Lords Sitting of 5 May 1899

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at fifteen minutes past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  JONES'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Charlotte Jane Jones, the wife of Robert Colvill Jones, with the said Robert Colvill Jones, and to enable her to marry again, and for other purposes—Presented (on petition) and a copy of the proceedings in, and of the decree of divorce of the Queen's Bench Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland delivered (on oath) Bill read the first time.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the house that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  North-West London Railway.
  Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
  Brigg Urban District Gas.
  And also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1).
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.]
  The Order made on the 20th of April appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
  GAINSBOROUGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with amendments.
  HORSFORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL
  Reported with amendments.
  HAMPSTEAD CHURCH (EMMANUEL, WEST END) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with amendments.
  WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [H.L.]
  Committee to meet on Monday next.
  ALL SAINTS'CHURCH (CARDIFF) BILL [H.L.]
  Committee to meet on Wednesday next.
  NUNEATON AND CHILVERS COTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  Committee to meet on Wednesday next.
  CLAY CROSS WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT (BULL ALLEY AREA) BILL.
  Read the third time, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  LEIGH-ON-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
  DUNDEE GAS, TRAMWAYS, AND EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported specially from the Select Committee with amendments (costs awarded to certain petitioners).

  WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Burghclere be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Boyle (E. Cork and Orrery); read, and agreed to.
  South Essex Water Bill [H.L.]
  Whitehaven Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  Rochdale Canal Bill [H.L.]
  Western - super - Mare, Clevedon, and Portishead Tramways Company (Light Railway Extensions) Bill [H.L.]
  Watermen's and Lightermen's Acts Amendment Bill [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

  E. Denbigh,

  E. Yarborough,

  V. Gordon (E. Aberdeen),

  L. Calthorpe,

  L. Brougham and Vaux (chairman);

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

  GREAT YARMOUTH WATER BILL [H.L.]
  The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
  Ninth Annual Report of the Astronomer-Royal for Scotland.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Twenty-first Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Sixtieth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CANADA-AUSTRALIA.
  Correspondence relating to the proposed construction of a cable across the Pacific Ocean.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CYPRUS.
  I. Annual Reports for 1897–98.
  II. Report on Agriculture in Cyprus, by Mr. P. Gennadius, Director of Agriculture.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (1899)—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2240. Spain (Bilbao and District).
  No. 2241. Italy (Leghorn).
  No. 2242. China (Samshui).
  No. 2243. China (Foochow).
  No. 2244. Netherlands (Curacao and Dependencies).
  No. 2245. Spain.
  No. 2246. Ecuador (Guayaquil).
  No. 2247. Egypt (Suakin).
  No. 2248. China (Wachow).
  No. 2249. China (Chung King).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (SUGAR).
  Countervailing Duties in India—Correspondence and Act.
  Presented by (command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, patients seen, and miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics, pursuant to the Lunacy Act, 1890, between 1st October 1898 and 31st March 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to the Table.

  PHARMACY. ACTS (IRELAND) 1875 AND 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 1st May 1899, approving of regulations made by the Pharmaceutical Society.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  VACCINATION ACTS.
  Petition for amendment of; of Guardians of the Poor of the Rugby Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Inclosure Acts. 1845 to 1882, and the law relating to commons and open spaces—Was presented by the Lord Burghclere; read first time, and to be printed. (No. 80.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Bishop of St. Albans whether he intends to take any steps to stop the circulation of a manual, entitled, "Before the Altar," by his diocesan missioner, the Rev. H. Darwin Burton. In putting this question, I think it would be, more suitable to your Lordships if I endeavour very concisely to refer to the plain teaching of the Prayer Book in respect of confession, and, having done that, I call the attention of your Lordships to confession as it is advocated in the manual "Before the Altar." Habitual confession is, indeed, taught in the Prayer Book, but the confession is always directed to be made to Almighty God. In the daily exhortation to confess morning and evening we are told—
  "To confess our sins with an humble, lowly penitent, and obedient heart, and, although we ought at all times humbly to acknowledge our sins before God, yet ought we most chiefly so to do—"
  When? In private, in the confessional to a priest? No; but
  "when we assemble and meet together before, God, and most chiefly in public worship."
  I would like to remind your Lordships of the fact that this commencement of daily service was not in the first Prayer Book, but was inserted in the second, and retained in our present Prayer Book. Provision for private confession was made, in the first Prayer Book, but is omitted from the second, and is not in our present authoritative Prayer Book, and at the same time that this provision for private confession was omitted the public confession was put in. Under the present Prayer Book the priest is directed to pronounce absolution in morning and evening prayer for sins confessed, not to him, but to God. The confession is to God alone. The absolution is a declaration of His forgiveness to all penitent sinners. The principle of the Prayer Book is perfectly clear and plain—that you should examine your lives and consciences by the rule of God's Commandments, and then, wheresoever they have offended, to confess yourselves to Almighty God. The words

