Lords Sitting of 20 May 1895

LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for leave for the Lord Chancellor to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House.
Leave given for his Lordship to attend if he think fit.
And his Lordship (in his place) consenting thereto,
A message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

EDUCATION
Petition in favour of State aid towards maintenance of voluntary schools, of the Local Board for Sheffield, read, and ordered to lie on the Table
Moved: "That the said Petition be printed."—(The Lord Norton.)
Agreed to, and ordered accordingly.— [No. 118.]

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were read 3a (according to Order), passed, and sent to the Commons:—

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL.— [H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HORNSEY) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LEEDS) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LIVERPOOL) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LOWESTOFT) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MANCHESTER) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (PWLLHELI) BILL.—[H. L.]
The following were read 2a (according to Order):—

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.— [H.L.]
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LLANGOLLEN) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONGBENTON) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WILMINGTON) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (TOTTENHAM) BILL.—[H. L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CROYDON) BILL.—[H. L.]
EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL.—[H. L.]

PREFERENTIAL RAILWAY RATES.
*THE EARL OF JERSEY—in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the proviso to Subsection (2) of Clause 27 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, namely,
"Provided that no railway company shall make, nor shall the Court of the Commissioners sanction, any difference in the tolls, rates, or charges made for, or any difference in the treatment of, home and foreign merchandise, in respect of the same or similar services;"
—said, as their Lordships were aware, the meaning of this proviso had been the subject of litigation before the Railway Commissioners, who had decided that it had not been carried out in a reasonable manner by the London and South Western Railway Company. He would not attempt to argue as to the exact meaning which Parliament intended to convey by the words, "of the same or similar services." It must be said that Acts of Parliament sometimes insufficiently expressed the meaning of Parliament, perhaps because Parliament itself did not exactly know what it meant; but everyone would see that the proviso was not at least intended to allow railway companies to give preference in favour of foreign goods, and yet the Railway Commissioners found that this preference had been given by the London and South Western Railway Company. After

1531
making certain allowances for the difference in cost of working, the Commissioners decided that the charges in regard to foreign hops, hay, and fresh meat, were not fair compared with the charges for similar English goods. The rate for foreign hops, carried 76 miles, was 10s., and for English hops, carried only 45 miles, 15s. The charges for carrying meat for about the same distance was, for foreign meat, 12s. 6d.; and for English meat, 25s. 4d. Other items were dismissed by the Railway Commissioners on account of the very small nature of the home consignments. The railway company tried to justify the differences by two considerations with a foreign leaning. He did not think he could do better than read the judgments of the two Commissioners on that matter. These were the words of Mr. Justice Collins:—
"On the other hand the respondents in their answer unquestionably sought to justify the difference in charges by two considerations, which were vehemently repudiated by their counsel at the hearing, namely, that the charge of 6s. was an apportioned amount of a through rate entitling them to exact a smaller proportional charge in view of the longer distance traversed; and secondly, the charge was necessarily no higher in order to enable them to compete successfully with the ocean route, and all the ingenuity of Sir Richard Webster failed to convince me that the author of the answer did not rely largely on these contentions."
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Cobham, also said that:—
"Mr. Balfour Brown was not far wrong when he said that the respondents' line of defence was an afterthought, and that they had a difficult task before them of justifying by one set of considerations a rate that had been governed by another."
The ingenuity of the counsel suggested other reasons for these charges, which, however, did not convince the Commissioners of their justice. But what he (the Earl of Jersey) had to point out was, that the railway company defended this rate on the ground that it was a portion of a through rate from ports outside the United Kingdom. Sir Charles Scotter, on the part of the railway company, allowed that the shipping traffic to Southampton was carried on in competition with direct steamers to London from various ports, so that their Lordships would see that foreign produce did receive better treatment in order to attract it. How then was it likely that an English producer could be in a position to place his goods on the London
1532
market, in fair competition with foreign goods, if those foreign goods were to be carried through England and past his door at a much lower rate than his own? The railway company in this case gave to the foreigner the advantage of quicker trains and facilities at a less cost. Much had been said about the fact that the Southampton case was virtually a contest between two rival docks. It was to be regretted that the rivalry between the London and Southampton Docks was brought into the question, yet he wished to express the warm thanks which were due from English producers to the Committee of the London Docks for having given them the opportunity of proving the injustice of the charges which the railway company had been bringing on them. The cost of those inquiries was by no means light, owing to the constant habit of railway companies of appealing on small points. He had been told that this inquiry cost something like £2,000. No single trader could undertake so heavy an expenditure. It was absolutely prohibitive, and therefore, if it had not been for the Committee of the London Docks the question would not have been brought to a conclusion so early. After the decision of the Railway Commissioners he did not think it could be said that preference had not been given to foreign goods, or that the law had been tested and found efficient. On the contrary, the law had been found deficient for the purpose for which it had been passed, which was that at least no preference should be given to foreign goods. It was a pity, as everyone would allow, that our home producers did not pay a little more attention to the manner of collecting and packing their goods, and of conveying them to market. His noble Friend the Earl of Winchilsea, was trying to direct the attention of agriculturists to the importance of combining together for the transference of their goods to the railway stations. But while allowing that agriculturists should make the best use of all the means in their power, in order to get rid of some, at least, of the excuses for preferential rates advanced by the railway company, no one could justify as fair such charges as those which he had alluded to. How, he asked, could the charge of 5s. for the cartage of home goods and only 3s. 4d. for foreign goods be justified? He would now quote some

1533
charges which had not been proved in a Court of Law. He had been informed that in the case of the London Chatham and Dover Railway the charges for carrying eggs from Calais to London was 29s. 3d. The charge for the seagoing portion of the journey was 26s., which left only 3s. 3d. for the railway journey between Dover and London. English eggs, carried the same distance, were charged 22s. 7d. That showed a preference of 19s. 3d. in favour of foreign eggs. The rate for eggs from Canterbury, 66¼ miles from London, was 20s. 10d. Evidence had been given before the Royal Commission on Agriculture as to the feeling amongst agriculturists on the point; but he would quote the report of one of the Assistant Commissioners, Mr. Pringle:—
"But there were many complaints made against the preferential rate allowed on foreign produce upon English railways. These rates were considered to be unfair to the home grower, and the whole question was submitted as one requiring prompt and decisive treatment. It was stated that there was collusion between shipping and railway companies, and the suggestion was made that the shipping freights and the railway charges on goods consigned to English markets should be quoted separately and not as one. Were this done, the general belief was that our railway companies would be seen to carry foreign produce at lower rates per mile than those charged against the English farmer."
Agriculturists felt very strongly they had not had, and were not having, fairplay meted out to them. No one, of course, wished to injure the railways—that would be a policy not only unjust but most suicidal; but, at the same time, it did seem very hard that great public companies should give preference to foreign goods as opposed to home produce. It might be argued that this was a fresh case and it was only just to wait a bit. The answer to that was that only fortuitous circumstances in the last case enabled the charges to be considered at all by the Railway Commissioners, and that to delay was to prolong the injustice. It was now clearly shown that one railway company at least had misunderstood the meaning of the proviso, and even now, though the Railway Commissioners had decided, in one sense, that these preferences ought not to be allowed, there was not a settlement of the question. It was only the old rates that had been condemned. No
1534
new rates had been placed in their stead, and when the time came for those new rates to be considered, further law costs might have to be incurred. It was time, he thought, to put an end to any misunderstanding in regard to the meaning of the proviso. If a Committee were appointed an opportunity would be afforded traders and agriculturists to come forward and state the treatment they received from various companies. It might be found that the impression of injustice was wrongly founded, and in that case the inquiry would serve a good purpose. But if, on the other hand, it was found that preferential rates were given in a great many cases and by several railway companies, surely it was only right that Parliament should have an opportunity of considering how to place home produce on the same footing as foreign, and to free home produce from the disadvantages which were now placed upon it. A Committee like that which he suggested would be able to hear all complaints and find out if they were well-founded; and, if they were well-founded, to propose that there should be such an alteration of the law as would enable the mind of Parliament, which he felt sure was also the mind of the country, to be carried out, and that was that as regarded the carrying of goods, whether they were English or foreign, there should be no difference, and certainly no difference in favour of the foreigner. He begged to propose his Motion.
LORD BELPERsaid, he had had an opportunity of paying some attention to this question, both from the fact that he sat on the Railway Rates Committee in the Session for 1892, and that he had other means of studying the question of railway rates. He was sure their Lordships would sympathise with the object Lord Jersey had in view, namely, the finding of some relief for the unfortunate agriculturist in the severe competition which he had to meet on all hands, a competition which it appeared was equally difficult to meet, whatever branch of farming a man took up. But however great their sympathy with the English agriculturist might be, there were considerations perhaps of even greater importance which must be borne in mind before they came to a decision. He concluded their Lordships would hardly be prepared to accept a Motion,

