Lords Sitting of 6 May 1895

Preamble
Lord HOPETOUN took the oath and subscribed the roll of Parliament.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were presented by LORD PLAYFAIR, and read 1a:—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to a portion of the parish of Kensington St. Mary Abbotts, and to the St. Olave and Strand Districts, in the County of London. [No. 94.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Hoard of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bootle, New Windsor and Eton, Prescot, Salisbury, Southampton, and Windermere and District. [No. 95.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Liverpool. [No. 96.]
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to City of Gloucester Tramways, London United Tramways, and Somerton, Keinton Mandeville, and Castle Cary Tramways. [No. 97.]
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Hartlepool Tramways, Hartlepool Electric Tramways, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Tramways, and Wigan and District Tramways. [No. 98.]
MUSEUMS AND GYMNASIUMS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Museums and Gymnasiums Act, 1891, and for other purposes—was presented by the Lord Chaworth (E. Meath); read 1a and to be printed. [No. 99.]

SOUTH AFRICAN AFFAIRS.
*LORD KNUTSFORDbegged to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for the Colonies a question, of which he had given private notice. It was with reference to the action recently taken by the Government in annexing the territories of the chiefs Sambaan, Umbegesa and Mdhlaleni. He need hardly say he did not intend to argue the question now, but he thought it fair to say that, after reading the statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies last week in the other House, and assuming the statement to be correct, that there were serious troubles and difficulties arising in those territories; and having also carefully re-read the Papers that had already been presented to Parliament, referring to the territories of those chiefs—he thought that the Government could hardly have acted otherwise than they had done in annexing those territories. But, as the matter had created not only considerable interest here, but very considerable interest in South Africa, as was naturally to be expected; and as the President of the South African Republic had entered a strong protest, if the newspapers were to be believed, against the action of Her Majesty's Government—he thought it would be very desirable, in the interest of all parties, that Papers upon the question should be presented to Parliament as soon as convenient. He did not observe that the Under Secretary of State promised that Papers would be presented, and for that reason he desired to ask the question of the noble Marquess. In making the request for Papers, he suggested that the noble Marquess should begin the new Papers by reprinting the despatch of Sir Charles Mitchell, of September 1889, which covered a very able and exhaustive report by a Mr. Saunders upon these very territories, and the desires of the chiefs, and also upon their relations with Tongaland, the Transvaal, and Zululand. It was desirable it should be

479
at once seen that before Mr. Saunders, who thoroughly understood the case, saw both Umbegesa and Sambaan, they had, under the influence of a very notorious person—a Mr. Ferreira—signed a paper saying they desired to come under the South African Republic; but when Mr. Saunders examined them they said they had signed the paper under the influence of Mr. Ferreira, not knowing the full intention of the paper, and that they desired to come under Her Majesty. Both the despatch and the report had, it was true, been printed in the Paper presented on the affairs of Swaziland and Tongaland in 1890; but he thought it would be useful to reprint them. He had also to ask the noble Marquess, if he could conveniently state now, whether the annexation of the two territories was in full accordance with the views of Sir Henry Loch, and also whether they were to be included in Zululand or dealt with separately.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (the Marquess of RIPON): I am very glad my noble friend's question affords me an opportunity of making a short statement in reference to the matter to which the noble Lord has referred. In the first place, I may say the Government will be very happy to lay Papers on the Table at as early a period as possible, and I hope that may not be long delayed; and I will carefully consider the suggestion of my noble Friend that Sir Charles Mitchell's despatch and Mr. Saunders' report should be laid on the Table. I need not say with how much satisfaction I have learned that, so far as my noble Friend has been able to form a judgment at present, he thinks the step taken by Her Majesty's Government is one which they were obliged under the circumstances to take, and I have also great satisfaction in saying that throughout the steps which we have adopted we have had the full agreement of Sir Henry Loch. As I have mentioned Sir Henry Loch's name, perhaps you will allow me to express here in public the deep sense the Government feel of the great services which, during a long public life, Sir Henry Loch has rendered. These services have been of the very highest value, and I can truly say that nobody can recognise them more
480
entirely and fully than I do on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues. My noble Friend knows very well the exact position of these little territories lying to the east of Swaziland to which his question relates. The territories of Umbegesa and Zambaan, and of a widow chief whose name I will not attempt to pronounce, have always been held to be within what is now called the sphere of influence of Her Majesty's Government. Successive Governments have repeatedly said that that was the case. The last occasion on which a public announcement was made was in the House of Commons, in the month of February, by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. Under the second article of the Convention of London, 1884, the South African Republic bound themselves to do their utmost to prevent encroachments by their citizens upon the native States to the east and west of their territory; and they are also bound, under the fourth article of the Convention of London, not to make any treaties with native States as well as with other States without laying them before Her Majesty's Government for their approval. But in spite of these obligations there has been for a considerable number of years a state of things upon that frontier which is highly undesirable. We are all aware that from time to time in Africa, and not in Africa alone, attempts are made to raid thinly populated and little civilised States by States of greater power and civilisation. That process is called in colonial slang "jumping" these States. It has been the practice in South Africa. It was tried in Bechuanaland and it was checked. It was tried in what is called the little Republic, the small slice taken out of Swaziland at that time, and it was there successful. Attempts have been made now for a considerable time to carry on the same process with respect to the territory of Zambaan and the other territories of which I have been speaking; and now a Mr. Van Oordt, who is, I believe, in some degree the representative of Mr. Ferrara, has even attempted to claim jurisdiction within these States, and I think to levy taxes. Her Majesty's Government, successive Governments, have made strong remonstrances upon this subject to the South African Republic. They were made in

