Lords Sitting of 18 February 1895

ROYAL MESSAGE.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The Marquess of BREADALBANE)brought up Her Majesty's reply, as follows, to their Lordships' Address of Thanks for the Speech from the Throne:—
"I have received, with great satisfaction, the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

Ordered, That the Standing Orders Committee be appointed.—(The Earl of Morley.)
Ordered, That the Committee of Selection be appointed.—(The Earl of Morley.)
Ordered, That the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be appointed. (The Earl of Morley.)
Ordered, That a Standing Committee be appointed.—(The Earl of Morley.)

FISHING VESSELS UNDER FOREIGN FLAGS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked whether a fishing vessel sailing under a foreign flag was entitled to the same privileges as to landing fish in Scottish ports, whether it were commanded and owned by foreigners or by British subjects; and whether the Government would endeavour to secure, by Convention or otherwise, that all foreign vessels which were permitted to land fish in Scottish ports should conform to the regulations as to trawling and otherwise laid down by the Fishery Board of Scotland or by Statute for British vessels? He said that the subject to which his questions referred was very important to Scottish fishermen, and, indeed, to all British fishermen. There were certain parts of the sea adjoining
934
Scotland, but outside the exclusively British fishery limits, which were by International Law open to all vessels, but which, under a bye-law of the Scottish Fishery Board, made in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, were closed to British trawlers. Foreign vessels, however, could trawl within these extra-territorial waters. That being the case, he wished to know whether foreigners were entitled to land in Scottish ports fish caught in these waters. By the eighth section of an Act of Parliament passed in 1889, it was declared—
"That it shall be unlawful to land or sell in Scotland any fish caught in contravention of this Act or any bye-law."
Prima facie, therefore, it would appear not to be possible to sell in Scotland fish caught in contravention of the Act. It was, however, the opinion of counsel that foreigners in foreign vessels were entitled to land in this country fish caught in waters closed to British fishermen under the bye-laws. If that opinion was well founded foreigners enjoyed a very unfair advantage over British fishermen. A further point for consideration was this—What was the definition of a foreign fishing vessel? Was it enough, to constitute a boat a foreign boat, that it should fly a foreign flag; and was the action unaffected by the nationality of the owner and the captain?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)said, that the noble Earl's question was founded upon a mere hypothesis, because, no instance had occurred, as far as he could ascertain, in which a foreign boat, having fish caught in extra-territorial waters, where fishing was prohibited under the bye-laws of the Scottish Fishery Board, had attempted to land such fish at a British port. He was aware that the Moray Firth Fishing Association asserted that such a case had occurred, but on inquiry he had found that there was no reason to believe that there was any truth in the statement. There was no foundation whatever for the belief that the particular vessel referred to had caught fish within the prohibited extra-territorial waters. He thought that foreign-owned vessels, fishing under foreign flags, were not likely to fish often in these waters, which were very close to the Scottish coasts, foreign vessels were not likely to fish there for

935
the purpose of profit. He understood the noble Earl to be of opinion that Clause 8 of the Act of 1889 was intended to prohibit the landing of fish caught in these circumstances in Scottish ports. There seemed, however, to be no doubt that that clause was of no effect as against foreign-owned fishing boats. The noble Earl asked whether there would be any difference between vessels owned and manned by British subjects but fishing under a foreign flag, and foreign fishing boats manned by foreign fishermen under a foreign captain. He thought there would be a great difference between the two cases. In the first place, he did not believe that a foreign Power would consent to allow the use of her flag to an English or Scottish fishing boat. But supposing that such an advantage were granted by a foreign Power to the owners of such a boat, the Act would apply and the law would operate in personam against the skipper arid crew. The noble Earl asked whether the Government would be prepared to enter into a new Convention on the subject of fishing in the North Sea. In his opinion there were many subjects on which it was desirable that there should be agreements among all the Powers whose subjects fished in the North Sea, the greatest fishing ground in the world. He could not, however, shut his eyes to the fact that the Convention of 1868 was not agreed to without difficulty, and he thought it would be a very serious matter to consent to re-open such a subject as this on the grounds set up by the noble Earl. As he began by saying, the noble Earl's question was founded upon a mere hypothesis, and to enter into negotiations to provide against a remote contingency was a course which he could not lightly agree to take.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLEYbelieved that the Lord Privy Seal was in error in thinking that no case such as that contemplated by the noble Earl had yet occurred. He was informed that a case had occurred and was to be the subject of litigation.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcomplained of the indirect character of the answers given to the questions by the Lord Privy Seal.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON VACCINATION.
LORD ASHBOURNEasked when the Royal Commission on Vaccination was appointed, when it commenced its labours, when its Report was agreed to, when it was sent to the printers, and what is the cause of the delay in its presentation. He observed that the Commission was appointed nearly six years ago, that its Report was awaited with great interest, and that the reason for the delay in presenting it was not understood.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that when he became Lord Chancellor he wished to discontinue serving on the Commission, but he had remained a Member of it in compliance with the request of his colleagues. The Chair, when he was away, had been taken by Sir James Paget, than whom no one was better qualified to fill the position. The Commission was appointed on May 29, 1889, and held its first meeting on June 26. No doubt a very considerable time had elapsed since then, but if his noble and learned Friend had seen the Blue-books that had been published from time to time he must have observed how wide had been the field of the Inquiry. It was absolutely necessary that the Commission should prolong its investigations, for it was not thought desirable to shut out evidence, and it was felt to be expedient that no excuse should be given to the supporters or opponents of the present system for saying that they had not been fully heard. The Inquiry, then, had been very exhaustive. Even the Blue-books did not give a complete idea of its extent, because the cases of injury from vaccination that had been brought before the Commission had been specially investigated by a medical man appointed for the purpose, and, of course, the reports that had been received from him had required and received very careful examination. When the Commission was approaching the conclusion of its evidence, and, indeed, since the oral evidence was concluded, there had been in several parts of the country outbreaks of small-pox, and it was thought desirable by the Commission that a careful inquiry should be made by skilled persons into these epidemics. These inquiries necessarily, in order to be of any value, occupied some considerable time, because, of course, they had