1535
even for an inquiry by a Committee, except it were proved, by one or two instances, that when Parliament passed this proviso they were under some misapprehension, that they did not intend that the result of the proviso should be what it had turned out to be, as far as could be judged by the one case which had been tried. In the second place, if that were not so, they would require some information that during the last seven years there had been a change in public opinion, and that it was desirable there should be some change in the law. He was not surprised the noble Lord in bringing forward this Motion did not go into any very elaborate detail as to what the intentions of Parliament were when this proviso was passed seven years ago, but he thought if their Lordships studied Hansard they would find that Parliament did know what it was about, and that their intentions had been fairly carried out in the decision given. On the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Marquess, who was then Prime Minister, in answer to Lord Jersey said—
"I do not mean to say that we forbid all preferential rates, because there is a certain kind of preferential rate that must be admitted, such a rate for example as is given in favour of a man who imports a great deal as against the man who imports very little, a preference generally admitted in all trades."
Lord Stanley of Preston, who was in charge of the Bill, stated in Committee:—
"He thought it was now tacitly admitted by all bodies of traders, that persons dealing in large quantities and at regular intervals with the railway companies ought to be allowed certain advantages over those who did not deal in such large quantities or so regularly. Where a railway company had traffic to carry in large quantities, and at regular periods, and under convenient conditions for its reception and carriage, there was an element which ought fairly to be brought before the Commission, and which in the majority of cases might form good ground why a preferential rate should be allowed."
It would have been difficult before any decision had been given for anyone to have expressed more clearly what was the general result of the law as they knew at present it had been. Lord Jersey, in quoting the decision which had just been given by the Railway Commissioners, said the Railway Commissioners had condemned the practice of the Railway Company in giving these low rates from Southampton; but he (Lord Belper) thought their Lordships
1536
who had read the case would know that on the main point the Railway Company was practically successful, and that those who brough the action, that was to say the Mansion House Committee, behind whom were London Dock Companies, were really unsuccessful on the particular point on which they laid most stress. But it was not only those in charge of the Bill who expressed an opinion as to what they thought was fair with regard to preferential rates. Lord Camperdown said:—
"That the noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that the Railway Companies ought to be allowed to have a difference of rates where the quantities carried differed materially. Nobody disputed this point."
It was plain that many of their Lordships, whatever might have been their view with regard to trying to do something to prevent competition from foreign traffic, were not prepared to go so far as to say that foreigners if they imported goods and carried them in large quantities, should not be allowed the same advantages as Englishmen, who carried goods from one station to another. It was true this special proviso was not in the Bill that was discussed in Committee; it was inserted in Grand Committee in the other House, and he believed at the instance of Mr. Chamberberlain. But whether that was so on not it was accepted by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who said:—
"The object was to secure equal treatment under equal circumstances."
The Bill came back to the House of Lords with those words inserted, and Lord Jersey expressed himself satisfied wit the words in another part of the Bill, and withdrew the Amendment he had down to strike out the words inserted in Grand Committee. He did not think the other part of the Bill covered the ground in the way the noble Lord evidently thought it did. At all events, Lord Jersey asked for information, and Lord Onslow, in reply, said:—
"He thought it obvious that, whether the consignors were foreigners or home traders, that it would be manifestly unfair to impose the same rates upon both parties, whether they sent a large or small quantity of goods, or whether the goods were sent at regular or irregular intervals.''
It was evident there was no misconception as to what the object of the clause was. He put it to them whether it was

1537
desirable, after the very short experience they had had of the working of the clause, they should make an important alteration of the law. The whole railway system of charging had been built up on a principle which had allowed a lower rate being given in the case where traders were sending large quantities, and were sending them at regular intervals. That principle had been admitted not in this Bill only, but in every Act of Parliament which had fixed the maximum charges of railway companies. In the Committee which he had the honour of sitting at, it was specially laid down, and was advocated as strongly by traders as it was by the railway companies, that lower maximum charges should be given to train loads and truck loads than were given for similar goods when carried in smaller quantities, and he understood there were Acts of Parliament which actually laid it down that the maximum charges for goods carried from the docks should be materially lower than the same goods carried from the same place if they belonged to the ordinary trader. If that were the case, he doubted whether Parliament would be inclined, by means of a Committee, to inquire into a section of an Act of Parliament, to go into the whole system which had been deliberately authorised by Parliament for so many years. If that course were taken, it would entail far larger changes than the mere wording of one section of an Act. The noble Earl did not, however, contend for this. His object was to handicap the foreign importers as against the English producer.
*THE EARL OF JERSEY: Will the noble Earl quote any words of mine in which I have said or hinted such a thing?
LORD BELPERsaid that he had no wish to attribute to the noble Earl opinions which he did not hold. His impression of the noble Earl's object was simply drawn from his speeches delivered when the Act of 1888 was before Parliament. At any rate, it was the contention of many of the noble Earl's supporters that, if possible, imported goods must not be allowed to enjoy all the advantages enjoyed by goods produced in this country. If that view was held by anybody, he would point out that it would not be satisfied by any alteration of this clause. The only effect
1538
of such alteration would be to compel the goods to be brought into the country some other way. No more instructive case could be cited than that just decided by the Railway Commissioners. Though nominally brought by the Mansion House Committee, the action was really brought by the London Docks Company; and the object was to divert traffic from Southampton to the London Docks. If the action had been entirely favourable to the applicants, the sole result would have been to ensure that the same goods would have come into the country, but by way of London direct, instead of by way of Southampton. The inevitable result of these proposals was to drive cargoes to the ports which were nearest to the large centres of population. Instead of being a protection to the English farmer against foreign agricultural products, they were really protection for certain dock companies against other dock companies and the railways. If there were any means of dealing with the unfortunate competition which the British agriculturist had to contend with, he was sure that the House would do anything in its power to help. But he hoped that the House would do nothing which might lead the agriculturalist to expect appreciable advantages fram an Inquiry which was riot likely to afford any. He hoped that the Government would not grant the Committee for which the noble Earl had asked.
*LORD PLAYFAIRsaid he had listened to the noble earl who moved for this committee with great attention, because he was anxious to find what he expected the Committee to inquire into. It could scarcely be expected that the Committee should inquire into the legal operation of a proviso to a subsection of an Act of Parliament when a deliberate judgment had lately been given as to the interpretation of that proviso. He supposed that the noble Earl thought the proviso was practically for the purpose of giving equal rates to foreign and British goods going along the railways. That was the impression left by the noble Earl's speeches in 1888, and it was the obvious inference from the fact that when the Amendments to the Bill came from the other House the noble Earl moved to omit the words "in respect of the same or similar services." In 1888 the House discussed this matter in the fullest manner possible. No one contested the