  1395
  of the first exhortation after prayer for a Church Militant in the Communion Service run as follows—
  "If there be any of you who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience…let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God's word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God's Holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice."
  Let us first of all notice that, whatever this may mean, and whatever interpretation may be, put upon it, it refers to exceptional cases only, and is not to be treated as an habitual or accustomed rule; but I think the meaning of this passage in the authoritative Prayer Book will become, perhaps, clearer by the light of the changes made in our present Prayer Book as compared with the first Prayer Book. In the first Prayer Book the passage read thus—
  "And if there be any of you whose conscience is troubled and grieved in anything lacking comfort or counsel, let him come to me or to some other discreet and learned priest taught in the law of God, and confess and open his sin and grief secretly, that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort, that his conscience may be relieved, and that of us (as the ministers of God and of His Church) he may receive comfort and absolution, requiring such as shall be satisfied with a general confession, not to be offended with them that do use to their further satisfying the auricular and secret confession to the priest."
  In the second Prayer Book the words "confess" and "secretly," and the last sentence about "them that do use auricular and secret confession to the priest," are all now omitted. In 1662, at the last revision which gave us our authoritative Prayer Book, the revisers proposed to insert the word "priest" before "the minister of God's Word," but Convocation refused to sanction the change, and the exhortation, as it now stands, may be lawfully read by a deacon, who may be a discreet and learned minister of God's Holy Word, but, as your Lordships are aware, cannot possibly give, even according to Ecclesiastical Law, priestly absolution. Another point to be noted is that in the first Prayer Book the form of absolution given in the visitation of the sick was ordered by a rubric "to be used in all private confessions." But in our Prayer Book this rubric is omitted, and the book contains no form of absolution for private use. It is necessary for me
  1396
  to call your Lordships' attention to the changes which have been made, and which appear in the authoritative Prayer Book, as I presume, the right reverend Prelate, as well as every other member of the Church of England, is bound to adhere to the Prayer Book as it now stands. There is, perhaps, a more striking authoritative statement against the abuse of confession in the Homilies, which were set forth in the reign of Elizabeth "to be read in every parish church." They contain the authoritative teaching of the Church of England, and Article 35 directs that they shall be read in churches by the ministers diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people. In the Homily on Repentance we find the following—
  "I do not say but that if any do find themselves troubled in conscience they may repair to their learned curate or pastor, or to some other godly, learned man, and show the trouble and doubt of their conscience to them, that they may receive at their hand the comfortable salve of God's Word, but it is against the true Christian liberty that any man should be bound to the numbering of his sins, as it hath been used heretofore in the time of blindness and ignorance."
  And now to turn to the particular manual circulated by the Rev. H. Darwin Burton. Let us compare the teaching of this manual with the teaching of the Prayer Book. In the first place, this manual uses the language of transubstantiation, and in some passages uses that language in a most gross and materialistic form. The whole language of the manual is the language of a Roman Catholic manual. The Holy Communion is not mentioned; it is a "sacrifice" and a "sacrament." One chapter is headed, The Holy Sacrifice in the Eucharist." On page 28 I find these words respecting the receiving of the Holy Sacrament—
  "Kneel upright, and do not crouch. Receive the Lord's body in the palm of your hand, being careful not to leave or drop crumbs. Guide the chalice if it is not given into your hands, otherwise the priest cannot say whether you have partaken of the precious blood."
  On page 33 in the prayer you are asked to make an act of faith, and these are the words—
  "I believe that Thou my Saviour, true God and true man, art really here."

