assessment was not to be pledged for the purpose of going into business as bait-sellers. Their Lordships' only course was to reject this clause. He was advised they had power to reject a rating clause, but not to alter or amend it. But they need not consider that, because he had shown that Lord Playfair's proposals were in themselves bad, and ought therefore to be rejected on their own demerits. With regard to the line fishermen, like the noble Duke he had great sympathy with them, and under proper conditions it was right they should have assistance. He would venture to lay down three conditions which he did not find in the Bill: (1) that if people were to be taxed there ought to be a real control over all expenditure by their properly - qualified representatives in Town and County Councils; (2) if there were to be Fishery Committees there ought to be a distinct majority on each Committee of those who were not directly and personally interested in the expenditure; (3) the precedent of the English Bills should be followed, and in the Order making the fishery districts the expense should be allocated between different counties and the different areas concerned in some equitable and proper manner. If a settlement on those lines could be come to, he, for one, would welcome it; but he must reiterate that any proposal for taxing the ratepayers without giving them any real control over the expenditure of the money did not commend itself to his sober judgment, and he hoped the House would reject it.
  LORD PLAYFAIRpointed out that if the House deprived the fishery districts of means of obtaining money to carry on
  246
  their work, they would leave the Bill a skeleton; they would offer the Scotch fishermen a stone instead of bread. He denied that the rating proposal of the Bill created a new precedent, and said it was to be found in several Scotch Acts, including the Small Holdings (Scotland) Act. It was useless to create Fishery Committees without enabling them to carry out the duties which Parliament placed upon them. The noble Lord's opinion was that the area of rating should be extended so as to get the money required from the general taxation of the country, but the House of Commons, which had to consider ways and means, showed no disposition whatever to allow a general assessment provision of that kind. The expenses under the English Fisheries Bill were provided for by an assessment in the rates. If this clause were struck out, their Lordships could not put anything in its place, as they had nothing to do with providing ways and means. Without it not one penny could be provided for carrying out the purposes of the Bill, audit would be practically a failure—a machine without any fuel to work it. He asked the House not to make the Bill a mockery by refusing the means by which the machinery they had agreed to set up was to be worked.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was not their Lordships' business to find ways and means. A proposal came to them from the House of Commons which they had reason to believe had never been discussed there, or put before the people of Scotland in its full form. As far as it had been before them it had been repudiated, even by the most Radical constituency in Scotland—by all shades in politics, Liberals and Conservatives alike. He entirely denied the argument that there was no alternative to the proposal now made by the Government. If they chose to give control to the County Councils as in England he would be quite willing to assent to that; and if they would provide, as in other cases, the money should not be expended except where it would be repaid, the Bill would be made more acceptable. But he entirely objected to doing what he maintained had never been done before with regard to local taxation. The final authority for rating the people was to be the Secretary for Scotland. That was not a Constitu-