1539
principle underlying the Act of 1854, as well as that of 1888, that, all conditions being similar, foreign goods should not have preferential rates as against British goods. But it was quite a different thing, as the Marquis of Salisbury (then at the head of the Government) said on March 13th 1888—
"that under no circumstances shall one set of merchandise have preferential treatment over another because one set is foreign merchandise and another British."
There were excuses advanced by the railway companies to the Commissioners in the case to which the noble Earl had referred. They were—that the foreign goods came over in bulk and were regular in delivery, and that they were so well packed that they could be handled with ease, and that they could therefore be carried with more profit at a low rate than the goods offered at stations along the line, in small and separate quantities by producers who were not in combination. In the recent trial, "The Mansion-house Traffic Association v. the London and South-Western Railway," the contention actually was made that the proviso excluded all such excuses, and meant that foreign and British rates must always be equal. In giving judgment upon this case Mr. Justice Collins said:—
"If this were the real interpretation of the proviso it would involve the most momentous consequences. But I need not enlarge upon the consequences, which are certainly startling. The question is, did the Legislature in the year 1888, by a proviso to a subsection of a Railway and Canal Traffic Act, introduce such a revolution? Nothing short of the clearest language could persuade me that the Legislature ever had any such intention, and I am of opinion that full effect can be given to the proviso without adopting the contention of the applicants."
The learned Judge went on to say:—
"I think the object of the section was to level differences, not to create arbitrary inequalities between the treatment of the home and foreign merchandise."
To his lay mind the judgment of Mr. Justice Collins was a very able one, and went into all the conditions of the case. It was followed by clear and decisive opinions from the other Commissioners. Viscount Cobham pointed out very clearly what effect would surely follow if the contrary interpretation were true. He said:—
"The policy of the Legislature, as interpreted by the Railway Commission since its first institution, had been to multiply routes for the access
1540
of merchandise to our great centres rather than to restrict them, but if the respondents elected, under pressure, to give up their Southampton Dock traffic one important route for the supply of food stuffs, absolutely indispensable to the people of this country, would be closed. Consequences such as these must be regarded as of farreaching importance so far as they involve protection to any class or interest; they constitute a reversal of a long-established national policy. I cannot persuade myself that so momentous a decision would be embodied in a proviso of apparently limited application and in language that admits of doubt."
After these judgments, which laid down authoritatively the meaning of the proviso, unless it was reversed on appeal, there was no uncertainty as to the operation of the law. What then, did the noble Earl propose that his Select Committee should inquire into? Was it to be a fishing or inquisitorial Inquiry, in different districts, as to whether railway companies were disobeying the law by the rates which they were charging? And was that method to be substituted for the practice of taking cases to the Court of Railway Commissioners, which Parliament had appointed as adequate to deal with these questions? He agreed with the noble Earl that there might be many cases where unfair preferential rates had been charged, and where those rates had not been brought before the Commission because the farmers were too poor. That was the only work that he saw the Committee could do, but would that accord with the dignity of their Lordships' House? Lord Stanley of Preston, in 1888, pointed out this danger. He said:—
''He hoped that cases of inequalities of rates would not be discussed upon the Floor of this House. Such cases depended upon questions of facts which could not be investigated in that House, but which would rightly come before the Railway Commissioners, the machinery of whose court it was proposed by this Bill to improve."
The Government could not favour the formation of a Select Committee which could only have this outcome. There was no uncertainty as to the meaning of the proviso now, and there was no doubt of the efficacy of the undue preference clause when it was put into operation. In the very case which he had quoted, the Commissioners ordered that lower rates should be put on hay, hops, and meat, the produce of the British farmer. Frequent cases of relief had been given in undue differential rates, independently of the merchandise being British or

1541
foreign. No doubt there were instances, and probably many instances, of unwise or unfair differential rates, and the Act might be put into operation to correct them. Though the Government did not see the need of a Select Committee, they recognised that this was not a Party question, and they thought it should be determined by the general opinion in their Lordships' House. They all sympathised with the feelings of British farmers who saw heavily-laden trains of foreign produce flying past their farms, carried at rates perhaps less than one-half of those charged for their own produce when they send it to the market. A Select Committee might be useful if it could show the British farmers how by combination, regularity of delivery of large quantities at a time, and good packing, it would pay the railway companies to carry British goods at equal rates to those charged for foreign produce coming in bulk. The farmers in the United States had to a considerable extent solved this difficult question of differential rates. By admirable combination in common dairies, in common slaughterhouses, in grain elevators for the collection, sorting, and handling of grain, much economy in the cost of traffic had been attained. In time, our farmers might benefit by such combinations. A Committee making inquiries into the nature and application of such economies might doubtless be useful. But that was not the sort of Committee indicated by his noble Friend opposite. It would be a pity, however, where all their sympathies were on the same side, that the acceptance or rejection of a Committee should be the subject of a Party vote. He had risen early in the Debate in the hope that the general sense of the House might be expressed in the discussion.
*LORD BALFOURwished to say a few words with reference to some of the points which had been raised. No one could deny the immense importance and width of some of the issues which had been raised by the noble Lords who preceded him; but he did not think it was quite a convenient course to Debate the very large question of preferential rates between the home and foreign grower on a notice of this kind. It seemed to him that the issue presented by the notice was a much narrower one. He cordially reciprocated the expressions of sympathy
1542
as to the feelings which many of our agriculturists must entertain on this subject. He could assure the noble Lord that when he said that in some way or other the agriculturists had not received fair play, he spoke to an especially sympathetic audience. It was very difficult for anyone to get rid of the prejudice which was raised by an appeal of that kind. Instances had been given which showed that the agriculturists of this country had not had fair play in regard to their competition with foreign produce. But that was not the question before the House. It was a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of a particular proviso of a Sub-section in the Act of 1888. The point which he wished to emphasise in regard to this matter was, that there had only been one case under that proviso. This case had only recently been decided by the Court of First Instance. Whether or not there was to be an appeal from the decision of the legal member of that tribunal, the time at least for giving notice of appeal had not expired; and, therefore, it seemed to him that it would be extremely unwise if the House should grant the request for a Committee. The noble Lord said that the cost of going to the Railway Commission was very great. Unfortunately it was; but he thought that there was another procedure under the Act which was too little known, and which, at any rate in some of those cases, might be brought more into operation. He referred to the procedure under Clause 31 of the Act known as the "Conciliation Clause." It had been a procedure which had commended itself to those who had used it, and it was certainly worthy of attention. Apart from those considerations, however, he would go further and say that so far as he had been able to gather what was the intention of the Legislature, what was the fair spirit of the Act, he ventured to put before the House the view that the Railway Commissioners in their decision had given effect to the intentions of the proviso. The real effect of the proviso was that there was to be no preference for any class of goods on account of their origin; any preference which could be justified was to be justified according to the circumstances of the traffic. No notice was to

1543
be taken of the source from which the particular goods in question came. The noble Lord gave an instance of difference of rate in the case of some eggs which came from the continent to this country. According to the facts and figures quoted by the noble Lord, he thought that there was strong presumptive evidence in that case to show that there was undue preference, provided that the figures on examination proved to be correct. He was bound to say, however, that from his own experience with regard to tables of figures which were brought before him and his colleagues at a certain inquiry, there was throughout the length of that inquiry scarcely a single table put in on behalf of the Railway Companies or the traders, which was not largely discounted after it had been examined by the representatives of the opposite interest. He doubted, therefore, where the average Member of their Lordships' House, with little experience in this matter, would be able to understand what difference might legitimately be made as between one package of goods and another of the same kind in respect of the quantity and volume of the traffic, the system on which it was packed, and the consequent difficulty or ease of handling it. He hoped that the request for the Select Committee would not be pressed. Whether the larger and more important inquiry should be taken or not was a question which their Lordships could not discuss until they saw the terms of reference. He doubted, however, whether a Committee of the House would be the best tribunal even for that question. He should have thought that the facilities at the command of a Government Department like the Board of Trade, could have been employed to put together information got from foreign countries by our agents rather than by bringing witnesses from those countries here to give evidence.
LORD PLAYFAIR: I did not propose a Select Committee, but I could have understood a Select Committee being appointed for such a purpose.
*LORD BALFOURsaid, he gathered more than that from the suggestion of the noble Lord; but he accepted the explanation. Even, however, if they were going to collect that information, it could be better done through the agency of a Department than by a Select
1544
Committee. He should prefer, however, not to discuss a hypothetical question. He would rather wait to see whether the suggestion was adopted, and whether the terms of reference were put on the paper. On the wide and large question of how we were to treat goods which come into this country, it seemed to him that the Railway Commissioners had correctly apprehended what was the intention of Parliament. The noble Lord quoted some sentences from the judgment of Mr. Justice Collins; but there was a passage in a judgment of one of the lay Commissioners on the merits of the question which seemed to him to set forth the correct principles which ought to be laid down. The words would be found in the judgment of Sir Frederick Peel:—
"The proviso seems to me to require, in reference to home and foreign articles that compete with each other in the market, that, in respect of the same or similar services there shall not only he no difference of rates involving an undue or unreasonable preference, but no difference of any kind. It means, I think, that given the same or similar services, considerations which in other cases might justify an inequality of rate are here not to be regarded."
That he understood to be the wish of Parliament; and the only safe ground their Lordships could take up was that on which the Court avowedly proceeded, and which was declared by the judgment of the Commissioners. In other words, that they were not to mind either the interests of the consumer or producer as interests of the consumer or producer, and they were not to take notice of the origin of the goods, whether they were home or foreign, but were to treat all alike, given the similarity of services in both cases. If the noble Lord could suggest that there was any ground for saying that the Court had misinterpreted the intention of Parliament, then, in his opinion, he would not have much difficulty in getting his Committee. The noble Lord had, however, failed to make out his case on that point, and consequently he could not support his Motion.
*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAMstill thought the Motion of his noble Friend timely and opportune. The speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Belper) showed that he had not appreciated the speech addressed to the House by his noble

