Lords Sitting of 8 August 1902

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  1. Annual Report, for the year ended 31st March, 1901; 2. Supplement to the Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Board, 1900–1901.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Seventieth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with appendices, for the year ended 31st March, 1902.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Statement of the amount due by the public to depositors in Military Savings Banks on the 31st March, 1900. and of the receipts, interest, and disbursements in the said Military Savings Banks during the year next ensuing, ended on the 31st March, 1901, etc.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1S96.
  Two Orders, entitled respectively the Jersey (Animals) Order of 1902 and the Alderney (Animals) Order of 1902.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That Bills have precedence over Notices this day.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL,
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons: read 1a: Then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX and XLV. having been suspended): Bills read 2a (The Marquess of Lansdowne): Committees negatived; Bills read 3a, and passed.

  MARINE AVORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this Bill, which has met with the approval of everybody connected with Ireland, and has passed through the other House without opposition, is intended to provide money for the construction, improvement, and maintenance of harbours in the congested districts along the West coast of Ireland. The harbour of Liscannor, about which my noble friend the Earl of Mayo has asked on one or two occasions for information, has been specially mentioned in order to bring it within the purview of the Bill, it being just outside the congested districts. Liscannor Harbour, however, is not placed on the same footing as the others, inasmuch as the advance to be made by the Treasury in respect to this harbour is not to exceed two-thirds of the cost of the execution and equipment of the work, the balance being defrayed by the Department of Agriculture, and by persons locally interested who use the harbour. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The End of Deubigh.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, I think it right to say that we in Ireland regard it as a very useful measure. The provision in Clause I with regard to the "reconstruction" of a marine work is a most important one, and I am glad the Bill has been applied specially to Liscannor Harbour. This is a harbour winch it is most difficult to get into, and. when in it, it is almost impossible to get out. I quite agree with the provision that one-third of the money must lie found by those who own the quarries and use the harbour. That is the proper policy to adopt in regard to Ireland—for those who desire help should, to a certain extent, help themselves. We, in Ireland, are delighted that the Bill is to become law this session.
  LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, as a resident in a congested district county in Ireland, I should not like the Second Reading of this Bill, which applies exclusively to congested districts, to take place without giving expression to my appreciation of its great value and usefulness. I also think that the Chief Secretary for Ireland deserves a word of thanks for bringing in this much-needed Bill. Not alone am I a resident