  1397
  On page 38 are the words—
  "I believe that Thy body and blood, Thy soul and Thy divinity, are in the Blessed Sacrament. Lord strengthen my faith."
  And on page 66, after the Holy Sacrament has been received, you are asked to say—
  "I adore Thee, O Lord my God, whom I know to be veiled beneath these earthly forms."
  Then, my Lords, in another part of the book I find a sort of parody of what the author is pleased to call "Sins against the Commandments." I know that your Lordships are in agreement, with the very strong feeling among Christian men generally, that the Church of England should be a broad and a comprehensive Church, but I would ask your Lordships how comprehensive, how tolerant, and how liberal is the Church likely to be, or is it likely to be presented to the people to be, if the teachings of this manual are to be maintained and sanctioned. Among the sins enumerated against the Second Commandment is the joining in schismatical worship, so that when Her Majesty attends a Presbyterian Church in Scotland she is, according to this manual, breaking that Commandment; and, in the same way, any of your Lordships are equally guilty when you attend Nonconformist places of worship. I have no hesitation in characterising the book as one which promulgates not only the doctrine of superstition, but of intolerant and intolerable bigotry. On page 24 of this manual appear the following words, headed, "Advice to Communicants "—
  "If you have not hitherto been to get absolution from God's minister, or have not done so for a long time, yet feel you need it, you had better get another little book, such as 'Help to Repentance' or 'Pardon through the Precious Blood,' which will explain to you what to do."
  Of course, I turned to the advice and directions contained in these Manuals, and I find that the Manual, "Pardon through the Precious Blood, or the Benefit of Absolution, and how to obtain it," is edited by a committee of clergy, and on page 14, I find the following words—
  "Now if your conscience is burdened with sin, if you are in doubt and disquietude about your state, if you desire earnestly some assurance of God's pardon—
  1398
  I would call your Lordships' attention to the imperative language—
  "You must, as the Church directs you, make use of the Ministry of Reconciliation. Go to some Priest in whom you feel confidence, and open your grief, that is, tell him all your sins. Lay the whole state of your soul clearly before him, and then listen with reverence and humility to his counsel and advice."
  And then, in speaking of "In Confession," I find in both of these Manuals the following words—
  "When you have confessed all that you remember, say, 'For these and all my other sins, which I cannot now remember, I most humbly ask pardon of God and of you, my ghostly father, penance, counsel, and absolution."
  I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that these Manuals have gone through a very large circulation, that "Pardon through the Precious Blood" is edited by a committee of clergy, and that "Help to Repentance" has been compiled by a canon of the Church of England. These Manuals break the principles of the Prayer Book and the principles of the Protestant Church. It is true you cannot compel men to confess before they go to Communion, but you can, by Manuals of this kind, make it morally compulsory for young people. Before I put my question, I think I ought to read to your Lordships a correspondence that has passed between me and the Bishop of St. Albans in regard to this matter. I see the reverend Prelate in his place to-day, but I am in great doubt as to the line the right reverend Prelate is going to take in this Debate. I communicated to the Bishop of St. Albans, merely as a matter of personal courtesy, my intention to bring this matter under the notice of the House. On Saturday last I received the following letter from the right reverend Prelate—
  "My Lord,—I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date. I shall not be able to be in the House of Lords on Friday, 5th of May, as I have a confirmation on that day in a remote part of Essex. I am engaged with confirmations and other diocesan work nearly every day until Whitsuntide. Having carefully considered your question, I have come to the conclusion that if I were asked it in the House, I should have to say that in my opinion it is not in the interest of the proper administration of my diocese that I should answer such a question in the House of Lords."