1545
Friend, because the object of the Motion was not to induce their Lordships' House to take any steps which would place the foreigner in a position of inferiority to the home producer. What his noble Friend contended for was, that the proviso which was placed in the Act, and which was originally introduced by his noble Friend himself, had failed, even when legally interpreted and explained. The Committee proposed was not to try to reverse the decision lately pronounced by the Railway Commissioners; but would have for its object to ascertain whether agriculturists were right in supposing that all over the country there were thousands of rates in which the express intention of Parliament was being systematically evaded, even when viewed by the light of the decision lately arrived at by the Commissioners. He had addressed about 200 meetings during the past two years, and he could safely assert that at no meeting had any subject been received with so much enthusiasm as the reform of railway rates. There was an urgent demand by the agriculturists and traders of this country for a review of the matter, in order to see whether the declared intention of Parliament to place foreign and English goods on precisely the same footing was being honestly and fairly carried out. The Motion was strictly limited in its application. It did not propose to take the House over the subject of the increased rates imposed in 1893, or to go into other matters connected with rates generally; but simply to inquire into the proviso, and to see whether that proviso had been deprived of its efficacy by the words which it had been necessary to accept in the Lower House. That brought them to the question of what was meant by "similar" services. Unquestionably, by the Act of 1888, Parliament intended to do away with preferential rates in favour of foreigners; and the whole question now was whether it had done so, or not. The contention of himself and his Friends was that it had not. The Railway Companies, on the other hand, contended that it had. Such an inquiry as his noble Friend proposed would at least set the matter at rest. If he and his Friends were wrong, it would be well that they should be informed of it; if they were right, then,
1546
undoubtedly, further legislation ought to follow. His noble Friend was loyally prepared to accept the law as laid down by the Railway Commissioners, and only desired to inquire into the thousands of rates which he had indicated, and which, in individual cases, could not be brought before the Commissioners on account of the expense involved. But it had been contended that, in view of the decision so lately pronounced in the Southampton case, to which reference had been made, the Motion of the noble Earl was not well timed. Such, in fact, was the argument of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Playfair), and of his noble Friend below him (Lord Balfour of Burleigh). He could have understood the objection if his noble Friend had proposed to review that decision, but, as a matter of fact, he accepted it, and even made it the basis for the proposed inquiry. The railway companies might with more reason, he thought, put in a plea for delay on other grounds, and then he would be prepared to make large admissions. They might contend, for example, that one case only had been tried; and that in that one case, admittedly the worst case which the traders could select, the decision of the Commissioners had not, except as it affected three articles, been unfavourable to the company. They might also argue that, although the rates in question were such as to show overwhelming prima facie evidence of preference to foreign goods, the Company had been able to justify many of them, on the ground that foreign produce was delivered so well packed, so regularly, and in such large quantities, as to make it more profitable to carry than English produce, even at three times the rate. He was willing to make the Companies a present of these admissions, which justice demanded should be made, but still he was convinced that, even in the case under review, enough remained behind amply to justify the Motion of his noble Friend. Not only was the defendant Company actually convicted of preferential treatment in the case of three of the articles complained of, namely, hops, hay, and meat, but a whole flood of light was thrown upon a question which contained the kernel of the whole controversy, and that was, what are the

1547
grounds on which railway companies really act when they charge three times as much for conveying English produce as they do for foreign? Now it was proved that the London and South Western Railway in their preliminary answer to the charges preferred by the Mansion House Association had relied on two arguments—the one illegal, the other irrelevant. One was that the rates charged were part of a through rate; the other was that they were necessary in order to enable the Railway Company to compete with the sea-borne carriage to London. Both those arguments were dropped like red hot coals by Sir Richard Webster as soon as he opened the case for the Railway Company. Still, Mr. Justice Collins stated that all the ingenuity of Sir Richard Webster had failed to convince him that the Railway Company were not really relying on that argument when they framed their reply. That was the point. Could any one doubt that the real argument present to the minds of the Railway Company not only when they framed their reply, but when they imposed the rates originally, was the very argument that Parliament had said that they must not bring forward—that they granted those rates in fact entirely because they were part of a through rate, and were necessary in order to enable the Company to compete with sea-borne carriage? This brought the House to a consideration of the proper use of the word "similar." He quite agreed that foreigners, if they sent their goods better packed and in better bulk, ought not to be placed in a worse position than Englishmen, and he would say at once that he and his Friends would be satisfied if, for similar services, they could get similar rates. There could be no question that a great part of the discrepancy in the rates that they smarted under was really brought about by the fact that they had not learnt the great lesson of combination by sending their goods to centres where they could be properly packed and properly consigned to the Railway Companies. He challenged any representative of the Railway Companies in that House who might follow him in that debate, to say whether, if an association or society could deliver agricultural produce in regular quantities, properly packed, and at
1548
regular times, whether they would grant the same rates as they now granted to foreigners for the same commodities. If the Railway Companies would not do that, then, behind their refusal to do so, lay the very thing they wanted to get at. If, on the other hand, they would do so, the sooner that was known the better for the Companies, and for the home producers and traders. It did not, however, do for the Railway Companies to lay too great a stress on the word "similar." He would give only one illustration of his meaning. Till lately, the foreign rate for the conveyance of meat from Liverpool was 25s., the English rate being 50s. This discrepancy was so glaring that the Railway Companies said—
"We will take your meat at 25s. if you will send it in similar quantities—namely, 20 tons at a time."
These figures were very significant. Twenty tons were not a trainload, but were more than a truckload. Why was that figure selected? Because it was just above the highest figure to which the Company knew that the English producer could attain. The home producer could thus be relegated to the higher rate of 50s., because he failed to comply with this absurd and impossible condition, while the Company could still plead that by making the offer, it had technically complied with the letter of the proviso. He contended that that was not fair and honest treatment on the part of the railway company, and that it was not carrying out the spirit of that legislation which was intended to place English producers on the same terms as foreigners. Provided that a full truck were consigned, it could make no difference to a railway company whether one truck or five trucks were consigned at one time; certainly none which would justify it in charging double the rate per ton in the one case which it charged in the other. As a matter of fact it was proved in the Southampton case that even the conditions as to "full truck loads" were frequently relaxed in favour of foreign produce. The condition of agriculture at the present moment did not admit of delay. There was a great tide of indignation rising in the country in consequence of the belief that the foreign producer was treated on a different basis from the English producer by the