  1079
  in a congested district county, but my home is in the middle of a congested district area, and I am also a member of the County Council and of the District Council which administer the affairs of the district in which my home is situated. I am, therefore, being conversant with the public affairs of my county, the more capable of recognising the merits of this Bill. The main provisions of the measure are for the purpose of assisting these poor districts to carry out important measures which, on account of their poverty, they could not accomplish without assistance. That will be a great advantage, because it will develop the resources of the districts and make them more prosperous than they have been in the past. The 11th Clause I am particularly glad to see, because there is in that Clause an arrangement in the nature of an insurance by which the upkeep and maintenance of large marine works, when they are built, need not rest any longer on the district. By a small local contribution the district can, I am glad to see, be relieved of the by no means light burden of maintaining these works, which, being marine works, are liable to very serious damage on account of severe storms. That will be a great advantage to these districts, and I have therefore much pleasure in supporting the Bill.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived. Then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended); Bill read 3a, and passed.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEICH): My Lords, this is a very short and simple Bill, and one which I shall ask your Lordships to pass through all its stages today. Its object is to specially define what is "machinery fixed or attached" to a building. These words have been the subject of litigation South of the Tweed, but up to the present time there has not been nearly so much controversy in regard to them in Scotland. The Scottish
  1080
  Valuation Courts have construed them in a liberal sense, and have included as machinery which is not to be rated a larger relative amount than has been the case South of the Tweed. These decisions have been very generally acquiesced in, and all of us who are interested in valuation matters in Scotland believed that the law was practically settled. I had the honour of being Chairman of a Commission charged with an inquiry into rating questions in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and while there was a considerable amount of controversy before us with regard to this provision so far as England was concerned, we had not before us a single witness who complained of the law as it was supposed to be in Scotland at that time. Within the last few weeks a decision has been given which has changed the presumption in these matters. I have not the slightest doubt that that decision was legally accurate and in accordance with the law as it now stands, but it came as a considerable surprise to those who are interested in these matters; and even the learned judges themselves, in giving their decision, not only acknowledged that they were upsetting the existing practice, but expressed great regret that their duty obliged them, in interpreting the law, to upset that practice. The proposal in this Bill is that "machinery fixed or attached" to any lands or heritages shall in all cases be held to include machinery which produces or transmits first motive power, or which is used for heating or lighting the building. The Bill has passed through the other House of Parliament with a certain amount of criticism, but without opposition. All the Members from Scotland arc, I believe, in favour of the Bill, and an immense majority of them have signed a memorial asking that it should be passed into law before the coming valuation, which is conducted yearly, and the most important steps with regard to which have to be taken in the months of August and September. It is of the first importance, in order to prevent a great deal of inconvenience and trouble, that this short Bill should become law before Parliament adjourns, and I trust that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and pass it through its subsequent steps today.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived. Then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was intended to meet the large and, he was sorry to say, increasing arrears of work in the Appeal Court by enabling the judges of the court to sit in three divisions, instead of in two divisions as the existing Appellate Juirsdiction Acts provided.
  Bill read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived. Then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended); Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  KANAKA LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
  *LORD LAMINGTOXasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a petition had been received from the Pacific Island labourers domiciled in Queensland, and, if so, whether he would cause it to be printed and laid on the Table of the House with any reply that might have been made, He pointed out that for a number of years several Acts had been passed dealing with the question of Kanaka labour. All those Acts had one general principle, to give humane consideration to the islanders. Every kind of check was imposed on abuses, and every desire was shown to treat those people with humanity. Legislation had recently been proposed, however, by the Federal Government which would have the effect of rendering those Acts nugatory, leaving the people suddenly without adequate protection. Feeling had been growing in Australia on this subject, and some of the newspapers had denounced the action of the Government as legalised murder and as barbarous. An Associaation of Kanakas had been formed to resist forcible deportation from Queensland, and a petition setting forth the grievances of these people had been sent to the King. Many of these people
  1082
  had become educated and Christianised; they had acquired land, and were engaged in industries; some of them had lived in Queensland over twenty years, and had married and settled down there; they were law-abiding, honest, and industrious. The Pacific Island Labourers' Act of 1901, it was alleged, provided no compensation, afforded no differential treatment for those who for many years had professed and practised Christianity, and whose children born in Queensland were of ages varying from infancy to twenty years and upwards; made no provision for those whose native islands had passed under foreign control or whose tribal lands had been alienated, and gave the islanders no voice as to the place to which they might be sent. By 1905 or 1900 it was possible that all the South Sea Islanders, to the number of 8,000 or 9,000, would be deported, and owing to the large number of persons involved it would be impossible to give adequate supervision. At any time there was great difficulty in landing them owing to the dangerous nature of the coast and the great distances between the various islands. As the vessels on which they would travel would be mostly sailing vessels, it would be almost impossible for the captains to he sure that they would be able to land the Kanakas in their particular homes, and if they were not so landed it was almost a certainty that they would be killed by hostile tribes. In the past this risk had been guarded against, for it had been to the interests of the sugar planters to take care that the men were returned to their homes so that a further supply of labour might be obtainable in the future, but there would be no such incentive now, as the whole of the trade was to be put an end to. This great safeguard in the interest of the islanders was, therefore, removed, and it was in the hope of being able to do something on behalf of these helpless people, to hundreds of whom deportation would involve misery, starvation, or death, that he brought the question before their Lordships. The lawyer who drafted the petition on behalf of the Kanakas had elicited the views on this subject of the Government Inspector of Immigration, who had

  1083
  een for eighteen years connected with this trade. The inspector said—
  "I am quite in accord with, and can vouch for, the truth of the pleas set forth, and the statements made by the Islanders in their petition. Surely, in this twentieth century of Christendom the dawning Commonwealth of Australia will not be permitted to be sullied by such a crime as the forcible deportation of these islanders from our shores."
  Some of these people were now being returned, but one ship's captain— Captain Spence—had refused to under take the work because, if he were unable to land them in places of safety, he would not be allowed to bring them back to Australia. Captain Spence declared that the common promptings of humanity would not allow him to hand over protesting islanders to be murdered.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY (interrupting the noble Lord)acquainted the House that His Majesty had issued a Commission for giving His Royal Assent to several Bills agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord would be able to continue his speech after the Royal Commission.
  House adjourned during pleasure; House resumed.