  1399
  On receipt of that letter I at once placed myself in communication with the Clerk of Parliaments, and asked him whether, under the circumstances, it would be more conformable to the traditions of the House that I should substitute for my Question a Notice to the effect that I would that day call attention to the distribution of this Manual, to the conduct of the Bishop of St. Albans relative thereto, and to my correspondence with the right reverend Prelate on the subject. Following upon the letter came a telegram from the right reverend Prelate, in which he said he had arranged his work so that he could be in the House on Friday. I wish to speak in language of no personal discourtesy to the right reverend Prelate, but I must be excused if I speak somewhat plainly. The proper administration of his diocese is not a private or personal matter as between him and me. It is a serious public responsibility. As a Bishop of an Established Church, that responsibility is not to a sect, but to the nation and to Parliament. Mr. Burton is not an incumbent, nor the owner of a freehold. To stop his circulating this book cannot involve the Bishop in costly legal proceedings. His word is in this case the law. There is no third course open. Either the right reverend Prelate does or does not sanction this Manual and its circulation. If he declines to give an answer, or gives an evasive answer, the responsibility is his. I am acting within my rights, and I feel it my duty to bring before your Lordships' House, where such matters can be properly discussed, and where the Bishops can defend themselves, if any defence is forthcoming, this class of literature, this religious poison which is being widely circulated and sedulously instilled into the minds of young people for the purpose, I am afraid, of destroying the principles of the Reformation and the Protestant religion. I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I claim the indulgence of your Lordships for one who has never had the honour of addressing this House before—the more so as the subject is in many Ways a difficult and delicate one. I do not think that a theological discussion on the various points raised by the noble
  1400
  Lord would be altogether suitable, and I doubt if your Lordships desire it on this occasion. I think the fact of the noble Lord asking such a question raises a point of considerable difficulty and delicacy. Of course, I acknowledge that any question may be asked in this House, but I suppose your Lordships will allow that a person who is asked the question may very rightly consider whether it is altogether expedient that he should give an answer. There may be points raised which would really interfere with the due administration of matters. Just as one of Her Majesty's Ministers might refuse at times to answer a question because it would interfere with the administration of his office, so, considering the very delicate and difficult matters which a Bishop has sometimes to deal with, I venture, with all due respect to your Lordships, to submit that there may be times when a Bishop may feel he is not really justified, considering his duties to the Church, in entering publicly upon a discussion of certain points which may be claiming his private consideration. I think a Bishop has to consider whether he can rightly answer certain questions. I venture to call your Lordships' attention to the question which is asked. It is not asked about my administration of my diocese, not about any practice, not upon something I may be called upon in that way to justify in this House, but I am asked to state my intentions. I should regard it as a very serious matter if anybody was at liberty to rise and ask any Bishop his intentions with regard to various questions which may be claiming his consideration. It may be he is considering some matter which will have to come before him judicially, or which may have to come before a court of law. Is a Bishop to be called upon to state his intentions in this public and formal way, and thus commit himself in regard to matters as to which he may be called upon to adjudicate afterwards? I think I am entitled to treat this question, not merely by itself, but as one of a class, and I am entitled to say that I am not called upon to answer a question that may form a very inconvenient precedent. I do not think that it will be for the interests of the Church that a Bishop should be publicly examined in this House as to his intentions about the performance of certain spiritual duties

  1401
  which are committed to him, and in which he has to exercise his discretion. I think that such a course would be, to say the least, extremely inconvenient, and I am quite sure it would raise such a feeling in his diocese that he would not be able to administer it. The question touches a very important point—namely, a book. There are not only Manuals, but a very large number of other books upon religious subjects, and it is open to any clergyman to give such a book to one of his people. I may say that Mr. Burton is a licensed curate. He has charge of a certain district, and it is not open to me—even if I desired to do so, which I do not—to dismiss him. He would have an appeal to the Archbishop. A licensed curate has a legal position, and whether he has or has not, I think it is intolerable to deal with a gentleman in a way by which advantage is taken of a certain position he occupies, when you are not allowed so to deal with others who are in a more privileged position. It is only right that a, Bishop should give the curates in his diocese the same consideration he is bound by law to give to the incumbents in his diocese. Is a Bishop to be required to go through all the books that ever have been written on these controversies in order that he may have a list which he is to allow his curates to use in the distribution of books? Are your Lordships to lay down that each Bishop is to have an Index Expurgatorius for his own diocese; that each Bishop is to exercise a censorship over books? That will be what it means if you call upon a Bishop to vindicate or disavow the choice of a book by one of those working in his diocese. For these reasons, with the deepest regret to your Lordships' House, I venture to say that I do not think it is desirable in the interests of the administration of his diocese that a Bishop should be called upon to publicly declare his intentions, especially when the question raised does not relate to any public action in the performance of Service in church, but the private use of books dealing with religious subjects. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will not consider me guilty of any discourtesy if I decline to answer the question.