481
the time of our predecessors and they have been made by us. The latest of these remonstrances were made last year by General Cameron, who was administering the Cape Government in August 1894, and by Sir Henry Loch, under the direction of Her Majesty's Government in December 1894. When your Lordships see Sir Henry Loch's letter of December 17 last, you will see that he spoke on that occasion of these attempts in the plainest possible terms, urging the obligations of the South African Republic, and the necessity for putting an end to these illegitimate proceedings. In spite of these remonstrances, however, this state of things still continued, and having made our last remonstrance in December 1894, we learnt in March of the present year that Mr. Van Oordt's attempts to exercise jurisdiction were being continued and that the state of things was in no way improved, but in some respects aggravated. It therefore became our duty to consider what we should do in these circumstances. If a check had been put on the proceedings of Mr. Van Oordt by the Transvaal Government, if they had been able to do so, we might have been contented to leave the status quo alone, at all events for a time. But as the South African Government were not able to control Mr. Van Oordt, we had to consider what was right for us to do; because, whatever may be the right method of dealing with these little States, the method of raiding or "jumping," so as to oust the British Government from their rights in regard to the States, is not a method which any British Government can tolerate. I do not doubt that the Transvaal Government attempted to fulfil their obligations, but they were unable to do so; and then the only course open to us was to establish within these small States a system of firm and efficient administration, sufficient to put a stop to these illegitimate proceedings. That is precisely the step which we have taken. So far from thinking that we have acted too soon, I can quite understand some persons saying that the present and preceding Governments have been too patient. I do not think so. I think that the British Government has been quite right to exercise great patience in regard to this matter. But after all
482
that has passed—the numerous remonstrances that have been made, and the inability of the South African Republic to control these lawless persons—I think the time has come, if the British sphere of influence is not to be rendered altogether nugatory, when we are bound to enforce our rights. That is the whole case. I see it stated in some quarters in South Africa that we have acted in an unfriendly manner to the South African Republic. I do not take that view at all. One of the main objects of the steps Which we have taken is to put an end to a state of things which must very soon have engendered the greatest difficulty and troubles with the South African Republic. Part of this system of raiding, or "jumping," is to obtain administrative concessions. These concessions are obtained by irresponsible persons like Mr. Ferreira and Mr. Van Oordt, and are often passed on to the South African or some other Government, who then claim rights under them. Therefore, if this state of things were to continue, it would be inevitable, particularly in the present state of affairs in South Africa, that before long we should be landed in a still more complicated position, which might have seriously affected our relations with the South African Republic. The desire of Her Majesty's Government is to maintain the most friendly relations with the Government of the South African Republic, and it is greatly to the interest of both countries that those friendly relations should be maintained. There are some, perhaps, who do not take that view, but I am not one of them; and I most earnestly desire the maintenance of those relations. Further, I would point out that the step which we have taken cannot, and, of course, does not affect any existing conventions between us and the South African Republic. They remain just as they were, and are totally independent of any action such as has been adopted by us on the present occasion. Our object has been to secure the rights of the British Government against the unlawful acts of irresponsible persons, and to put an end to a system the continued existence of which would have been seriously detrimental to the cordial relations of the British and South African Governments.

LONDON UNIVERSITY.
LORD PLAYFAIRgave notice that on Thursday next he should, on behalf of the Government, introduce a Bill for reconstituting the University of London.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for codifying the Law relating to Marine Insurance—was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read la; and to be printed.—[No. 100.]
TRAMWAYS (IBELAND) (NO. 2) BILL.
Read la; and to be printed.—[No. 101.]

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
* On Motion of LORD TWEEDMOUTH to go into Committee on this Bill,
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that he had such large and extensive objections to this Bill that he quite despaired of any Amendment being carried in Committee of the whole House which would reconcile him to its provisions. He was therefore under the necessity of stating his objections at this stage. Although by name this was a Scotch Bill, he hoped it would not be supposed that it affected Scotland only, and that it involved no important principles. To a large extent the Bill immediately affected the interests of English fishermen, and besides that, it involved principles which, if established in Scotland, would be extended to England. What was the history of this Bill? Last year a Scotch Fishery Bill was introduced by the Government in the House of Commons, and carried through that House in a manner which was certainly unusual. He was not using too harsh an expression when he said that the Bill was smuggled through at 1 o'clock in the morning, with very little notice to the interests concerned. The principle of that Bill was that local bodies interested in one particular industry were to be empowered to tax all their neighbours for the benefit of that industry, without the consent of the representative bodies. That proposal was so monstrous that it really seemed incredible, and directly the Bill came to the House of Lords representations against the Bill were sent to several Scotch Peers from some of the most Radical constituencies in Scotland. The City of Aberdeen took arms against the Bill, and all the towns when they
484
came to understand the measure declared it to be impossible, and that local bodies, composed largely of fishermen, could not be allowed to impose a rate up to 3d. in the pound on every human being in Scotland simply at their own will and pleasure, except, perhaps, for the consent of the Secretary for Scotland. He came up to town specially to oppose the Bill, which was so knocked about in the House of Lords that the Government did not proceed with it. The House of Lords had last session performed no service which was more appreciated in Scotland than the defeat of this Bill, which excited great discontent. Then the Government now came forward with another Bill introduced in the House of Lords. That Bill was tainted with the same vicious spirit, and Lord Camperdown brought in a rival Bill. On the understanding of both Parties, these Bills were referred to a Select Committee. This method of procedure placed independent Members of the House, and the House as a whole, at a great disadvantage. When it was understood that Bills of this kind were to be referred to a Select Committee, the Debate on the Second Reading was always scamped. Noble Lords, not conversant with the subject, trusted to its being thrashed out in Committee, and the principles involved were not adequately debated. Then, in the Select Committee, the Members were hampered by feeling that the principle of the Bill had been consented to by the House. In those circumstances the probability was that the Bill came out of the Committee as a hash approved of by no Party. This was what had happened in the present case. The Bill was bad in the beginning; but the Committee did as much as they could to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He maintained that this was not a satisfactory mode of legislating, and that the passing of this Bill would not be creditable to their Lordships' legislative capacity. He had heard that the Bill had the bottom knocked out of it, and that its teeth were drawn, which he believed was the case; but still there was a great deal left that was exceedingly objectionable. He did not himself understand