  ROYAL ASSENT.

    COMMISSION.
    The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

    1. Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

    2. Shop Clubs.

    3. Public Libraries (Ireland).

    4. Marine Works (Ireland).

    5. Public Works Loans.

    6. Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2).

    7. Licensing.

    8. Freshwater Fish (Scotland).

    9. Isle of Man (Customs).

    10. Pacific Cable.

    11. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1).

    12. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3).

    13. Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1).

    14. Tramways Orders Confirmation No. 2).

    15. Portpatrick and Wigtonshire Joint Railway Order Confirmation.

    1084

    16. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation.

    17. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7).

    18. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8).

    19. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2).

    20. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).

    21. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12).

    22. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London).

    23. Greenock and Port Glasgow Tram ways (Extension) Order Confirmation.

    24. Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Order Confirmation.

    25. Yardley Charity.

    26. Rossendale Valleys Tramways.

    27. Garston and District Tramways and Electric Supply (Transfer).

    28. Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock (South York shire Extension Lines).

    29. London County Council (Subways and Tramways).

    30. London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

    31. Metropolitan District Railway.

    32. Hastings Harbour District Railway (Extension of Time).

    33. Great Northern and City Railway.

    34. Birmingham and Midland Tram ways.

    35. Devonport Corporation (General Powers).

    36. Devonport Corporation (Water).

    37. Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways.

    38. Ystradfellte Water.

    39. Wigan Corporation.

    40. North Staffordshire Tramways.

    41. Mexborough and Swinton Tramways.

    42. Liverpool Cathedral.

    43. Swansea Corporation.

    44. Nottingham Corporation.

    45. Margate Corporation Water.

    46. Great Northern and Strand Railway.

    47. Dover Harbour.

    48. Barrow Haematite Steel Company, Limited.

    49. Menai Bridge Urban District Council.

    50. Whitstable Improvement.

    51. Liverpool Corporation.

    52. York Corporation.

    1085

    53. Great Western Railway (Crumlin Viaduct).

    54. London and India Docks (Various Powers).

    55. Dublin Port and Docks Board.

    56. Eastbourne Corporation.

    57. Fleetwood Urban District Council.

    58. London United Tramways.

    House adjourned during pleasure; House resumed.