1549
railway companies; and although there might be many deductions to be made on behalf of the company, yet when all deductions were made there was a large margin of complaint which justified the Motion of his noble Friend. If the railway companies were ordinary traders the House would not venture to interfere from a Parliamentary point of view with their right to charge what rates they pleased; but the railway companies were a monopoly—a monopoly which was granted in the faith that, being allowed to take the land compulsorily, they were to be the cheap carriers of agricultural produce to the market. On that account alone he thought they were entitled to protest, against that form of protection which, after all, was the most monstrous form of all, the protection of the foreign producer against the home producer. He trusted, therefore, that the House would accede to the Motion of his noble Friend.
*THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I sympathise most entirely with the feelings that have actuated both my noble Friends behind me. There is no grievance which the British farmer feels so keenly as that under which he believes he suffers—namely, that there are preference rates between foreign and native produce; and I entirely agree with my noble Friends that it is the duty of Parliament to watch carefully the operation of the law, and if the operation of the law is not satisfactory that it is the duty of Parliament to propose measures for its amendment. But I confess that I am a little perplexed as to the subject matter of the Committee for which my noble Friend proposes to move. He proposes to ask us to enquire into the operation of a particular proviso. Now, the operation of a proviso means its legal operation. Have or have not the provisions which Parliament has passed in order to impose certain duties upon railway companies been carried out or not as Parliament desired? That can only be ascertained by knowing the results of the appeals to the Courts of Law. You may say that Courts of Law are expensive. It is a painful truth, but you cannot get out of the use of them. You may have Select Committees, and you may have Acts of Parliament founded on the reports of Select Committees, and you may repeat the process again and again, but the only thing that can be done
1550
is to lay down something that the Courts of Law shall enforce. To that point you must always come in the end. What has happened in the Courts of Law? Have they failed to enforce the intentions of Parliament? Have they discovered that the intentions of Parliament were expressed in language which does not represent the views which we really entertain? It seems to me that on this point we are in ignorance. It has been said that only one case has been heard, but that very much exaggerates the matter. Only half a case has been heard; it is still open to appeal, and I am told that there will be an appeal. It is quite possible, therefore, that the result of the appeal may be something totally different to that which appears in the judgment that is now before the House. The law has not yet definitely spoken. We do not yet know precisely what interpretation the Courts of Law will put upon the language which we have placed in the Act. I am very anxious for the success of the cause my noble Friends have in hand, and am desirous that it shall have every support from Parliament and public opinion; but I think they would rather hinder than promote success if they insist on beginning an inquiry before there is anything to inquire about. My noble Friend behind me referred a good deal to the wishes and the intentions of the Railway Companies. No doubt the Railway Companies will try to get all the advantages they can, and probably the advantages they desire will not be consistent with those interests of agriculture which Parliament is bound to protect. But we cannot operate on the intentions of the companies; we can only operate on the law. We have to decide what the law is to be, and it seems to be premature to inquire whether the law we have laid down is sufficient or not until we have heard what the Judges determine to be the operation and the effect of that legislation. I would suggest to my noble Friend that the best course to pursue under these circumstances will be to adjourn the Debate until the appeal to which reference has been made has been decided.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): I wish to express my general concurrence in what the noble

1551
Marquess has just said. I entirely agree with him as to the immense importance of the question itself, and the absolute duty of Parliament to take every possible step to see that our agriculturists have fair play in this matter. The noble Marquess will doubtless remember the discussions in Parliament on this subject, and he will recognise that the question is one of extreme difficulty. Notwithstanding the intentions of Parliament, it is always found to be an exceedingly difficult thing to draw up an Act which will exactly carry out the wishes which Parliament may have. I need not repeat what the noble Marquess has said, because his arguments are unanswerable, as to the fact that the moment has not arrived for making an examination into the matter. As the noble Marquess has shown, it is extremely undesirable that we should at this moment enter upon such an inquiry. It would rather prejudice the question than promote it. I merely wish to say, on the part of the Government, that we are impressed with the importance of the question and with the fact that it is the duty of Parliament to take every means to see there is fair play between the home and the foreign producer, because it cannot be, on any ground, fair or just that preferential rates should be given to any class of producers, and much less that we should select our own producer at home as the victim of that preference against themselves. Surely no one can dispute that proposition. The only question now is, as to the best way of carrying our wishes into effect; and I join with the noble Marquess in asking the noble Earl not to persevere with his Motion at the present moment.
*THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, that he would agree to the suggestion to adjourn the question for the present.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he hoped it would be understood that, while he sympathised with the object of the noble Earl, he reserved to himself the right to discuss what was the particular thing to be done when the Debate was again brought forward.
*THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, he must thank the Earl of Winchilsea for his admirable speech, and thought it would be regarded as extremely satisfactory by agriculturists throughout the country.
Debate adjourned.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill, several Amendments stood on the Paper in the name of the Lord Privy Seal. The clause, as amended on Report, was a follows:—

RESTRICTION AS TO BEAM TRAWLING AND OTTER TRAWLING.
(1.) The Fishery Board may, by bylaw or bylaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling, shall not be used in any area or areas under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty, within thirteen mlies of the Scottish coast, to be defined in such bylaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke bylaws for the purposes of this section. Provided that the powers conferred in this section shall not be exercised in respect to any areas under Her Majesty's jurisdiction lying opposite to any part of the coast of Ireland, or the west coast of England within 18 miles thereof. No bylaw under this section shall be confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland until he shall have directed a local inquiry to be held in the district adjoining the part of the sea to be included in the bylaw; at which inquiry all persons interested shall be heard. (2) Any person who uses any such method of fishing in contravention of any such bylaw, shall be liable on conviction, under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, to a fine not exceeding One hundred pounds, and failing immediate payment of the fine to imprisonment for a period not exceeding sixty days, without prejudice to diligence by poinding or arrestment, if no imprisonment has followed on the conviction; and every net set, or attempted to be set, in contravention of any such bylaw, may be seized and destroyed or otherwise disposed of by any superintendent of the herring fishery or other officers employed in the execution of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts. 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. (3) Sub-section two of section seven of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, is hereby repealed, and the provisions of the foregoing sub-section shall be and are hereby substituted therefor. (4) 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 therefrom and from all penalties attaching thereto.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH),in moving the omission of the words italicised "under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty," said he moved the Amendment in fulfilment of the pledge he gave on the Report stage. The intention of the Amendment was to leave out words inserted by the noble

1553
Marquess opposite, which would have the effect of destroying the whole clause with regard to trawling altogether. The Government thought it necessary that some further restriction should be adopted with respect to trawling in Scottish waters, and for three reasons—first, because, however doubtful the destruction done to fish generally by trawling, it was undoubtedly possible that in limited areas, especially in waters near the shore, great damage could be done, and these areas rendered for the time useless; secondly, because great damage was also done to the gear of the line and net fishermen, especially in inshore waters; and, thirdly, because a very excited state of feeling existed between 44–45ths of the fishermen of Scotland and the remaining 1–45th, who were trawlers—a state of feeling which the Government thought they ought to attempt to allay by giving power to the Scottish Fishery Board to allocate particular fishing-grounds to these particular classes of fishermen. He discussed the objection to the proposal that the restriction on the trawlers, prohibiting them from fishing in about ten miles of Scottish waters, would have a prejudical effect; and contended that that was not the case, and that the proposed regulation would not interfere with the catch of fish at all. It would, no doubt, cause them to burn more coal by going farther from the shore, but that was all. He pointed out that, according to the last report of the Scotch Fishery Board, 71 per cent. of the fish caught were herrings, and of herrings trawlers caught nothing at all. As to the argument that it would be very hard indeed to see foreign trawlers trawling in waters which were closed to British trawlers, he believed the contingency was one which was not likely to arise. If foreign trawlers fished in these grounds they would be such a distance from their own ports that they would require far more coal than would be necessary if they fished nearer home; and this was a matter which would operate with them. The object of the third Amendment was to impose an obligation on the Secretary for Scotland in cases where foreign trawlers made a practice of trawling in these prohibited areas to suspend the bylaw prohibiting trawling in such areas, which would give a fair method of compromise on the knotty questions with regard to this clause. He commended
1554
the Amendments to their Lordships' favourable consideration.
*THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish I could approach the noble Lord opposite in a spirit of entire conciliation upon this matter, but I feel he has carefully abstained from giving anything but the shell and the kernel of the Amendment is absent. I asssure him that the trawlers who are affected do not look upon the matter with that indifference he imagines. I have received a good many telegrams to-day from trawlers, and have also received letters from persons who are in a state of great apprehension lest his proposal should pass into law. (What we say is—that you must not prohibit the trawling of a British vessel in any place where a foreign vessel is able to go. That is a broad principle.) If the noble Lord could approach foreign Governments, and, either by formal or informal agreement, obtain from them their consent that a certain stretch of water shall be reserved for other sorts of fishing, and that trawling fishing shall be illegal therein, the noble Lord would have done perfect justice between his own countrymen and foreigners, and we should have no cause of complaint. All the noble Lord can tell us is, that he does not think it likely that a foreigner can come in. We do not know whether that is the case or not; we shall not know till we can try. But he has taken no security to prevent the foreigner coming in. All he does is to say: If afterwards it can be proved to the Secretary of State for Scotland that the foreign trawlers are fishing in these waters, that they are used as a fishing-ground by foreign vessels or boats, then in that case the Secretary for Scotland shall withdraw the Order and restore the open sea to the neutral condition in which it formerly was. It is obvious that that method is as cumbrous a mode for relief for an injured British trawler as you could possibly imagine. In the first instance, it must be discovered that the foreigner is using it as a fishing-ground—not merely that he has fished there once, but is using it as a fishing-ground. Who is to give evidence? There is no British trawler allowed; they cannot be there. The line fishermen are not likely to give evidence; they will shut their eyes very hard. The only persons that can possibly give evidence are one or two tugs which, I believe, will be at the