  247
  tional measure, and their Lordships should not assent to it, coming as it did to them with no merits and with less than no authority.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)pointed out that under the Act of 1888 a Government Department, the Board of Trade, determined the limits of the districts and the areas chargeable with any expenses under the Act.
  LORD BALFOUR: But not the amount of the assessment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): Not the amount of assessment; but the area to bear the expenses was exclusively determined by a Public Department.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANadmitted that his Bill of last year did impose a limited rate requested by the District Councils; and that as the Local Fishery Committees were constituted the provisions were similar. But the great difference was that everything was done with regard to mussel-beds and scalps was to be with money provided by Parliament. That was an enormous difference, for it applied to a very large proportion of the expenditure of the Committees. All that was omitted in this Bill. He regretted that the provisions of last year's Bill had not been adhered to. Another point was that no salaries were to be paid by the District Committees. No doubt it was undesirable that the Bill should go back without a provision for expenses; but, as the noble Duke had suggested, the money required might be found in another way.
  On Question: that the new subsection proposed by the Government be inserted in the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 49.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYmoved to omit the whole clause, and to insert a new one. The arguments had already been presented by the noble Duke and by Lord Balfour in support of the principle on which his clause proceeded. When the Bill came up in the Autumn, and there was a question of its passing through the House without opposition, he wrote to inform his noble Friend re-presenting the Government that it was strongly opposed in Scotland, and he very courteously replied that it would
  248
  not be pressed forward in haste. So that the Government could not be blamed for anything like rushing the Bill through the House, as it might have been but for the courtesy of the noble Earl. He considered his proposal was the simplest way of dealing with the matter, and the best in the interests of the fishermen of Scotland. As the noble Duke had said, it was not for that House to decide in what way the funds were to be provided for carrying out the purposes of the Bill, but he hoped the Government would see their way, if the Bill went to another place, to making a grant from the Treasury.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out Clause 6, and insert new clause:
  "(1.) In each fishery district there shall be a Fishery District Committee, who shall be a Committee composed of such number of persons (in this Act referred to as 'the members') representing the 'fishing interests' of their district as may be fixed by the Order creating the district, and the Order shall define the qualification of the persons entitled to vote for the election of the members and of the persons entitled to be elected members of the Fishery District-Committee, but no person shall be entitled to be elected a member who is not a voter on the county electoral or municipal rolls of voters for the area comprised within the district in which it is proposed to elect him. At every election each voter shall be entitled to so many votes as shall be equal to the number of members to be elected, but he shall not be entitled to give more than one vote to each candidate.
  The members shall hold office for three years unless they shall sooner die or resign office, and any vacancy which may' occur amongst them during that period shall be filled by the District Committee from among those persons entitled by the provisions of this section to be elected.
  (2.) A Fishery District Committee shall from time to time elect a chairman, who shall hold office for such period as shall be fixed at the time of his election. The chairman shall have a casting vote as well as a deliberative vote.
  (3.) The Order creating a fishery district shall make provision in regard to the time and place of meeting of the Fishery District Committee and the appointment of its clerk."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD PLAYFAIRunderstood, of course, that in rejecting his Amendment the Committee had rejected the clause, because practically no means remained of making the assessment. He would not, therefore, put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYasked whether the Amendment was accepted?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the noble Lord did not accept it; but inasmuch as the Bill now stood there was no power to expend one penny for the purposes of the Bill, it did not matter much in what form it went.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to with Consequential Amendment.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  Verbal Amendments.
  LORD BALFOURmoved the omission of the latter half of the clause with regard to proving title to mussel or clam fisheries, beds, or scalps. He said this was rather a legal matter. Owners were to prove their claims within two years, and failing to do so would be held to have given up all claim to their property, which would then go to the Crown. To that part of the clause his Amendment did not extend, though his noble Friend Lord Huntly proposed to omit the whole clause. But the part to which he objected went on to provide that if the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, or the Board of Trade, should not think the Committee sufficiently "instructed" (to use the Scotch expression) they might pass a resolution to that effect, and then the owner of the mussel-bed must go to the Court of Session, raise an action of declaration and get his right acknowledged. It was unfair that he should have to show his case to those who might afterwards be his opponents, and then be put in the position of pursuer and not defender. If this were left out altogether the Crown would be left to the ordinary law, to raise an action of declaratory, and have it declared that the claimant had no title to what he professed to have a title to. It surely was putting the Crown in a sufficiently favourable position if they were told the case of their opponents, without putting them to the additional disadvantage of being pursuers in the actions. From what Lord Play-fair had already said, he was probably prepared to accept the Amendment, and therefore he would say no more about it.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 10, page 5, to leave out lines 9 to 18: ("In the event of the right or title of any person