    KANAKA LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
    *LORD LAMINGTON,continuing his speech, said he was not seeking to interfere with the undoubted right of Australia to legislate for itself. But he urged that there should be communications between the Imperial Government, the Federal Government, and the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific, with a view to securing that the Kanakas, British subjects as they were, would at least receive adequate compensation, and be safeguarded if they were returned to their own islands.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I am sure the House has listened with very great interest to the speech of the noble Lord opposite, especially as he speaks with so much knowledge of the subject he has brought before the House. I am in perfect sympathy with the action of the noble Lord, especially us I understand he in no way wishes to interfere with the undoubted right of Australians to govern themselves, and has no desire to challenge the settled policy of Australians —a policy with which most of us are in entire accord—to keep Australia white. A white Australia is part of the religion of Australians, and in their determination to keep the country Anglo-Saxon as tar as possible they have the sympathy of almost everybody who has been in that part of the world. I think we may have full confidence in the fact that the Federal Government will behave towards these Kanakas in a proper and legitimate manner. But what I understand my noble friend to ask is, that when these coloured persons are being sent back to the islands in the South Pacific from whence they came, and have got outside the three-mile limit, there should be some arrangement between the Federal Government and the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific whereby they will
    1086
    be returned to the particular islands to which they belong, and not be "dumped down," as it were, on other islands where, of course, they would run a great I risk of losing their lives. On this point I heartily sympathise with the noble Lord, and earnestly hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to meet his wishes.
    LORD STANMORE: My Lords, having had the honour to fill the office of High Commissioner of the Western Pacific, I desire to say one or two words on the subject to which the noble Lord has called attention. Of course, we must all be sensible of the fact that we have committed to Australia and to the Federal Government the charge of these matters, and that they are, therefore, perfectly at liberty to pass what legislation they please. At the same time, it is impossible but that the views of His Majesty's Government must have some weight with the Federal Government, and what I take it is now asked by my noble friend is that the statements in this petition should be well weighed by His Majesty's Government, and that any representations that may seem to them necessary on behalf of British subjects appealing to the King for protection should be made with such diplomatic reserves as they think proper. There are some provisions in the Act the extraordinary nature of which— indeed, the monstrous nature of which— has not, I think, been fully considered. The Clause providing for the return to their own islands of all Kanakas who did not come in before 1879 applies also to those born in Australia. Many of these Kanakas have had children born in Australia who have grown up amid all the surroundings of civilisation and Christianity, and a number of the Kanakas born in Australia during the past twenty-three years have married there and had children; and now, under this Act, these people are to be taken out of the environment of Christianity and civilisation and to be sent back to these barbarous islands with no provision for the security of their lives and no compensation for the property of which they are to be deprived. This is a monstrous provision. The Government of Commonwealth, if it likes, can pass

    1087
    it, but His Majesty's Government can remonstrate, and when subjects of the King appeal to His Majesty for the protection their petition should certainly be taken into consideration.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, this Question has been on the Paper for a good many weeks, and I hope the noble Lord will not think it owing to any discourtesy on my part that I have not been able to reply to it before. The petition was received only on the 4th inst. I cannot say how the delay arose, but the Government are taking the petition into consideration. Personally, I think that the petition is a most pathetic one, and I have great sympathy with it. I have no objection to lay it on the Table of the House, together with the reply which will be made to it. The noble Lord, I was glad to hear, admitted that the Commonwealth of Australia had every right to carry out this legislation, and I understand that all he asks for now is that the Government should use their good offices to secure the most favoured treatment possible for the unfortunate Kanakas, who, under the Act, will be sent back to their own islands. I understand that they came almost exclusively from the New Hebrides and the Solomon Islands. Fortunately, in both of those groups there are English residents. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Barton, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, and he assures me that in the interval—it is not till 1906 that the repatriation will become necessary—he will place himself in communication with the British residents, and will endeavour to secure that these men shall be sent back to places where their property and lives will be safe. The Commonwealth will make arrangements to hand their property over under the supervision and care of the British residents, so that it may not be seized by the tribal chiefs; and I hope that provision will be made for their safety and security, as well as for a sufficiency of suitable and congenial employment. I can assure the noble Lord, in accordance with the promise I gave him on the last occasion when he called attention to this subject, that the Government will
    1088
    do all they can to persuade the Government of the common wealth to look after the interests and to ensure the security of the these men when the time comes to send them back.
    LORD STANMORE: How about those born in Australia?
    THE EARL OF ONSLOW: They will have to be repatriated, but every precaution will be taken to see that the terrible catastrophies referred to will not overtake them.
    LORD LAMINGTON: Did I understand that the noble Earl will lay on the Table of the House the petition, together with the reply and any other communications?
    THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.

    ATLANTIC PASSENGER SERVICE— IR1SH TERMINAL PORT—AMERICAN COMBINATION.
    *LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, inasmuch as His Majesty's Government are not, as stated by him, in communication with the Government of the Dominion of Canada on the question of subsidising a fast Atlantic service to be worked by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, he can say if His Majesty's Government are taking any steps, and, if so, what, for the establishment of an Atlantic service under the British flag, after the absorption of the British-owned lines by an American combination. This is really a supplementary Question, or, to adopt the phraseology of another place, a Question arising out of an answer which the noble Earl gave me in reply to an interrogation of mine on Tuesday last† On that occasion the noble Earl said he could not undertake to speak for the Government of the Dominion or for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and he added that he had no official information as to their intention of subsidising a fast service across the Atlantic. There was a good deal of dissatisfaction felt with that reply, not alone because it was unsympathetic to the special point
    †See page 651.