485
why the noble Lord went on with the Bill, for, as he understood, there was very little chance of passing it through the other House of Parliament. He wished, however, to expose the vicious principle of the Bill. It dealt mainly with three subjects—the Constitution of I the Central Fishery Board; the setting up, for the first time, of local fishery districts; and, third, the power to be given to these district boards. He did not know why the Government had come to the conclusion that the Central Fishery Board in Edinburgh was a badly constituted body and required a complete change, or, as it was called, a reform. Soon after the union of the Parliaments various boards were started—Scotland being in a very poor economic condition—in order to establish new industries in Scotland. There was one called the Board of Manufacturers. He had the honour, like many other Scotch peers, to belong to it, but the members generally never met by any chance. The Board, however, still went on.
*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was a Member of the Board, and went there constantly.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his noble Friend happened to live near Edinburgh. The Fishery Board was a department of the larger Board. It had been long presided over by an uncle of the Prime Minister, and under him no complaint of inefficiency had ever been heard. Some 12 years ago the Government of the day thought it well to put an end to the old Board and start a new one, and this was constituted in this way:—There was a chairman and three sheriffs of Scotch counties, who were supposed to represent the fish-eating public as distinct from the fish-catching public. Then there was a gentleman from Peterhead, a fish-curer on a large scale, and there were two gentlemen about whom no one could discover anything, and then there was a scientific professor for instituting experiments. That was the Board which the noble Lord opposite thought ought to be knocked on the head. He did not know what the accusation was against the Board. He had never heard any very grave complaints, but if there were any complaints it was entirely the fault of the Government, in making the chairmanship a political job. It was well
486
known that the late chairman, Mr. Esslemont, was appointed so that he might get £800 a year as a faithful servant of his Party. He was not a man who had any authority with regard to fishery matters. The three sheriffs, he was told, never attended, so that the fish-eating public were not represented at all. Then there were two other gentlemen, and he believed they were appointed on political grounds. When Mr. Esslemont died, he understood a vigorous effort was made to secure an eminent man apart from politics, and one was recommended. The Government would not have it, and they again appointed a man who was purely a political partisan. As a result of this political jobbery they had the present Board, which, it was said, was impotent. Now, how were the Government going to reconstitute the Board? They proposed to reduce the number from nine to seven, and they provided that the Scotch Secretary should have the power to appoint four fishermen out of the seven. The noble Duke then proceeded to condemn the classification in the Bill as absolutely useless for the purpose. There would be no check whatever on the Secretary for Scotland if he were inclined for a job. The omissions in the Bill were so grave in this respect that he could not undertake to deal with them in Committee; the whole reconstruction of the Bill would be required. If there was to be any reform or change, in his opinion it should not lie in the direction of a reconstituted board. They ought to have a strong department responsible for the conduct of Scotch fisheries, which would consider the interests of the fish-eating as well as the fish-catching public. What was meant by a fishery district—a certain area of the coast on which it was convenient to them to fish for bait Not a bit of it. A district under this Bill meant an area, not of land, but of any part adjoining the ocean; so that a small burgh might apply to the Secretary for Scotland to create a "district," and this district might include any part of the sea adjoining the coast of Scotland. There was no limit at all.
TIHE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As far as Norway?
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Oh yes! as far as America.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD TWEEDMOUTH): The powers of the district committees are confined strictly to the territorial waters.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I do not see that in the Bill. Clause 5 provides that on the application of a county council or town council the Secretary for Scotland might from time to time create a sea-fishery district, including "any part of the sea adjoining Scotland."
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: That is, within the territorial waters.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the Bill did not say so, and he doubted whether it was a legal definition. There was a small police burgh on his property on the Firth of Clyde, consisting chiefly of villas for seaside bathers. That police burgh would have the power to apply to the Secretary for Scotland to be created, with the adjoining sea, a district, though there were towns like Greenock, Glasgow, and other places whose interests would be overridden. He had received a representation from the people of Dundee complaining that, as they read the Hill, some of the small villages near Aberdeen would have the power to override the city of Aberdeen. The fact was, that this Bill was mere detritus—reliquiœ diluvianœ—belonging to another Bill which had passed through Committee; and he thought that the Measure would need a great deal of amendment in Committee. The constitution of the district committees was really incredible. Half the district committee was to be composed of persons who were personally interested in the conduct of the various fishings. He should like to know on what evidence the Government thought it was a wise thing to give such large powers to persons engaged in a particular industry. In the Report of the Fishery Hoard of two years ago the qualifications of the fishermen to legislate for their brethren were described. It stated that fishermen as a rule seemed to have made up their minds that certain modes of fishing were injurious, and though the opinions of one centre were in flat contradiction to the opinions of another centre, they were always adhered to. This agreed with his own observation of fishermen. They were a very intelligent, and very brave set of men, with whom it was impossible not to sympathise, but the nature of the
488
subject was so obscure that, except in the most superficial phenomena connected with their calling, they entertained the wildest theories about spawning and the breaking-up of shoals, and other subjects. It was a vicious principle to adopt. If they gave to local councils the power to appoint fishery boards, with adequate powers, they ought to be left with a free hand; let them choose the men whom they thought would contribute best to local legislation. He objected altogether to the whole principle on which these local authorities were to be constituted. Clause 10 of the Bill proposed to prohibit beam trawling within 18 miles of the coast. Three miles was the limit of the territorial waters; and, while our own fishermen were to be prohibited from using this efficient means of capture, the foreigner was to enjoy the privilege. He objected to this prohibition of trawling, because it was against the scientific and economic evidence in their possession. At one time he was a strong opponent of trawlers, mainly on the ground that beam trawling destroyed the spawn of the fish deposited at the bottom of the sea. But that objection had been got rid of by the curious scientific discovery made recently that the spawn of almost all our food fish, with the exception of the herring, were shed in the open waters of the sea. The Government, therefore, had no right to suppress one of our most important industries on fanciful notions of injury which had been disproved by scientific investigation. The beam trawl caught the most important of our food fish—turbot, plaice, and soles; and though it was true that a large number of immature fish were caught in the trawl, the same objection could be urged against the line fishermen. Why was this Bill brought in? In the exclusive interest of the line fishermen, and to the detriment of another kind of fishing on which immense sums of money had been expended. Here again it was politics, nothing but politics. The coast of Scotland was everywhere dotted with a large number of fishing villages. The population were all line fishermen, and they were also county voters. That was why their interests were being protected, and both parties in the State were plotting to get these votes, and they were willing to sacrifice the interests of