  250
  to such mussel or clam fisheries or beds or scalps not being instructed to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, the person making such claim shall, in the event of his insisting in it, bring an action of declarator of his right in the Court of Session, and if he shall fail to bring such action within a period of twelve months from the date of the intimation of the Commissioners declining to admit the claim, the mussel or clam fisheries or beds or scalps in question shall be held to vest in and belong to the Crown, and shall be treated accordingly.")—(The Lord Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, it was surely a novel proposal even in this novel Bill that a man should be called upon to produce his title, and then by the mere fact of the non-production lose his right at the end of two years. Why should not the law remain the same in this as in other cases? If the Commissioners of Woods and Forests desired to know what property people had in the mussel-beds, they should take proceedings to ascertain it. He was at a loss to see why mussels and scalps should be treated differently from other property, and he entirely objected to the clause.
  On Question, whether the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 38.
  Clause 11.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYwithdrew an Amendment with regard to the purchase of fisheries otherwise than by agreement.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to add at the end of the clause a new paragraph to preserve the rights of private persons exactly as they were at present with regard to the purchase of clam and mussel - beds, as to which by Clauses 13, 14, and one or two others, certain powers were given to the Boards. He only wished to provide that the rights of individuals should not be affected by anything in the Bill, except as mentioned in the Amendment.
  Amendment moved, at the end of the Clause to add—
  ("Except in so far as powers are given under this section, nothing in this Act contained shall affect or alter the rights of any person having or claiming to have a right or title to mussel or clam fisheries, or mussel or clam beds, or scalps, in the sea adjoining Scotland, and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands.") —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, if the noble Earl would move the Amendment in Standing Committee the Government would be prepared to move an Amendment which would probably remove his objections. It was obviously an injustice to give a compulsory power to take away mussel-beds from persons who were working them, well preserving them and preventing them being injured, but there were other cases where beds were entirely ruined from want of care in the proprietors and in those cases compulsory powers should be exercised. If the noble Earl would assent to that course he would engage to bring in an Amendment which would meet the spirit of this one.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNassented, merely pointing out that the rights of grantees of the Crown were carefully preserved by the Bill, and his point was that private rights should have the same protection.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) agreed to.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYpointed out that this must be omitted, as the power of levying was now gone.
  LORD PLAYFAIRpreferred that it should be negatived though without a Division. Of course, it was impossible to be carried out without any means of meeting the expenses; still, he would like to consider it.
  Clause 12 negatived.
  Clause 13.
  LORD PLAYFAIRmoved—
  In page 7, line 5 after the first ("and") to insert ("with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland"), and after the second ("and") to insert ("after due publication").
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOURmoved—
  In page 7, after line 9, to add ("No bye-law made under this section shall be of any validity until it has been confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland").
  He did not know how far the previous Amendment was now necessary. This was more comprehensive, as the other would only include some of the bye-laws.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, if there had been any mistake between them the
  252
  matter could be considered in Standing Committee.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he would leave the point for Standing Committee.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYmoved an Amendment as to the application of the revenue from tolls, as the provision for expenses had gone out of the Bill.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 8, line 1, to leave out from ("applied") to ("and") in line 4, and insert ("in defraying the costs of the Fishery District Committee under this Act.")—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, there was no money now provided, and therefore noble Lords might deal with the Bill in that respect as they desired.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD PLAYFAIRhad proposed to move to insert a new clause, that—
  "A Fishery District Committee shall not, in terms of the two preceding sections, be entitled to incur expenses in the purchase, lease, maintenance, or regulation of any mussel or clam fisheries, or beds or scalps, or for the cultivation of mussels or clams generally, or to borrow money therefore, unless such expense may reasonably be expected to be recouped out of the rents or other proceeds or produce thereof."
  But though very important it would be absurd to move it now. It would have given great security against improper expenditure by providing, exactly as in the Small Allotments Act, that only proper expenses should be incurred, and should be repaid from the working of the beds. As their Lordships had deprived the Committee of the power of expending any money at all it would be useless.
  LORD BALFOURcould not let that pass without remark. It was held over them that their fears with regard to the mussel-beds were quite childish, because they were sure to pay their expenses in a short time. The Secretary for Scotland so stated to a deputation which waited on him; but if the prospect was so rosy that these mussel-beds would pay their expenses, it was difficult to see the necessity for such a clause.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, as there was no money to purchase them they could

