§ (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 (3) Sub-section two of section seven of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, is hereby repealed, and the provisions of the foregoing sub-section shall be and are hereby substituted therefor.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 SALISBURYI 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 KIMBERLEYI 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 SALISBURYThirteen 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 CHANCELLORI 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 LORD CHANCELLORThat 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 SALISBURYI think I said there would be a politician at each elbow.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThere 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.
§ *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 CAMPERDOWNIf 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 SALISBURYNot 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 SALISBURYHas the English Board got it?
§ *LORD TWEEDMOUTHNo.
§ 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 SALISBURYWith all its imperfections on its head?
§ *LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the clause was absolutely nugatory and mere wastepaper.
§ Debate adjourned.