489
the public in order to secure them. He was in favour of prohibition of beam trawling within the territorial limits, and he thought it was a reasonable thing that there should be a ring of protective water for the small line fishing. But to extend the prohibition of trawling to 18 miles beyond the coast seemed to him to be a monstrous invasion of the liberty of the subject; it was an invasion contrary to public policy, to scientific evidence, and to the interests of the public. These being the main provisions of the Bill, he submitted that it was not a Bill which their Lordships ought to proceed with. There was no hope of so altering and amending it in Committee of the Whole House as to make it a creditable piece of work. Although he did not intend to divide against going into Committee, as he wished to see what Amendments the noble Lord opposite would produce, he desired to give notice that he would move the rejection of the Bill on the Third Reading if no sufficient and satisfactory alterations were made in Committee. But even if he should fail then, he trusted that the observations he had made would do something effectual to damage the Bill in another place.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was sure that their Lordships were all glad to welcome back the noble Duke after his recent indisposition. He appreciated the force and vigour of the noble Duke's speech, though it was somewhat difficult to follow it, as he principally presented the back of his head to the Treasury Bench the whole time he was speaking. The noble Duke began by taking great exception to the Bill presented in their Lordships' House last year, and especially because it had been hurried through the other House in a manner which caused great detriment to the interests of the parties concerned, who, he said had no notice. That assertion could not be supported by any evidence. On the contrary, Fishery Bills on the lines of that of last year had been before the House of Commons year after year, introduced by Governments of both Parties and by private Members, and the whole subject was well before the fishing interests and every Member who represented them. The noble Duke, instead of following the course of legislation, must have been buried all that time in one of his western
490
islands, if he did not know that such was the case. The main provisions of this very Bill were taken from a measure passed for England under the conduct of the Party opposite, and from an Act which was passed for Scotland in 1889, also when the Party opposite were in Office. In those two measures the noble Duke would find, almost word for word, the very clauses and provisions which were to be found in the present Bill. The noble Duke took great exception to the power of rating given to the district committees last year; but at this very moment we had all round the coast of England district committees with powers of rating. He believed that there were as many as 17 of these committees in England, partly consisting of members of the fishing interest chosen by the Board of Trade, and partly consisting of members from the various Town and County Councils. Those committees had been very successful. They had worked admirably and produced the best results. So late as 1893 a Committee sat in the House of Commons to consider this and cognate questions, and he would quote from the Report of that Committee:—
"Your Committee would recall the fact that the Trawling Commission, in their Report in 1885, recommended the establishment of a central authority to supervise and control the fisheries of Great Britain, if not of the United Kingdom; or that, in the meantime, extended powers should he given to the Scotch Fishery Board, and that a similar Board with similar powers should be created for England. They further recommended that to these bodies there should be granted the necessary sums of money for the purpose of conducting scientific experiments and for collecting fishery statistics, and that adequate arrangements should be made for the establishment and maintenance of an efficient sea police under the control of the fishery authorities so constituted. Since the date of this Report extended powers have been granted to the Scotch Fishery Board, and district sea fishery committees have been established in England. At the present moment, therefore, while in England there are district sea fishery committee's, there is no Fishery Board; in Scotland there is a Fishery Board and there are no district sea fishery committees. Furthermore, the district fishery committees in England and the Fishery Board in Scotland both labour under one and the same disadvantage—that of being without any directly elected representative element. Your Committee would strongly urge that measures should be at once taken to introduce such a direct representative element into the English district sea fishery committees, and that an English Sea Fishery Board should be established in its turn, largely representative

491
of the district sea fishery committees. Similarly, in Scotland, that directly representative district sea fishery committees should he instituted, and that the Scotch Fishery Board should he largely representative of the Scottish sea fishery committees."
That was the Report of only two years ago, and it was upon that Report that many of the provisions of this Bill were framed. The noble Duke began his criticism by taking objection to the proposed constitution of the Fishery Board, and treated the House to an interesting historical review of the Board in the past and to personal criticism of individual members of the Board; and he told the House that the three sheriffs represented the fish-eating public in Scotland. In what way?
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Because they all eat very good dinners.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that might be so, but he would remind the noble Duke that a good many poor people made their dinners off fish alone, and were well able to judge of the fish they ate; and was it not a strong order that, out of a Board of nine members, three should be chosen simply because they were lawyers? The only real change now made was in knocking off two sheriffs, and the Board was left much the same as at present, except that there was a direction that four members should be representative of the various fishing interests of Scotland. He thought it best that these four men should be representative of the various fishing interests of Scotland; but he thought that, under the wide definition of the Bill as quoted by the noble Duke, any man holding a single share in a trawling company might be included in the "fishing interest." The noble Duke objected that district committees were improper bodies to deal with local fishery matters, but they mainly followed the lines of the bodies which, in Scotland, did a great part of the work of the counties—he referred to the Scotch district committees, which consisted half of members of the County Council and half of members appointed by the Parochial Boards now the Parish Councils. Those committees really did the whole work of the County Councils in Scotland, the latter being little more than the registering authority of those district committees. He thought that
492
the powers of the committees as proposed by this Bill were exceedingly limited. In the first place, it was clear that they would be simply committees of the County and Town Councils, and would have to report to those Councils, which would refuse supplies to them if they did not approve of what was done by the committees. In regard to the trawling clause (10) the noble Duke set up arguments which he (Lord Tweedmouth) had never used. The argument which he had used was that it was quite possible for great beam trawlers to over-fish portions of the sea, and temporarily to destroy the fishing-ground of a small community, the inhabitants of which might thus be altogether deprived for three or four months of their means of subsistence. The noble Duke had attempted to draw a distinction between the herring and the white-fish fishermen, but there was no such distinction to be drawn. The men who caught the herring also caught the white-fish with the line. During the summer months the men fished for the herring, and during the winter months they were line fishermen; and if the men were deprived of the winter fishing they would cause considerable injury to the fishing industry in Scotland. He found from the last report of the Fishery Board that, for the year 1893, of the whole fish caught in Scotland 72 per cent, were caught by net (71 per cent. being herring), 21 per cent, by line, and 7 per cent. only by trawlers.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he thought there was some mistake about the figures given, because he found in the report of the Trawling Commission the quantity of fish caught by trawlers was 180,000 cwt., and that the fish caught by trawlers in England was of the value of several millions.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was not referring to England. The English trawlers did not trawl in waters near the coast. The North Sea was one great trawling-ground, and they could trawl all over the North Sea, and those Scottish trawlers caught the greater number of their fish more than 25 miles from the coast. They caught some of their best fish, in fact, off the coast of Iceland. The most valuable of the flat fish—the black sole—was not caught in Scottish waters at all. There were altogether over 45,000 men and boys engaged