937
to range over the whole period of the continuance of the epidemic. The Report of the last of these inquiries was complete, and he believed would be very shortly in the hands of the members of the Commission. Steps had been taken for the preparation of the Report of the Commission, but there was an enormous mass of matter to be dealt with, going often into points of very great detail, which, nevertheless, had to be noticed and considered. Several of the Members of the Commission, moreover, were gentlemen whose time was fully occupied, and it was impossible to make more than a reasonable demand upon their services. But the Commission, individually and as a whole, were desirous to see their labours brought to a close, and the Report would be presented as expeditiously as possible, consistently with its being complete and satisfactory.
LORD ASHBOURNEasked for some more definite statement as to how soon the Report might be expected. If the Report was only to be commenced when the last of the supplementary inquiries into different epidemics of smallpox was received, they really might, not see the document for a lifetime.
THE LORD CHANCELLORcould assure his noble, and learned Friend that there would be no unnecessary delay, and that the Commission would conclude their labours and issue their Report at the earliest possible period. He could not give any more definite information than that.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
LORD TWEEDMOUTH LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved the Second Reading of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Amendment Bill, which had already passed the House of Commons. The object was to explain the use of the word "in" in Subsection 4 of Section 56 of the Local Government Act. Some thought the Section meant that in every ward there should be a polling-place, but that was not the intention of the principal Act, arid such an interpretation of it would involve a great deal of unnecessary expense. The Bill would remove the doubt which had arisen.
Bill read 2a.

LANDS CLAUSES (TAXATION OF COSTS) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving the Second Reading of the Lands Clauses (Taxation of Costs) Bill, said its object was to assimilate the payment of fees on taxation of costs in certain inquiries under Statute to the mode of payment established in other cases. At present certain fees were paid, not by stamps but in cash, and the Master who taxed the Bill was entitled to keep these cash payments, and they did not go, like fees paid in stamps, into the Exchequer. The Bill was brought forward at the suggestion of the Master, who now had the benefit of the present system. It was a public-spirited act on his part, because the effect of the measure would be a small but certain pecuniary loss to himself. He believed all the Masters approved of the change.
Bill read 2a.

DISTRESS BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved the Second Reading of a Bill to amend the Act which gives to County Court Judges power to grant certificates to persons authorising them to levy distress, and which imposed a penalty for distress made by unauthorised persons. The Act enabled the County Court Judge to cancel the certificate of any bailiff in case of violence, extortion, or misconduct. It had been thought by some that the word "misconduct," when taken in conjunction with the preceding words, did not give the County Court Judge power to cancel the certificate in case of nonpayment or other offences by the bailiff, but only if there had been something in the nature of violence or extortion. Now, there might be repeated acts which, though no one of them could perhaps be said to involve misconduct, yet nevertheless indicated that he was not a fit person to carry out a distress, and hardship and trouble might in consequence be brought upon the poor. The Bill accordingly proposed that the County Court Judge who granted the certificate should also have power to cancel it. The Bill further enables rules to be made, by which a certificate, instead of being issued at large, might be given for a term, so that it would be necessary for a bailiff to get a renewal of it.
Bill read 2a.

LICENSING ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.
Bill to amend the Licensing Act, 1872—presented (Lord Norton); read 1a. [No. 17]
House adjourned Five minutes before Five of the clock.