    1089
    I had put before him—namely, the advisability of considering the advantages of establishing a terminal port on the West coast of Ireland—but also because he did not give a fuller expression as to what is the attitude of the Government towards the various reports and counter reports of offers and combines affecting the trade and traffic of the Atlantic Ocean. I, therefore, today, more directly ask the noble Earl if His. Majesty's Government are taking any steps in order themselves to start a fast service between this country and Canada, and especially whether they intend to do so having regard to the American combination, or what I might perhaps call the Morganatic alliance, that is reported to have taken place between a certain magnate of the United States and his partners in this country. I have already addressed the House at some length on this subject, and really the whole matter has passed beyond the stage when in any interrogatory form it has any novelty or interest for any one. Some information as to the attitude and intentions of the Government, if they can be at all indicated, is what the country is anxiously looking for. The country is, I think, naturally and properly anxious, and even agitated, about this question. It recognises its great seriousness and magnitude. Indeed, such an Atlantic combine as we have heard of is no storm in a tea cup. The country, rightly or wrongly, feels that its commercial position in the Atlantic is, to say the least of it, seriously threatened, and I am certain that the House and the public would be glad to hear that the Government are not alone alive to the importance of the interests involved in this matter, but that they have undertaken, or are ready to undertake, adequate measures in order to maintain the position and the prestige of this country in the Atlantic.
    THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has brought forward this question again. I left the House on the last occasion when this question was discussed with astonishment and pain owing to the nature of the answer given by the noble Earl. I am sure that the noble Earl did not wish to show any disrespect to Ireland or to Irishmen, but from the report of his
    1090
    speech one would imagine that he had enjoyed no political experience whatever. But he served Her late Majesty as Governor of New Zealand with great credit to himself, and left that colony beloved by all, for during the time he was there he devoted his whole energies to promoting the best interests of the colony. The noble Earl, however, does not seem to realise the great importance to Ireland of this question of a fast line between Canada and Ireland. Many Irishmen are indignant at the way in which the answer given by the noble Earl to Lord Killanin the other night was framed. I would have imagined that the subject of an Atlantic service to be worked by the Canadian Pacific Company was a matter which the Govern would have considered, but the noble Earl's reply was simply that he had no official information. Irish Unionists are continually being told that the British Government does not care two straws for Ireland. How are we to combat that statement if we are addressed as we were addressed by the noble Earl the other night? I am myself a convinced Unionist, and I ask why Irishmen are not to have the sympathy of His Majesty's Government. The selection of a terminal port in Ireland for such an undertaking would bring millions of money into Ireland, would vivify the whole of her commercial organisation, and would give Irishmen hope and courage. All we are told is that the Government will form a ring and see fair play. I only hope the noble Earl's answer to-day will be a little more sympathetic.
    THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am extremely grieved to find that the noble Earl thought the remarks I made a few days ago so unsympathetic; but he will pardon me if I draw attention to the fact that there may be competing claims, not only between English and Irish ports, but also between various ports in Ireland itself. What I wished to convey was that, if there was to be a selection of any port the Government would have to hear the arguments brought forward from each competing port—from Bantry Bay, Galway, Liverpool, Southampton—before they come to a decision. That, I think,