  253
  not be worked, at either profit or loss, and to put the words now into the Bill would simply be a mockery.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16, 17, and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 agreed to with a drafting Amendment.
  Clause 20.
  LORD PLAYFAIRmoved to insert a new clause—
  "Nothing in or done under this Act shall—

  (a) where the soil under any mussel or clam fisheries, or beds or scalps, is vested in the Crown, and is under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, entitle any person to acquire that, soil without the consent of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, as the case may require; or

  (b) affect any powers, authorities, rights, or privileges, exerciseable by the Board of Trade in the public interest."

  These provisions were merely inserted at the request of the officials at the Board of Trade to avoid conflict between the Departments.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22.
  LORD PLAYFAIRmoved the insertion of words to define the vague term "interests in fishing." They were simpler, and would work more easily.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, line 38, to leave out ("includes all persons interested in fisheries") and insert ("shall include all persons engaged or employed in the industry or business of sea fishing").— (The Lord Playfair.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYasked for some further explanation. Did it include the boat-builders, and the makers of the herring-barrels, nets, and other things used in connection with the fisheries? Surely they were "employed in the industry or business of sea-fishing," yet. those people had, of course, nothing whatever to do with the actual fishing.
  LORD BALFOURasked how long in the course of a year must a man be engaged in fishing, in order to come under this definition? Would a month do, or must it be six or eight mouths? A number of delicate questions would arise, which would have to be settled. For
  254
  instance, was a fishmonger to be considered a "merchant"?
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, if such questions arose, they would no doubt be decided by much more learned judges than himself. He had no doubt, however, that this definition would be easier to work than that which it superseded.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the point could be considered afterwards, and he would not press it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, the object of the next Amendment was to keep the salmon fisheries, in this Bill, as distinct as they had always been; but he was not quite certain that the words previously introduced would not have the effect of rendering the Amendment unnecessary. As the definition stood before, it was certainly necessary to do something of the kind.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 9, line 39, after ("fisheries") to insert ("excepting fisheries for salmon and fish of the salmon kind, as defined by any Act relating to salmon").—(The Lord Balfour.)
  LORD PLAYFAIRagreed with the noble Lord that the substituted definition rendered this Amendment unnecessary. Originally, as the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, the salmon fisheries were included. In reference to the noble Duke's remarks about the wicked machinations of the Gladstonian Party, this was not one of them, for it was knocked out at the instance of Mr. Anstruther, who belonged to the Unionist Party. He did not wish this to go in if it was not required.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, if the noble Lord had no objection, it would be better to put the words in.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, this comprised the word "Edinburgh." Did the noble Lord mean by that the city or the county —was what was usually known as Midlothian, which had the honour of being represented by the Prime Minister, intended?
  LORD PLAYFAIRhad not seen the Report of the Fishery Board, and therefore could not answer. Perhaps the noble Lord would repeat his question in Standing Committee.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that the Schedule was not moved.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, it simply disappeared.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 286.)

  MECHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Monday next at half-past Three 0'Clock.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  Moved,
  "That the Petition presented this day from "Shipowners of Glasgow, praying for amendment or for further inquiry into the Bill before a Select Committee, and the Petition presented this day from Railway-men, &c, employed by the London and North Western Railway Company, praying that they may be granting liberty to contract out of the Act, be printed."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  Motion agreed to. (No. 285.)

  NATIONAL DEBT REDEMPTION BILL. (No. 282.)
  Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order) and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 4) BILL. (No. 283.)
  Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYmoved—
  "That the House to adjourn to Three o'Clock on Tuesday next for the purpose of a Royal Commission, and from then until the following Friday."
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter-past Seven o'clock, to Tuesday next half-past Ten o'clock.