1555
disposal of the Fishery Board, and who, it is supposed, may be in the neighbourhood at the time. Then comes the question of fact, and nothing is more difficult to determine than a disputed question of fact which takes place at sea. I remember once hearing the late Lord Hannen, replying to a toast that had reference to the Court over which he presided, and he said:—
"It is hard to do justice as between man and man; it is still harder to do justice as between man and woman; but it is next to impossible to do justice as between ship and ship."
That is the fact. Facts when they come into a maritime case assume such an extraordinary travesty! You find from the evidence, which is no doubt honestly given on both sides, that every circumstance affects the case so favourably to each side in turn, that even such obvious questions as whether the wind blew from the east or from the west at the same moment, are decided differently by the evidence recorded. Therefore, the Secretary of State, when he gets the information, will have to fight through all this difficulty of evidence. The facts will be very doubtful; they will only reach him on the evidence of the tug, which, I suppose, will have conveyed its knowledge to the Fishery Board, which, at the next quarterly meeting will resolve that the matter shall be laid before the Secretary for Scotland; and the Secretary for Scotland will be left to determine whether the evidence given by the captain of the tug is to be relied upon or not. It will depend entirely on the distance from shore—it may be a distance from shore at which the beach is not visible—and if the land be not visible there is practically no method of determining whether the distance has been exceeded or not. There will be every ground for the Secretary for Scotland thinking the question is impossible to determine whether there has or has not been habitual fishery on the part of the foreigner. At each elbow, when he is deciding this question, there will be political advisers who will not have an absolutely impartial result in view. The representative of the line fishermen of, say Forfarshire, will have one opinion, and the representative of Teignmouth and North Shields will have another; and I think it is possible that the Secretary for Scotland, unless he be a man of such exalted virtue as we are accustomed to now, will be tempted
1556
more to decide by the question whether the letters U and G are opposite the names of these representatives than by the question of the evidence that is laid before him. [A noble LORD: "What do U and G mean?"] Has the noble Lord never read that interesting work, "Vacher's Companion," in which he will see an account of predilections of supporters and opponents? This proposal is exceedingly circuitous, very clumsy, and gives every opportunity for not carrying the law into effect. In fact, it is a statutory indication of how not to do it. It would be much simpler to take the course recommended by Lord Huntly and, I think, by Lord Camperdown, that an understanding with foreign Powers on the subject shall, in the first instance, be arrived at. If you can obtain that understanding then, without trusting at all to the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland, or the doubtful and contested evidence on which he will have to rely, or the question whether a certain number of acts of fishing constitute a use of the ground for fishing—without relying on any of these doubtful grounds, you will then have a clear indication of the mode of doing that which you ought to do above all other things, and that is, to provide precisely equal treatment to the foreigner and to your own countrymen in respect to these rights of fishing in the open sea. I cannot assent, as far as I am concerned, to the adoption of a law which, I am convinced, will be perpetually evaded, which will give no real security as to the equal treatment of Englishmen and foreigners, and which will introduce precedents that can be stretched much further, and will be very injurious to our countrymen in the open sea.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the House will not be led away by the reasoning of the noble Marquess, and suppose that this is a question as between Scotchmen, Englishmen, and foreigners. I maintain it is nothing of the kind, but a question really between Englishmen and Scotchmen engaged in two particular branches of the fishing industry. The noble Marquess espouses the cause of the trawlers, and takes no account of the larger interest which the line and herring fishermen have in this matter, placing this before you as a question whether we are going to do something that will be advantageous to the foreigners. If it

1557
rested simply there, the argument of the noble Marquess would have much force. But it does not. The point is, are you going, on account of the objections the noble Marquess makes to the particular provision here for the protection of an important class of our fishermen, to leave that important class without protection? Because that is what you are about to do. That is to say, for the sake of the trawlers you are about to expose a very large and, I am told, a much more important interest of British fishermen exposed to great damage and loss, and are going to protect trawlers in the exercise of their interest in certain waters at the expense of another large fishing interest. The object of the Amendment of my noble Friend is to try to make it impossible for the foreigner to be able to exercise trawling in waters in which British trawlers cannot exercise it, and at the same time to give some protection to line fishermen and net fishermen. I may mention that the whole of Moray Firth, which is nearly a third of the Scottish water on the east coast to be considered in this matter, is now subject to this prohibition; and, I regret that in this case there is not an option given to the Secretary for Scotland to suspend the prohibition if it were found that foreign trawlers fished within those waters. The noble Marquess opposite had said: "Why not get the consent of foreign Powers?" I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess with his long experience of these transactions with foreign Powers knew the immense difficulty—the almost insuperable difficulty—of obtaining their consent to provisions of this kind, and it is for that reason, and, no doubt, for that reason only, that he asked the House to adopt this provision. For my part, holding as I do the Office of Foreign Secretary, if I saw any reasonable prospect of obtaining the consent of the foreign Powers, I would agree that it would be the most satisfactory and the most complete mode of dealing with the matter; but I do not believe there is any reasonable prospect of obtaining that consent. Then, as to the evidence to be brought before the Secretary of Scotland. The noble Marquess treated the matter as if we were going to a court of law. But this is not a case of going to law. The case is not to be argued as in a court of law, and as
1558
between two ships to which the noble Marquess referred. If we were going to a court of law, I should, perhaps, sympathise with the objection of the noble Marquess, for our experience in that respect is not encouraging. But in this case we go to the Department of the Secretary for Scotland. As regards the impartiality of the Secretary for Scotland, as between a "U" and a "G," however strong may be my belief in the enduring vigour of the present Administration, I can imagine a day when it is possible we may have a "U" before the name of the Secretary for Scotland in Parliamentary directories, and for my part I should have perfect confidence that a Secretary for Scotland from the Party opposite would administer this Act impartially and fairly as between the different classes, whatever their politics might be. I do not think, therefore, that that is a serious objection. Then as to the evidence, if it should be proved that the waters were used by a single foreign trawler, the prohibition against native trawlers would be removed. But even supposing one case of foreign trawling escaped notice, there would be no serious damage done. If there was any serious damage, depend upon it you would hear of it. The herring fishermen have a great interest at stake, and they would be sure to report if there was any foreign trawlers in the waters; so that upon the whole it does not appear that the clause would be found unworkable. Therefore I think my noble Friend is justified in pressing his Amendment on the House.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLhoped the House would adhere to the principle embodied in the Amendment of the noble Marquess accepted the other night, which was that they should neither prohibit themselves, nor allow the Secretary for Scotland to prohibit English or Scotch fishermen from using trawling grounds open to foreigners. That was the principle for which they contended. He had never heard a more illogical speech than the speech of his noble Friend who had just sat down. The noble Earl, in the opening part of his speech, seemed to think that it was a mere pretence to contend that this was a question between native trawlers and foreign trawlers. "It is no such thing,' said the noble Earl; "it is simply a question between one class of fishermen