    1091
    is the proper course of procedure. It is not the duty of the Government to pronounce an opinion in favour of any particular port without having heard; the whole of the arguments on behalf of the various localities concerned. The Question put to me by Lord Killanin a few nights ago did not refer to the American acquisition of British lines, but referred exclusively to a fast service to Canada. That is a very old subject, and has nothing to do with the Morgan combination. It is a matter which primarily affects the interests of the Dominion Government, who have it under consideration. The Dominion Government have not told His Majesty's Government what their proposals are, or asked them for their assistance. If that assistance is asked for, the question of giving it will be most favourably considered. Until and unless the Dominion Government approach His Majesty's Government, it is not for the latter to make any proposition in the matter. The noble Lord next asked whether His Majesty's Government are taking any steps, and, if so, what, for the establishment of an Atlantic service under the British flag, after the absorption of the present British-owned lines by an American combination. That is a very grave and important subject, audit is receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government. If any such service under the British flag as is suggested by the Question of Lord Killanin is to be established, it will be necessary to come to Parliament for the money required; and when that time comes, if it does come, the Government will place before Parliament all the information connected with it. But at the present stage of the proceedings it would be very unwise and impolitic to make any communication which might hamper the negotiations going on. I have given the noble Lord as much information as it is in my power to give; and, with regard to my answer the other night, I beg to disclaim any intention of being unsympathetic or of treating Ireland with disrespect.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: I think the statement of the noble Earl that the Government of the Dominion of Canada have not approached the Imperial
    1092
    Government in any way on this subject settles the question, and makes it quite clear that there is to be no line, and that our hopes of having the claims of Irish ports to consideration recognised in the event of the establishment of a fast service to Canada are dashed to the ground. I confess that the information that the Government of the Dominion have not approached His Majesty's Government on the subject of this service has come as a shock to me.

    TROUT FISHING IN SCOTLAND.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose "To call attention to the present state of the law as regards the rights of property of trout fishing in Scotland." He said: My Lords, four words of Norman-French that were spoken at the Table half an hour ago have wholly changed my position with regard to my notice, which, as your Lordships will observe, refers not to the present law, but to the law with regard to proprietary rights which existed before the assent of the Crown was given just now, in those Norman-French words, le Roy le result, to the Freshwater Fish (Scotland) Bill. Still, I think it is desirable that I should say a word or two with reference to this kind of legislation. To describe how, when, or with what machinery a proprietor of fishing shall catch his fish may be a trivial matter in. itself, but it affects the oldest of proprietary rights in Scotland. Here we have a Government coming forward and telling the proprietors of trout fishing in Scotland, "You shall not exercise your rights as you have hitherto done, but in the way we think right and proper." The Freshwater Fish (Scotland) Bill was brought in for a wholly different purpose —namely, to establish a close time in trout fishing; and the Clause laying down how proprietors are to catch their fish was imported into it after it had been introduced. It is only right that your Lordships should know what were the proprietary rights in Scotland half an hour ago. I think my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland was under the impression that there were exceptions to the law, and he mentioned the case of the river Spey. I have always understood that exceptions proved the rule, and that it was no argument that because there was an exception you should alter the rule. But—on the strength, possibly, of