493
in fishing in Scotland, and of this number only 800 were employed on board trawlers. There were also over 1,200 fish-curers, employing 30,000 or 40,000 people, and, taking the coopers, boat-builders, and others connected with the trade, he believed that in Scotland there were at least 500,000 persons—men, women, and children—directly interested in, and getting a livelihood from, that industry. Of those a very small number were identified with trawling, whereas all round the coast little fishing colonies were established. Were they prepared to allow the present state of things to go on unchecked? At this moment something like a civil war was going on between the trawlers and the line and net fishermen. It was almost impossible to describe the state of feeling that existed, and the only proposal in the Bill with regard to the prohibition of trawling was that the Fishery Board should be given power to assign certain grounds for one kind of fishing and certain grounds for the other, so as to keep them apart. In the Act of 1889 the Scottish Fishery Board hail the power to prohibit trawling all over the Moray Firth, and exactly the same power was in force in the Firth of Clyde. The principle which was introduced in the trawling clauses in this Bill with regard to the power to prohibit trawling within the limit of 18 miles from the coast was the law in Scotland at present, and that law was made by the late Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Where?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: In two places. From Duncansbay Head to Rattray Head, which was the extreme point in Aberdeenshire, trawling was now absolutely prohibited. The same thing held good in the south-west of Scotland from the Mull of Kintyre, in Argyleshire, to Carsewell Head in Wigtownshire. All the Bill proposed was to give the Fishery Board power to prohibit trawling in any area within the 18-mile limit, but before such prohibition could take effect the bye-law must receive, the assent of the Secretary for Scotland, and that assent could only be given sifter a local inquiry at which all parties interested could be heard. That was hedging the power with very considerable safeguards. He did not regard
494
this Bill as in any sense a Party measure, nor was it brought forward as such, or with the view of catching votes. He really believed that it was the minimum that could be given to the fishermen of Scotland with any prospect of doing them justice.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not so rash as to venture into a Scottish Debate, but an observation made by the noble Lord rather induces me to call the attention of the Government to a point which appears to me to have been overlooked. I gathered from the noble Lord that it is all one matter whether you forbid trawling within 18 miles between the Mull of Kintyre and Carsewell Head, or whether it is done on the east coast of Scotland. I do not profess to lay down the international law on the matter—it is exceedingly obscure—but I rather doubt the wisdom of the Government in raising, by this Bill, a question which may give them some trouble. As long as the coast is open there is no doubt that three miles is the limit of territorial waters; but when the coast is folded and doubled, as it is in that part of Scotland with which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) is most familiar, there come in a different set of traditions which belong to diplomatic law, and I may say that it is an unsettled question in international law how far the territorial waters extend. The discussions we have had in regard to Newfoundland, the Behring Sea, and to other parts of the, world, show that where the coast is not straight, but makes an angle, there the limit of the territorial waters is not so fixed. If the noble Lord attempted to assert jurisdiction over the waters for 18 miles over the east coast of Scotland, I am afraid he would find that what the noble Duke prophesied would happen—that foreign vessels would trawl at their ease while native vessels would be prevented from doing so. That is not the case where the coast is folded; there we can maintain our own. I do not know what the diplomatic notion upon the matter might be, but a strong ground would be afforded for argument. For this reason I call attention to the point, lest some difficulty might arise from the Government having raised the matter, I think unwisely. I only venture to deal with it as a Foreign Office question.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the prohibition could not be enforced against any foreign vessels. That was the case at present on a third of the east coast of Scotland, because the prohibition existed between Rattray Point and Duncansbay Head, which represented a third of the east coast. As far as he had been able to gather, there was no evidence that trawlers had trawled in the Moray Firth, and he did not think any difficulty was likely to arise.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he hoped the Government would not give their case away by making any pledge with regard to the limit.
LORD KELVINsaid, that care would have to be taken in the Bill that the fishing rights of the North of Ireland should not be interfered with. It would not be right to introduce such a clause as Clause 10 unless it was carried out with special judgment, and unless restrictions were introduced into the Bill to prevent such a grievous injustice as the exclusion of Irish fishermen from fishing over such a large portion of the sea, as might be the case under Clause 10.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNexpressed his gratification that the noble Duke did not propose to divide against the further progress of the Bill, and he could not agree that a Bill on the subject was not required. The procedure of the House was rather an awkward one when two Bills were referred to a Select Committee, and more especially when evidence was not taken, and Counsel were not heard—as the only information the House received was the official Report of the formal motions which were made in the course of the Committee. The first thing the Committee did was to raise the question of the desirability of District Committees, and as the great majority of the Committee was in favour of having them, he had not persevered in his opposition. The Marquess of Lothian moved that all Scotland be divided into District Committees; Lord Tweedmouth took objection to that proposal, but said he was prepared to make those District Committees entirely optional.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Clauses 1, 2, and 3 were agreed to.
Clause 4,
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHproposed after "Act," page 1, line 19, to insert "1892."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5,
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHproposed, page 2, lines 30 and 32, to leave out "town" and insert "burgh," and in line 37 after "or" to insert "to."
Amendments agreed to.
*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that as Cause 5, dealing with the establishment of sea fisheries districts, then stood, the Bill would be practically unworkable. His proposal in Committee was that the Bill should be compulsory all over Scotland, and that the Secretary for Scotland should have power to enforce the formation of fishery districts. As the Bill stood, fishery districts would be dotted about all over Scotland, which would make the formation of fishery districts very difficult, and as there would probably be disagreement as to the rating, no rating would be possible.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHreplied that the best answer to the argument of the noble Marquess was, that there were District Committees under these very conditions all over England at the present moment, the only difference being that in. England they had a certain power of compulsion, which was struck out of this Bill. The reason was, that he had given way in order to get as much as he could. If the plan of compulsorily dividing Scotland into a certain number of districts were adopted, they would compel these localities to rate themselves, to which the noble Duke took the greatest objection in the Bill of last year. The system proposed was working perfectly in England.
*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: With the addition of the compulsory powers, which make it effectual.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked, what was the meaning of the words contained in lines 29 to 33?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that in the words "or police commissioners of such county town or police burgh," the word "county" was not an adjective qualifying "town," but a substantive.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6,
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHproposed, on page 3, line 25, to leave out "burgh commission" and insert "commissioners of a police burgh," and leave out "councils'' and insert "of such bodies;" on line 26, to leave out "councils" and insert "bodies;" on page 4, line 39, after "burghs" to insert "not divided; into wards;'' and on page 5, line 7, after "thereof," to add—
"And in burghs and police burghs, divided into wards, the elections shall take place at such time and in such place within the burgh as the town council or the police commissioners respectively may determine, and as nearly as may lie in the same manner as the election of town councillors or police commissioners for a ward of such burgh."
They thought there might be difficulties in conducting an election of fishery members where the number of members to be elected was not the same as the number of wards, and it was in order to get over that difficulty that they proposed the last two Amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
On Clause 9 (power to prohibit Seine trawling in certain localities).
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH*LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved to add at end of clause—
"Provided always that if no conviction shall follow, and net so seized shall lie forthwith returned, and due compensation shall he made for any loss or damage occasioned thereto by such seizure."
It was pointed out in the Select Committee that hardship would arise, if, when nets were seized, they were put away wet and, perhaps, got rotten. To meet such a case he proposed this Amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Motion made and Question proposed "That the Clause as Amended stand part of the Bill."
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the vast catches of fish in Loch Fyne and many miles around, were made by Seine trawlers. There had been a longstanding dispute between drift-net fishermen and Seine-net fishermen, and he had heard of serious collisions between the men. That was all over now, and the men, more or less, fish alongside each other. But there was still great jealousy, and he was sure any attempt to suppress Seine-net fishing would not be submitted to. The Seine-net fishermen caught enormous quantities of fresh fish which they sent every morning to Glasgow, and he confessed what was proposed was rather too strong a power to put into the hands of the Fishery Board.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHquite agreed that any attempt to prohibit, generally, Seine trawling on the west coast would be wrong, but he thought there was, on the west coast, a consensus of opinion that it would be desirable to prohibit it for certain weeks at the beginning of the season, when damage was done, and also in shallow waters. There had been some ground of complaint. For instance, the Select Committee in their Report said:—
"Serious complaint was brought before your Committee of the damage which has, since 1878, been caused by the use of Seine nets for catching herrings on the Ballantrae banks, off the coast of Ayrshire. It is asserted that this practice both serves to disperse the shoals of herring which frequent those banks in the summer, and also greatly damages the trammel nets used by the local fishermen. The question is one in regard to which it is difficult for your Committee, on the evidence laid before them, to come to any definite conclusion. But it would appear to your Committee that this is a subject which should fall within the province of a local district sea-fishery Committee, and that the making of regulations to deal with such matters, as they arise from time to time, will naturally be entrusted to district sea-fishery Committees when constituted."
He thought the noble Duke would not like that power given to district sea-fishery Committees, but prefer it vested in the Scotch Fishery Board. He was sure they might trust the Board to exercise the power with discretion. They had not shown themselves unfair with regard to other trawling. In 1885 power was given to prohibit trawling within the three-mile limit, and yet the Board had only exercised the power for