  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this Bill be read a second time."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the dispute between trawlers and line fishermen, and the complaints which the line fishermen make against trawlers are matters which are well known to your Lordships' House, and have frequently formed the subject of legislation. Indeed, there was an Act of Parliament passed with regard to this matter so late as the year 1895. I do not, by this Bill, propose to alter the existing law, but what I do propose to do is to introduce a new penalty in order to enforce and make effectual the observance of the existing law. Under the existing law a trawler, when convicted of illegal trawling, may be fined up to £100 or may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 60 days. These penalties have, however, up to the present time proved ineffectual. I have obtained a return of the number of convictions for illegal beam and otter trawling, and I find that in 1892 the number of convictions was nine, and the average fine £24: in 1893, the number of convictions 11, and the average fine.£34; in 1894, the number of convictions five, and the average fine £50; in 1895, the number of convictions 25, and the average fine.£22 10s.; in 1896, the number of convictions 20, and the average fine £47; and in 1897, the number of convictions 15, and the average fine£49. Of course, the number of convictions does not in any way represent the number of offences, and that is the most unfortunate part of the matter. Her Majesty's Government have done, I believe, everything in their power, and, using the authority given to them by the Act of 1895, have employed more vessels for the protection of the coast, but, unfortunately, the movements of these vessels are well known. Line fishermen feel a very strong sense of injustice, and they also feel that Parliament ought in some way or another to enforce the existing law. As fines are not found effectual, Parliament must look about for new penalties, and the question is, What penalty will be found

  1403
  sufficient? Any penalty to be effectual must be a penalty of a sort which will infallibly reach the owner. By this Bill I propose that—
  "Where the master of any trawl vessel shall have been convicted by any competent tribunal of the offence of fishing by means of either a beam trawl or any otter trawl, or any modification of either of such two methods of fishing, in waters closed by Statute or by-law of the Fishery Board of Scotland to any such methods of fishing, the court or judge shall, in addition to any fine or other penalty that may now be legally imposed upon the master or owners of such trawl vessel, make an order suspending the certificate of registration of such trawl vessel for any period not exceeding six months end not less than 14 days."
  The next clause provides that—
  "It shall not be lawful for the master or owners of any trawl vessel, in respect of which such all order shall have been made, to use or employ such trawl vessel for the purpose of trawling or fishing during the period of suspension mentioned in such order. Any contravention of this section shall be deemed a misdemeanour and shall render the owners liable to a fine not exceeding the estimated market value of the trawl vessel in respect of which such an order of suspension shall have been made."
  Clause 4 proposes that—
  "Where any such order of suspension shall have been made a note thereof shall be endorsed upon the certificate carried on board of the trawl vessel in respect of which the order shall have been made, and such order shall forthwith be notified by the registrar, clerk, or officer of the court or judge by whom it shall have been made, to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade shall thereupon enter such order against the name of such trawl vessel in a book to be kept for the purpose and to be called the Suspension of Trawlers Certificates Order Book."
  The 5th clause says that a certificate so endorsed, or a copy of such order certified by the Board of Trade, shall be deemed to be conclusive proof of the conviction and suspension to which it purports to relate, and the next clause provides that the authorities of any port in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, where any trawl vessel in respect of which such an order of suspension shall have been made may happen at the time to be, shall have power, upon notification in writing or by telegram of such order, to prevent such trawl vessel from putting to sea during the period of suspension mentioned in such order. The other clause is a technical one, and of no importance to the general operation of the Bill. The Bill
  1404
  does not in any way interfere with any trawl owner or captain of a trawl vessel who conducts his fishing in a legal manner and within the statutory limits. All it does is to enforce the observance of the existing law. I do not say that this Bill will necessarily prove effectual. The penalty may be found not sufficient, but I think we should make an experiment, and it is for that reason that I venture to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I think the penalty proposed is worthy of a trial. I have invited criticism and advice from several quarters, and it has been pointed out to me that in the second clause I have proposed—
  "That the judge shall, in addition to any fine or other penalty that may now be legally imposed upon the master or owners of such trawl vessel, make an order suspending the certificate of registration of such trawl vessel."
  It has also been pointed out to me that this really imposes a duty on the judge which it would be better to leave to his discretion. I quite agree in that view, and when the Bill arrives at the Committee stage I propose to submit the word "may" for the word "shall." I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)My Lords, I am able to go some length in agreement with the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill, because I believe the figures he has quoted go far to prove that the present state of the law and the penalties imposed upon trawling vessels infringing the Statute and by-laws against inshore trawling have not had the deterrent effect which we might reasonably have hoped for. I am not quite sure, however, that they have so completely failed as the noble Earl indicates; there has been an improvement in the last 12 months. The number of convictions in 1898 has been lowered to four, the total amount of the fines being £102. I think to some extent this result has been achieved by the greater efficiency of the arrangements for policing the inshore waters. The reason the penalties at present inflicted have not had the deterrent effect that had been expected is that they are imposed upon the wrong individual. I agree with the provisions