1559
and another." But later on his noble Friend confesed that it was difficult to get foreign nations to agree to a limitation of fishing areas. But why did foreign nations object to the limitation of those areas? Because they wanted their people to fish there. What other objection could they have? Why had his noble Friend found it difficult to get foreign powers to exclude their trawlers from those waters? Simply because their trawlers found it profitable to fish there. That was the reason why the difficulty in regard to foreign powers arose, and yet his noble Friend pretended to deny that it was a question between home trawlers and foreign trawlers. But he objected to any extension of power in the hands of officials over British subjects. If Parliament objected to trawling over a certain area well and good; but why should they give power to the Secretary for Scotland to modify an Act of Parliament in accordance with the desires of local bodies of fishermen, and not with a view to the general interest of the country? It was quite true, as the noble Earl had said, that trawling, as compared with herring-fishing, was but a small fraction of the Scotch fisheries. But herring-fishing had nothing whatever to do with this matter. It was a totally different subject. The interference by trawlers with the herring nets was a very small matter. On the other hand, he wished the House had seen some of the papers circulated by the trawlers of Aberdeen and other places, with their admirable array of statistics, showing the growing importance of the trawling industry as compared with line fishing, and the injury done that industry by those prohibitions; and compared those statistics with the loose and disconnected statement of the noble Lord opposite. There could be no question of the much greater argumentative value of the case put forward by the trawlers than of the case put forward by the Lord Privy Seal. For his part he would go farther than the noble Marquess, who seemed to say that British trawling should not be prohibited on waters open to foreign trawlers. His view was that they should restrict all prohibitive laws of this kind to some definite extent such as the three miles of the present territorial limit. His noble Friend the Lord Chancellor stated, on the last occasion the Bill was before the House, that that limit was an
1560
accident—that it arose from the distance of a gun-shot years ago. He did not know exactly the range of powerful artillery in those days, but he should say it was ten miles——
*THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Thirteen miles.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that if territorial waters were extended by international agreement to 10 or 13 miles, it would be too large a line to draw for the purpose of laws of this kind. But he agreed that as trawling and line fishing could not be conducted together on the same spot in narrow waters where they would come into collision, it was only perfectly fair that there should be some protection for line fishermen. The noble Earl had used the words "protection for line fishermen." "Protection" had a technical meaning. Was this protection to be an artificial protection on behalf of a body of men who had other men competing with them in their industry. If that were so it meant that hon. Members opposite were going in for protection. It was the protection of a particular form of industry in favour of certain men to the exclusion of others who were better adapted to work the industry—such as the protection that might have been given to workers of handlooms as against machinery; and he, therefore, hoped the House would sustain the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Duke has shown how well justified is the statement that the interests of the trawlers is placed above the interests of every other class of fishermen by those who are opposing the Amendment of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal. The noble Duke has said that this is a question of the protection of line fishermen as against trawlers. I do not regard it in the slightest degree as a question of protection in the sense in which he applied that word. The object of the measure is to secure proper conditions for the regulation of each class of fishermen, so that neither class may interfere with or destroy the fishing of the other. If the trawlers are allowed to conduct operations in the water from which it is proposed to exclude them, the fishing of the herring fishermen will be destroyed. On the other hand, by controlling and limiting the operation of the trawlers,

1561
as proposed, the herring fishermen will be uninjured, and at the same time fair and legitimate scope will be allowed for trawling. That is the object of the Bill. It is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable object, and I do not know that there would be any difficulty in carrying it out. If you consider the fact that line and herring fishermen form a far greater proportion of the fishing industry than trawlers, is it not reasonable that you should have regard to their interests? Is it fair to leave the line and herring fishermen without any protection whatever against the trawlers, when the trawlers might destroy them; while on the other hand, under the conditions we propose, the trawlers could fish just as efficiently without doing the other fishermen any harm. Of course, the question of the foreign trawlers is the real difficulty. But I believe it is put forward as part of the game by the Scotch trawlers. I do not think myself that there is any substance in it. The fact that foreign trawlers have come into those waters has not been satisfactorily proved, and I do not think there is any reason to fear that they will come in the future to any substantial extent. I can understand this being made a question of principle, by the opponents of the Amendment of my noble Friend. But I cannot understand why that question of principle should not have been fought out long ago. Why was not the noble Duke here to fight for this question of principle when the subject was first brought before the House?
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I was ill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was unfortunate, and I am sorry to hear it. But could no one be found to voice his objection on his behalf? Until the noble Marquess moved his Amendment this objection in regard to foreign trawling was never heard of. Now when a Scotch Fishery Bill is introduced by the other side this question of foreign trawling is raised for the first time, and as a question of principle which there can be no yielding. But what is the proposal now before us? If the view of the noble Marquess and the noble Duke as to foreign trawling turns out to be correct, the prohibition against British trawling will be removed. Is it not worth while to make a little sacrifice rather than abandon the line and
1562
the herring fishery without any protection from trawlers whatever? I won't say the proposal of the Bill is perfect, yet I think it does afford an adequate and satisfactory solution of the question. The noble Marquess said the Secretary for Scotland would be guided as to the decisions he came to by the politicians on either side of him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think I said there would be a politician at each elbow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There may be a politician at each elbow, but I don't think the Secretary for Scotland, to whatever Party he belongs, will, on a simple question of this kind, allow himself to be affected by representations of politicians, because Parliament has committed to him the determination of a simple fact: is it shown that foreign trawlers come and trawl? I submit that the Bill is an adequate solution of the difficulty.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he could not accept as correct the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that this is a question simply between line fishermen and trawlers. [The Earl of KIMBERLEY: "Line and net fishermen."] Between line and net fishermen and trawlers. He was in favour of extending the three-mile limit, but when that question was raised in Committee it was asked:—
"How can we permit, or leave it open to, foreign trawlers to do that which we say British trawlers are not to do?"
That was a great and real difficulty. If he inclined to either side, his inclination was towards the line fishermen, but he quite admitted the reality of the difficulty. In the proviso under discussion it was said—
"It is made to appear to the Secretary that any area is used as a fishing ground."
The noble Marquess had already commented upon those words. He very much questioned whether the mere report of a fishing by a single vessel could be considered as using a fishing ground. It appeared to him it was very much open to question whether a single action, or even several actions, would be considered to constitute a case. But there was an alternative, standing in the name