499
scientific purposes. The noble Duke would be safe in entrusting power to the Fishery Board as proposed in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 (Restriction as to beam trawling and other trawling).
Amendments made:—
Page 7, line 29, leave out "such bye-law or bye-laws shall not," and insert "no bye-laws under this Section shall."—(Lord Tweed-mouth.)
Line 39, leave out "providing" and insert "poinding."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
Line 4, after "Acts," insert
"provided always that if no conviction shall follow, any net so seized shall be forthwith returned, and due compensation made for any loss or damage occasioned thereto by such seizure."
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH*LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved the new Sub-Section which stood in his name. It was shown in the Select Committee that very often the whole brunt of an offence would fall on the captain of the trawler; that the captain of the trawler would not pay the fine and would be put into prison; he would remain in prison, the trawler would go to sea with another captain, and the owner of the offending trawler would escape altogether. It was, therefore, intended to provide that if the captain did not pay, the owner could be attached and the penalty could be exacted from the owner.
Amendment, after line 4, insert new sub-section—
"Failing payment by a certain date named in the conviction of the fine imposed upon the person or persons convicted, decree therefor may be pronounced against the owner or owners of the offending vessel or boat, and upon such decree being pronounced the person or persons convicted shall be relieved there from and from all penalties attaching that."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
Put, and agreed to.
Amendment, line 7, after "Act," insert "1889."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
Put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he objected altogether to this extravagant extension of protection against beam trawling—18 miles was a preposterous distance. He thought the protection ought to be confined to the territorial waters. The Northern and Eastern seas were comparatively shallow. Indeed one might go out 18 miles without getting into deep water. Owing to the existence of rocks there was a very little area that was trawlable at all, and what area there was was well within 18 miles. The adoption of this clause would simply prevent a large quantity of fish being caught, arid that would be a very injurious thing in the public interest. He entirely agreed with the arguments circulated by persons connected with the city of Aberdeen, which was the headquarters of the beam trawling, protesting against the clause and insisting very strongly that other evidence should be taken in regard to the operation of beam trawling. The matter was not at all fully understood at present, and other scientific investigation ought to be undertaken before there was any further legislation in the direction of restriction.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYthanked the Lord Privy Seal for the Amendments he had already made in the clause, but representing as he had been asked to do the very largest interest in the north-east of Scotland connected with the trade of trawling, he had given Notice of an Amendment to omit the clause. The proceedings of the Select Committee on which he served had been paraded by some] of the representatives I of the north-east constituencies in Scotland in a very laughable light. It was said that when a Division was taken on this clause he was in a minority of one to nine. By that vote of one to nine the opinion was expressed that further powers be given to the Fishery Board as regarded the prohibition of trawling. When they came to consider the clause, as amended, there was a very important proviso added, and it was that before any by-law was passed, before it was confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland, there should be a local inquiry held in the district adjoining the part of the sea to be included in the by-law. He believed the Bill was necessary; but he did not think that, if they met two people