  1405
  of the Bill to this extent, that I think a strong prima facie case has been made out for placing the penalty on the owner of the boat, rather than as at present on the master. I do not know why it has so long been the rule to impose the penalty upon the servants. I believe it is quite usual now to regard the servant as the chief offender, but in former days when most of the vessels engaged in fishing were sailing vessels, the skipper was largely the owner of the boat, and the rest of the crew had shares. In cases of that kind it was probably right to impose the penalty on the master, but at the present day most of the vessels which we have to deal with and prosecute for inshore trawling are the property of persons who are not themselves on board, and of limited companies, who are frequently indifferent as to whether the master is fined or imprisoned, and in such a case they simply put another master on board, and the infringement of the law continues. I think it is very desirable that we should amend the law to the extent of placing the liability for the penalty upon the owner instead of the master. I believe that the judges before whom these cases are brought are strongly of opinion that the right offender is not got at, and that accounts to some extent for the relative smallness of the fines which are imposed. I do not wish to be understood as charging trawlers generally with these practices. In fact, experience shows that the offences are committed by a few particular boats. During the last 12 months, and out of the 125 different trawling vessels which have been reported to the authorities for illegal trawling, 52 have been reported more than once, one more than seven times, eight more than five times, three more than four times, and 14 more than three times. This proves that there is a certain class of vessels engaged in this business which makes a regular practice of disobeying the law. Although I go some length with the noble Earl, with some of the provisions of the Bill I cannot agree. It would not be fair, for instance, to fine both owner and master for the same offence, except it is shown that both are equally guilty. I must say that I think the provisions of the second and third clauses of the Bill are unduly drastic and go too far. The
  1406
  second clause empowers the Court to suspend the certificate of registration for six months, and that in addition to other penalties; but the following clause provides that if that order is disobeyed a sum approximate to the value of the vessel may be imposed upon the owner as a fine. I am informed that that might, under some circumstances, be as large as £2,000, and in extreme cases, £5,000. I say, without hesitation, that that is too large a power to put into the hands of the Courts around the coast. In saying that, I am speaking not only for myself, but for the Board of Trade. If these provisions, as they now stand, were to be passed into law, I think difficulties would arise as to what could be done with regard to foreign owned vessels. I think the provisions of the third clause require very careful and serious consideration. The fourth, fifth, and sixth clauses deal with administrative arrangements, and are subjects for the Board of Trade more than for the Office which I represent. On the whole, and having regard to all the circumstances, I think it would be unwise to accept the Bill in its present form, but as there is undoubtedly a case for the alteration of the law in regard to trawling, the wisest course for the House to adopt would be to read the Bill a second time, and refer it to a Select Committee for careful consideration.
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, this is a subject of which I do not pretend to know anything, but I have had a communication from the Fishmongers' Guild requesting me to call your Lordships' attention to what is, considered the injustice of some of the provisions of this Bill. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons last year, and the National Sea Fisheries' Protection Association passed a resolution condemning it. The objections to which my attention has been called by the Fishmongers' Guild have been in a very material degree met by the observations of the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. As the second clause stands in the Bill it would be obligatory on the magistrates, in addition to the fine, to make a suspending order involving the disuse of the trawler for six months, and if it were used within that period the offence might be followed by the confiscation of