1563
of Lord Huntly, which, if their Lordships did not accept the proposition of Lord Tweedmouth, he, in the absence of Lord Huntly, would ask them to adopt. Lord Tweedmouth proposed that the bylaw was to cease to be in force if it were made to appear to the Secretary that any such area was used as a fishing ground by foreign vessels. He would propose to do that exactly in the reverse way, that was to say, that the by-law should not come into force until some agreement or understanding should be arrived at with foreign powers in the matter. He had pretty good authority for that, the authority of Lord Tweedmouth himself. That was the exact course the noble Lord recommended in his Committee of two years ago. The Committee reported—
"That the present territorial limit of three miles is insufficient, and that for fishery purposes alone this limit should be extended, provided such extension can be effected upon an international basis, and with due regard to the rights and interests of all nations. Your Committee would earnestly recommend that a proposition on these lines should be submitted to an International Conference of the Powers which border on the North Sea."
There was considerable discussion before it was agreed to close the Moray Firth. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said he did not think it had been satisfactorily proved that foreign vessels had used that trawling ground. He could give him the names of two that had been in it. But one could not be blind to the fact that if they increased the area which was closed to trawlers they increased the inducements to foreign vessels to come and trawl there. That was a matter of common sense.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, that when this matter had been under discussion on previous occasions it had been generally treated as one affecting mainly the fishermen on the east coast of Scotland, and also, to a certain extent, the fishermen on the east coast of England. However, since the last time the Bill was discussed he had received a representation from the chairman of the Joint Fishery Boards of Lancashire strongly protesting against the restriction proposed to be imposed upon their fishing by the original words of the Bill.
1564
The chairman wrote to him that the proposal—
"in Section 10 of the Sea Fishery (Scotland) Bill to exclude trawlers from fishing within 18 miles of the Scottish coast line will act very injuriously upon the interests of a considerable section of Lancashire fishermen. They have already suffered by the closing of the Firth of Clyde, and this additional restriction of fishing ground would involve further loss both to fishermen and consumers in Lancashire. It may be desirable to extend the territorial limit of sea fishery operations, but in the opinion of the Lancashire Sea Fisheries Committee this step can only be effectively accomplished by international arrangement."
His correspondent was not aware, at the time he wrote, of the Amendments introduced on the Motion of the noble Marquess opposite. He could not say whether those who represented Lancashire fishermen were justified in the view which they took of the injury which would be inflicted upon them, and he merely quoted the letter for the purpose of again calling their Lordships' attention to the fact that this was a Bill which did not affect the interests of Scottish fishermen only, but also the interests of English fishermen. When the Bill was in Committee he asked the noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade what was the view taken by the Board of Trade upon the subject as affecting the interests of English fishermen. The noble Lord was not able to give him any answer on that occasion he was not present when the Bill was last discussed, but he had been present that night. Perhaps he would favour the House with the views which the Board of Trade took upon the matter. The Committee on which the Lord Privy Seal sat two years ago considered the question as affecting British fishermen generally. The Report, which was drafted by the noble Lord himself recommended a totally different mode of procedure from that contained in the Bill. Why had that procedure been departed from, and why was this treated as an exclusively Scotch matter?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that by the second Amendment, which stood in his name, it was sought to make it clear that these provisions were intended to extend solely to Scottish waters.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that English fishermen fished in Scottish waters.
*LORDTWEEDMOUTHsupposed that the noble Duke was a sufficiently good Scotchman to want to endeavour to keep the waters near the coast of Scotland for Scotchmen in the first place. Lord Camperdown referred to a Report of a Committee over which he (Lord Tweedmouth) presided. The noble Lord said the proposal of that Committee was that the territorial waters should be extended by international convention. That was perfectly true, but it was not with a view to this question at all, but with a view to the prohibition of the capture and sale of undersized fish. The very trawlers who were opposing the Bill were promoting a Bill in the House of Commons at this very moment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If the noble Lord will look at his own Report he will find that he is mistaken.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that trawling did not come into the Report at all. In regard to fishing matters generally, it was proposed in the Report to extend the territorial limits by a Convention among the nations bordering on the North Sea. That was for the purpose of prohibiting the sale and capture of undersized fish. The very same people who were raising this opposition to the Bill were promoting a Bill in the House of Commons for the prevention of the sale and capture of undersized fish; and they were differentiating in that Bill, without any idea of international agreement, between British and foreign fishermen, just as this Bill proposed to do, with greater safeguards. Of course, the Government were at the mercy of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not at all. I wish you were. [Laughter.]
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that they were at the mercy of the noble Marquess in the House of Lords; but he must protest againt the method by which the Bill had been treated by the House. At every stage the whole object of the House had been to cut it down, without regard to the fact that its provisions were framed on Bills passed by the Government of the noble Marquess. It seemed to him that the treatment which the Bill had received was simply due to the fact that it came from a Liberal Government.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked what Bills passed by the late Government the
1566
noble Lord referred to. The provisions of the English Fisheries Act were very materially different.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that the provisions in the English Act of 1888 with regard to the District Committees were absolutely reproduced in this Bill as originally introduced, and the provisions with regard to the restriction of trawling were in the same way taken exactly from the Act of 1889.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the noble Lord's Committee on Sea Fisheries was appointed specially in respect of the grievances and complaints of the Scotch fishermen. [Lord TWEEDMOUTH: "Not at all."] The Report of the Committee referred to "the best method of governing effectively the various classes of fishermen." Trawlers were surely included in that expression.
The House divided:—Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 25.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHproposed an Amendment to provide that the powers conferred by the section should not apply to any waters "lying opposite to any part of the coasts of England, Ireland, or the Isle of Man, within thirteen miles thereof." He said that the Amendment was an extension of that moved by the noble Marquess in Committee for protection of the coast of Ireland and the west coast of England. It would prevent any clashing of jurisdictions between the authorities in Scotland and those of any other part of the United Kingdom.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he had no intention of resisting the Amendment, but was it certain that any portion of the coast of the Isle of Man was affected?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that there were portions of the coast of the Isle of Man within 13 miles of the coast of Scotland.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that in his Amendment he had purposely left out any reference to the east coast of England. Was that to be included in this Amendment?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that a small portion of the coast of Northumberland might lead to clashing of jurisdictions.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked whether the Amendment was to secure to English and Irish fishermen a freedom of trawling in waters prohibited to Scotch fishermen?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that the Amendment only prevented the Scotch Fishery Board from prohibiting any area within certain limits of the coasts of England, Ireland, or the Isle of Man. The prohibitions, as far as they applied, would relate to all fishermen, and not to Scotch fishermen only.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was in favour of free fishing, but the fact was that Scotsmen and Scottish capital were prohibited from fishing in a particular manner all round the coast of Scotland while a careful clause was inserted to protect English and Irish capital and fishermen. His complaint was, that the Bill placed Scotland at a great disadvantage compared with the other two countries; but as far as the Amendment went he agreed with it.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the noble Duke was hypercritical, because the effect of the last Amendment was to remove all the difference between Scotland and England. There was, in consequence of Lord Salisbury's Amendment, no power on the part of the Scotch Fishery Board to propose a prohibition outside the three-mile limit.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Has the English Board got it?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No.
Amendment agreed to.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he took the Division on the first Amendment as conclusive with regard to the third Amendment also, and he did not propose to move it. The Amendment on the Paper was—
"Clause 13, line 14, at the end of sub-section (1) insert 'Provided also, that if it is made to appear to the Secretary for Scotland that any area denned by a by-law under this section, or any part of such area, is used as a fishing ground by foreign vessels or boats, and that such foreign vessels or boats use any method of fishing of which the use is forbidden by the by-law, he shall order that in that area, or part, the by-law, as respects the said method of fishing, shall cease to be in force, and the same shall cease to be in force accordingly as from the date specified in the order.'"
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdid not know what the noble Lord's views were with respect to the Marquess of Huntly's Amendment. It was against the view of the noble Duke, and he himself was not particularly fond of it. The Foreign Secretary had told the House that there were no hopes of making such agreements, but the noble Lord might find Foreign Powers more reasonable than he expected, and it possibly might be of advantage to accept the Amendment. Its phraseology, however, would have to be altered.
[The following was the Marquess of Huntly's Amendment—
"Clause 10, page 8, line 14, add 'Provided also that such by-law or by-laws shall not come into force until either the convention or arrangement with regard to sea fisheries, concluded in 1882, between Her Majesty and certain Foreign States, and which has since come into force and been embodied in the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, shall be so extended as to prohibit the subjects of such Foreign States from engaging in beam and other trawling in the waters which by such by-law or by-laws shall be closed to British subjects, or until some similar agreement or undertaking shall be arrived at with Foreign Powers.'"]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYdid not think there would be any objection to insert the Amendment; it might be useful.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested an adjournment until the following day in order to re-draft the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the House could not insert these words, because it would not do to ask for the consent of any Foreign Power as to any matters within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYproposed to make the Amendment read in order to provide that the Convention or arrangement with regard to sea fisheries with Foreign States should be so extended as to include the sea within 13 miles of the English coast.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, his feeling was, that it did not much matter what the House did with reference to this clause. He should prefer to see the Bill sent to another place in order to see what could be done there with the clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With all its imperfections on its head?
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the clause was absolutely nugatory and mere wastepaper.
Debate adjourned.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1850) AMENDMENT BILL.
Bill passed through Committee, and reported without Amendments.
House adjourned at Five minutes after Seven o'clock