501
connected with the fishing industry, they would find they held the same view as to trawling. The one would say trawling did no harm, and the other would say it would he the absolute ruin of the line industry. He assured the Lord Privy Seal that the statistics he had so often quoted as to the numbers employed in the industry were contradicted in the newspapers over and over again. He would illustrate his argument by a very curious circumstance. During the Recess they had the honour of a visit to Aberdeen by the Lord Privy Seal, and on that occasion his Lordship was good enough to see a deputation from the fish-curers of Aberdeen. The spokesman of the deputation pointed out that flat-fish were caught to a great extent by trawlers. Lord Tweedmouth interposed the remark: "But flat-fish are almost entirely plaice." "There arc lemon soles as well as plaice," was the reply. Lord Tweedmouth remarked: "But lemon soles are not a marketable article." "Oh yes!" said members of the deputation; "last year the value of lemon soles was found to be equivalent to £30,000." The day following that on which the deputation waited upon the noble Lord, a gentleman, after reading the papers, sent Lord Tweedmouth copies of the orders he had received for lemon soles. Those orders, which were for several stones in each case, came from Bristol, Nottingham, Hull, Grimsby, and other places. He only mentioned this as one of many instances occurring every day that this great question was really not understood, and not thoroughly appreciated by those who were so strongly advocating the suppression of the trawling industry. During the recess a Fisheries' Conference was held, which was attended by 60 delegates from all parts of the United Kingdom. They had experience of the working of the English Fisheries Act, and could thoroughly understand the question at issue. A Resolution was moved by Mr. Maconochie stating—
"That inasmuch as the British Legislature has no power to prevent foreign trawlers from trawling outside the limits of the territorial waters, it would be unjust to prevent British trawlers, and that opposition should he offered to Section 10 of the Scotch Fisheries Bill."
On a division that Motion was carried by 37 votes to 4. It was impossible to
502
refuse to recognise such an important expression of opinion by a body which was entirely non-political; and this opinion was shared by many experts, who feared that the clause would give a great blow to a flourishing industry, On the Second Reading he had called attention to this point,—that there might be vessels carrying a foreign flag and fishing in the waters closed to British fishermen; and that the latter might register themselves under a foreign flag. He suggested that the clause might pass with this proviso—
"Provided always that such bye-laws shall I not come into force until the Convention or arrangement with regard to Sea Fisheries which was concluded in 1882 between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of certain foreign States, and which has since come into force in the Sea Fisheries Act of 1882, shall be so extended as to prevent the fishermen of foreign States from trawling in the waters which by such bye-laws shall be closed to British subjects."
This proviso represented the very strong and almost unanimous opinion of scientific experts on fishing, and he should certainly divide against the clause unless the proviso were added to it.
*LORD BALFOURhoped that the clause would not be struck out. The proviso of the noble Marquess would seem to go far to satisfy those for whom he spoke, and the obvious course for the noble Marquess would be to put his proviso on the Paper. He did not pin himself to the precise distance of 18 miles; it was an arbitrary distance, and he should be willing to change it if a reason could be shown. But that some distance beyond the territorial waters should be fixed was a matter of vital importance to many of the communities engaged in fishing. The noble Duke seemed to condemn any interference with trawling at all.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Not within territorial waters.
*LORD BALFOURsaid the noble Duke described interference beyond the territorial waters as "a monstrous invasion of private rights." How was it that that which was not a monstrous invasion of private rights within three miles of the coast, became so at a distance of 18 miles? Something had been said about "vote catching." He, had never had the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons, and he had no personal

503
interest whatever in line-fishing. No line-fishermen lived in his neighbourhood in Scotland. But he was certain, from the evidence acquired by ordinary observation that there was a strong feeling in Scotland that some extension of the present limit was absolutely necessary in some districts of the coast. The proposal was not that there should be no trawling within 18 miles of; the coast, but that power should be given to the Secretary for Scotland to prohibit trawling at some points oil the coast, after full consideration of all the various interests concerned. He had confidence that those who might hold the post of Secretary for Scotland would approach the question in a judicial spirit and would deal with it fairly. The only way in which the conflicting interests could be reconciled was by having local inquiries in regard to particular and distinct propositions. He could not think that, this power given to the Secretary for Scotland would be the great hardship which those engaged in the trawling industry represented it to be. The trawlers had a large area in the North Sea for their operations. Of course the proposal in the first Bill was excessive. At one point, it would have given power to prohibit trawling at a distance of 75 or 80 miles from the coast. That would have been an unfair infringement of existing interests, because some of the important trawling stations were fixed just at that part of the coast. But to prohibit trawling within a moderate number of miles beyond the territorial limit was no hardship, for a trawler could sail at from 9 to 12 miles an hour.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid that he would explain the logical puzzle which the noble Lord had propounded. The noble 3 Lord asked why, when it was not monstrous to interfere within the 3 mile limit, it became monstrous to interfere within a limit of 18 miles. The noble Lord answered the question himself, for he admitted that it was wrong to interfere at a distance of 70 miles; and if at 70, why not at 18? But when they went beyond territorial waters, they would be prohibiting their own people from catching fish, which, he thought, would be very unjust and injurious.
*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANgave notice that, on Report, he should move
504
that the restricted area should not exceed 13 miles—that was, 10 miles beyond the territorial limit. One of the great difficulties likely to arise would be the great quantity of foreign trawlers fishing in water restricted against their own men. If this change were made, there would be less temptation for foreign trawlers to come into the restricted area.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his noble Friend had used two different phrases; first, he would limit it to territorial waters and 10 miles beyond.
*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he had referred to the three miles and 10 beyond the territorial limit.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, great care had been taken not to name three miles as the territorial limit. The limit depended on the distance to which a cannon-shot could go. A cannon was fired on Jubilee Day, which carried 12 miles.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwas far from saying that three miles was to be the limit of territorial waters for all time. Originally, the distance was, as the noble Marquess said, fixed by gunshot, and it was always said that the distance a gun could fire to was three miles. How far this principle was to be extended, or whether it was to be extended indefinitely, was a question for consideration, and it was a question which would not be without its difficulty. The distance mentioned by the noble Marquess had already been exceeded by a mile, a gun at Shoeburyness having reached a distance of 13 miles. This might not be the limit. If a gun reached 13 miles it might reach over 20, and then there might be considerable difficulty with a country whose coast was not distant.
LORD HALSBURYwould like to mention that the question was treated of in an Act which he had the honour to pass through the House of Commons in 1878. The difficulty was overcome in that Act, which was the 41 & 42 Vict., cap. 73. In that Act they took care to specially avoid any measurements. The distance was left at such limit as was necessary for the defence of the Realm. Then the exact limit was given for the particular purpose in view.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNagreed that the limit should be extended