  1407
  the boat itself. That would be an extraordinary provision, and I am glad to hear that the noble Earl intends altering the clause, so as to give the magistrates power to exercise their discretion. Again, it is conceived that the Bill will bear hardly on British fishermen. This country has the right to legislate so as to affect foreigners only within the territorial waters. But this Bill is intended to operate outside the territorial waters, and, therefore, foreign trawlers would be free to do things for which British trawlers would be fined. The Bill will no doubt go to a Committee of a representative character, where all these matters can be thoroughly considered.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I feel some diffidence in venturing to set up my opinion against that of one so learned in the law as the Lord Chief Justice, but I think he has given me some ground for doing so by himself confessing, in his opening remarks, that he was dealing with a subject of which he knew nothing at all. I cannot profess great knowledge in many things, but I think I do know something about fisheries and the conditions under which they are carried on around the coast. My noble and learned Friend referred to the views of the National Sea Fisheries' Protection Association. I have no desire whatever to throw doubts upon the good faith of the members of that association, but it is very well known to those of your Lordships who are acquainted with matters connected with fisheries that that body has been captured by the trawlers, and that, therefore, the views put forward by it are not the views of the general body of fishermen It is natural that trawlers should not want to be subjected to more penalties for breaking the law than they can avoid, and they are quite right in opposing this Bill; but trawlers are only a small section of the fishermen of this country. In Scotland the number of boats belonging to line and net fishermen is 10,000. They have 40,000 men to man them, and a million and a half of capital has been sunk in them. The
  1408
  number of trawling vessels does not exceed 80, with a capital sunk in them of £400,000, and 700 men to man them. In Scotland the line and net fishermen land 10 times the weight of fish landed by the trawlers. There is no doubt that trawlers do a great deal of harm by destroying fish in a limited time on particular fishing grounds around the Scottish coast. In the course of a week or 10 days two or three trawlers will clear a particular ground from fish, and during the time that the ground takes to recuperate the line fishermen in the neighbourhood are shut off from catching fish. This is a great hardship. Therefore, it is quite in consonance with justice, and with the general good of the country, that some restriction should be placed on trawlers with regard to the particular ground on which they fish. This Bill does not propose to put a single new restriction on them. All it proposes to do is to add one more penalty which a judge may impose on trawlers if they break the conditions which Parliament has already imposed upon them. My noble Friend said he proposed to exchange the word "may" for "shall" in the second clause, and with that alteration I thoroughly agree. It seems to me that it is only right, in imposing this new penalty, to leave it to the discretion of the judge to decide whether the circumstances of the particular case warrant its imposition. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland criticised the third clause as going too far. I am rather inclined to agree with his criticism, but at the same time I do think that a very heavy penalty indeed should be placed on the owner who allows a trawler under his control to go to sea during the time it is disqualified by the suspension of its certificate. I am very glad my noble Friend has consented to the Second Reading of this Bill. I am quite sure that it will be fairly considered in Committee, and I hope your Lordships will not be satisfied with merely passing the Second Reading and considering it in Committee, but that you will endeavour to pass it into law during the present Session.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In reply to the statement of the Lord Chief Justice I should like to say that this Bill does not affect British trawlers prejudicially as compared with foreign trawlers. I am quite willing to accept the course suggested by the Secretary for Scotland, and allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee for careful consideration.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, my noble. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has so well expressed the views of the Board of Trade in this matter that there is little necessity for me to say anything in addition. He pointed out that it is not only the second penalty that is heavy in this particular case. The suspension of the operations of a large trawler for six months would cause a loss of something like £2,000. I cannot help thinking that a. penalty of that kind is out of proportion to the offence complained of. My noble Friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill seems to think that it would not differentiate between foreign and British ships, but while it will impose new penalties on British trawlers, it cannot impose penalties on foreign trawlers guilty of the same offence. If the Bill passes in its present form, the fraction that already exists, instead of being mitigated, will be increased to a considerable degree.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am not going to enter into the vexed question of Scotch Fisheries, but I would like the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland to inform me when the North Sea Conference is likely to meet, and whether the subject of the extension of the limit is likely to be referred to it.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND: It seems to me that that is a question which should be addressed to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, but as I have been asked the question I will endeavour to answer it. In speaking
  1410
  of the North Sea Conference the noble Earl probably refers to the North Sea Convention, which regulates fishing rights over that area. But there is a Conference about to assemble in the course of the present summer, at the invitation of the Swedish Government, to discuss certain matters in connection with scientific investigation in the North Sea. As to how far the Conference will be able to extend its inquiry into the subject of trawling I cannot express an opinion. I understand that in the original invitation it was intended to confine the matters discussed largely to scientific investigation, but at the present time the negotiations for the assembling of the Conference are still going on, and therefore it would be unwise for me to express any definite opinion on the subject.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

  ALLOTMENTS (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  To he read second time on Friday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
  Read second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read third time (according to order), and passed.
  House adjourned at fifty minutes after Five of the clock.