    1093
    this supposed exception—my noble friend has altered the rule. What was the law on this subject half an hour ago in Sootland? I have here the opinion of the best legal authority in Edinburgh that I could consult, and he says—
    "The right of fishing for trout in a private stream or loch belongs exclusively to the riparian proprietor. In the case of an inland loch such proprietor has the exclusive right of fishing in the whole loch, but if the land surrounding an inland loch be owned by different proprietors, each proprietor may fish in any part of the loch. All freshwater rivers and lochs are private as regards the rights of fishing."
    I wired to know if the Spey was any exception, and this is the answer I receive:!—
    "The question of the proprietary right of trout fishing in the river Spey was the subject of a case in the Court of Session decided in 1894. In that case the question was raised whether the doctrine established in reference to private rivers and lochs was or was not applicable to the river Spey above the point where the tide ebbs and flows, the suggestion being that it was inapplicable because the Spoy is a public navigable river. It was, however, held that a right in the public of being at or on the non-tidal portion of a river for the purpose of navigation does not entitle them to fish for trout thereon, and. further, that such a right of fishing cannot be acquired by prescription."
    That is the great peculiarity of the proprietary rights of fishing in Scotland. The public can acquire no right, and the proprietor does not lose his right by failing to exercise it. The right of fishing may be allowed to be dormant in Scotland for any number of years, but it can be revived. The River Megget passes through my property. That river, with all its tributary streams, had been for many years freely fished by the public, but I thought it well to preserve one of the streams for a little amusement at home. I did so, with the result that one member of the public insisted on fishing. He was taken into Court, and the Court declared that the public had absolutely no right whatever. Thus, the argument of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other night, that the Bill took away rights from the people, and that it would be advisable, therefore, to leave proprietors untouched, is absolutely worthless. I have always thought that one of the main duties of the Government was the protection of proprietary rights,
    1094
    whether it be the right of the costermonger in his barrow or of the Peer in his property. But we live in times when different views are held, and we see a Conservative Government—which, by the way, appears to be inclined to conserve little or nothing—agreeing to a Clause which seriously impairs the rights of proprietors in fishing for trout in their private streams. On the Second Reading of the Bill, my noble friend the Earl of Galloway moved an Amendment with the object of preserving to a great extent the existing rights of proprietors. We went to a division on that Amendment, which was negatived by a majority of four, but, if you deduct from the Government majority all who hold office in the Administration in some form or other, you find that, instead of being in a majority, the Government are in a minority of twelve. That, I think, shows the feeling of your Lordships with reference to the measure which has just received the Royal Assent, and I now give notice that I intend during the October sittings in Parliament to introduce a Bill to do away with that portion of the Freshwater Fish (Scotland) Act which interferes with proprietary rights.
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, with regard to the concluding observation of the noble Earl, I am afraid that if he attempts to amend the Act which has just passed by another Bill in the same session, he will find that that is contrary to the practice of Parliament.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Then in that case, if I am alive, I will bring forward my Bill next year.
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The main contention of the noble Earl is that one of the Clauses of the Act just passed is a great infringement of the rights of property. I hope he will not think that I am chopping logic with him when I say that, as a matter of fact, there is no real proprietary right in the trout itself. The proprietary right exists in the right to capture the trout. What gives the right is that the proprietor of the bank of the stream or loch is the only person who can get into a position from which he can catch the trout. I venture to say that the noble Earl will

    1095
    look through the Act which has received the. Royal Assent tonight without finding a single sentence which, changes the right of capture from one person to another. What is interfered with is the method by which the fish may be captured.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My noble friend entirely misunderstood my argument. I did not say that any right of capture was transferred from one person to another. I said that certain rights of proprietors were limited; that there was an interference with proprietary rights.
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I accept the noble Earl's correction. It is true that we have limited the methods by which the owner of the proprietary right can exercise it, and the whole point between us is whether that was or was not a reasonable limitation. I under stand from the noble Earl that he thinks this is the first invasion of a right of this kind that Parliament has ever entered upon. If that is his case, the noble Earl is entirely mistaken. In this, there is no violent departure from precedent. Salmon—
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Salmon is dealt with on totally different principles. I confined myself absolutely to trout fishing
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I listened with patience to the speech of the noble Earl, and I hope he will do me the fairness and justice of listening with equal courtesy to what I have to say in reply. I know the difference between salmon and trout. One is a more migratory fish than the other; but trout is also in part migratory, and the same right of fishing exists for both. There have long been restrictions as to the methods of capturing salmon. There are other precedents. The noble Earl is the owner of an estate on which game abounds. It is true that we do not by statute limit the methods by which he may kill his grouse or his partridges, but we do limit the time of year when they may be killed, which is to that extent an interference with proprietary right. But I have a more direct precedent than that. Twenty-three
    1096
    or twenty-four years ago the State, in the public interest, interfered as to the, method in which a rabbit might be killed, and said that no steel traps should be placed in open runs. If we say that the destruction of trout by dynamite is contrary to the canons of fair fishing, it is entirely within the rights of Parliament, and in the public interest, to lay down rules and regulations, and to deal with a matter of that kind. I do not in the least regret the part I have taken in passing this Bill, I believe it will be a very useful Bill. and that in a short time there will be no controversy about it, because it will be proved to be in the interests of legitimate sport, and of the greater number, and not an invasion of due proprietary lights.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I shall certainly persevere with my Bill next session. For the present, I congratulate my noble friend on being a legislator well up to date.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, to Thursday, 16th October, a quarter past Four o'clock.