505
beyond the three miles, but the clause as it stood was open to very serious objection. One objection was, that while they prohibited British trawlers from fishing in certain waters they could not extend that to foreign fishermen outside territorial waters. He should like to hear the answer which was made to the proposal of Lord Huntly, who suggested that there should be a proviso to the effect that such a by-law should riot come into force until a similar arrangement was made with foreign countries, by which they would not be placed in a better position than British fishermen.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHcould not assent to that, for it would amount to postponing the matter altogether. It seemed to be thought that they were going to prohibit trawling within 18 miles of the Scotch coast. There was no such idea. There was perfect power to withdraw these by-laws if it were found to be necessary.
LORD KELVINthought that those parts of the coast of Scotland which came near to the mouth of the Belfast Lough and County Down should be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, he knew the rashness of interfering in a Scotch Debate, but English interests were involved as well as Scotch interests. He had not heard a word from the Lord Privy Seal that he was aware of the fact. One important Resolution, passed at a meeting of the fishing interest of the United Kingdom, read by his noble Friend behind him, protested against the injustice of prohibiting English trawlers from fishing in extra-territorial waters, when no such restriction would be placed on foreign fishermen. If he had not an assurance from the Board of Trade that this would be seen to, he should vote for the omission of the clause.
The Committee divided:—Contents, 32; Not Contents, 5.
The clause, together with clauses up to 19 inclusive, was agreed to and added to the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause:—
"The efficient watching of such parts of the sea and sea- coast as are, or shall be, within the
506
scope of this Act, shall be entrusted to the Fishery Board, who shall have power to provide for the due observance of the by-laws in force from time to time by the employment of officers, vessels, and otherwise, as shall be approved by the Secretary for Scotland. Provided that nothing in this section shall exempt the Coastguard and Admiralty Officers from their statutory duty in enforcing the law and regulations affecting vessels engaged in sea-fishing"
He pointed out that hitherto the responsibility for this duty had been divided between the Admiralty and the Fishery Board. This duty of watching the sea fisheries was not appropriate to the duties of naval officers, and it must, besides, be distasteful to them. Up to the present time the duty had been discharged by the Jackal, which was slower in speed than any of the trawlers. Just as in the preceding clause they had enabled the District Committees to employ officers for certain purposes, so the Government ought, by accepting this clause, to make it clear that the responsibility for the sea police was placed solely in the hands of the Fishery Board.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he could not accept the new clause. In the first place, he did not think it was necessary, because the police duty already devolved on the Scotch Fishery Board, and it needed no declaratory clause of this kind to emphasise the fact. If this clause were to have any force at all, it would make the Fishery Board free from any control of the Treasury with regard to the police arrangements. [" No, no!"] If the clause were to be accepted in any form it could only be accepted with the proviso reserving control over expenditure by the Treasury. He pointed out also that only last year a sum of £5,000 was given by the Treasury to the Fishery Board to purchase a new cruiser in place of the old Vigilant. The Fishery Board needed to have greater facilities for policeing the sea.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the purchase of a new vessel did not mean an enforcement of the law; and how the Fishery Board was to efficiently police the sea without any means, without officers and vessels—except a small yacht and another small vessel—he could not see. How did the Government propose to provide for the policeing of the extended area of sea? It was urged that there would be no security against

507
charges being incurred, and which would not be approved by the Treasury. He thought, however, that the Secretary for Scotland would not act without consulting and obtaining the consent of the Treasury. He was quite willing to add any words the noble Lord chose to suggest so as to ensure the consent of the Treasury being obtained. He had two objects in view—first, that the Fishery Board should alone be charged with the duty of policeing the sea, and that it should be discharged in an efficient manner. If the words of the clause were not appropriate, he was ready to accept any other form to carry out those two objects.
*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANrecognised the difficulty of his noble Friend in accepting the clause. It would not have the effect the noble Lord desired to attain. It was absolutely useless, however, to pass a law and not to provide for it being carried into effect. Nothing could be more disastrous from the point of view of public policy than that Parliament should pass a law and not grant the means to carry it into effect. When he was at the Scotch Office there were no means available to see the law carried into effect. The Admiralty declined to do what was necessary in order to see that the law was not infringed; and he had to make representations to the Treasury for funds with that object. He did not obtain the money, and the consequence was that the law was constantly broken. The Government ought to do something to see that the law was properly observed. It was the duty of the Fishery Board, and it did not come within the province of the Admiralty.
LORD THRINGsaid, it was a principle of legislation never to say that the Government were to carry out a measure of this kind by any particular means. It was the duty of a Government, whenever a law was passed, to carry it into effect. For instance, there were many duties put upon the Secretaries of State, but it was never said that it was the duty of either of them to carry them into effect. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not now introduce an innovation on the general precedent by inserting a clause which was useless.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANregretted that the noble Lord had not been
508
at the Scotch Office during his period of service there. No means were provided by which he could see that the law was carried into effect.
Amendment negatived.
Remaining Clauses and the Title agreed to, and
Bill, with Amendments, reported.
*LORD BALFOURasked when the Report would be taken.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that the Report would be put down for that day week. He now moved that the Standing Committee be negatived.
Motion agreed to.

UNOPPOSED RETURN.
LORD MORRIS LORD MORRIS moved for a Return of the dates at which Lords Justices for Ireland were sworn as such, and of the dates at which they ceased to act, during the respective years commencing the 1st of January 1865 and terminating the 31st December 1894.
Motion agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL.
On Motion of THE LORD PRESIDENT (The Earl of ROSEBERY), Bill read 3a.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
On Motion of LORD HALSBURY, the Report of an Amendment made by the Standing Committee was brought up and agreed to.
House adjourned at Seven of the Clock.