Lords Sitting of 19 April 1904

The Lord Abinger sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
South Shields Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Kettering Improvement Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Southport and Lytham Tram-road (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Birkdale Improvement Bill; Brixham Gas Bill; Soothill Nether Urban District Tramways Bill; Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill; St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill; Acton Improvement Bill; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Colney Hatch Gas Bill; London and North-Western Railway Bill; Midland Railway Bill. Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill [H.L.]; Young and Bell's Patents Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Wild Birds Protection Acts Amendment Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Ulster Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Lancashire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Lothians Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Belfast and North-East Ireland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [H.L.]; Buxton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.] Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ellenborough be proposed to the
478
House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Estcourt; read, and agreed to.
Bridlington Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Ebbw Vale Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad Bill [H.L.]; Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway Bill [H.L.]; Llanelly Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L]; Holywood Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Barry-more be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Boston; read, and agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts—Was presented by the Lord President (The Earl Vane [M. Londonderry]); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 43.)
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 44.)

PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petitions against restriction of the discretionary power of magistrates to grant licences; of Manchester, Salford, and District Temperance Union; Eccles Free Church Council; Eccles Congregational Church. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL [H.L.]
Petition in favour of; of the St. Pancras Corporation. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
Petitions in favour of; of the Town, City, and County Councils of Bethnal Green; Beverley; Bootle; Burnley; Cardiff; Chester; Croydon; Dewsbury;

479
Dover; Gateshead; Longton; Middles-borough; Neath; Poole and others; Reading; Richmond (Surrey); Rochdale; Scarborough; Shoreditch; Stoke Newington; Swindon; Worcester; Fulham; St. Pancras; Wiltshire; Edinburgh School Board; Sheffield Federated Trades Council; Ramsgate and District Incorporated Chamber of Commerce; Edinburgh and Leith Licensed Grocers Association; Chambers of Commerce, etc., signing; Persons signing. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. CXI., viz:—
POOR LAW MEDICAL RELIEF (SCOTLAND).
Report of a Departmental Committee, appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland, to inquire into the system of poor law medical relief, and into the rules and regulations for the management of poor houses; with supplement. (March 30.)
COOLIE IMMIGRATION.
Immigration Ordinances of Trinidad and British Guiana. (March 30.)
JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES) 1902 (PART. I. CRIMINAL STATISTICS).
Statistics relating to criminal proceedings, police, coroners, prisons, reformatory and industrial schools, and criminal lunatics, for the year 1902. (April 7.)
EDUCATION.
Lists of public elementary schools and training colleges under the administration of the Board, 1903–4. (April 7.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
Annual Report for the year ended March, 1903. (April 7.)

TRADE REPORTS—I. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
No. 604. Belgium (Canals and other navigable waterways).
No. 605. Italy (Changes in the distribution of works of art in the Royal Galleries of Florence). (April 7.)
No. 606. Africa (Prospects of growing cotton in the East Africa Protectorate). (April 9.)
No. 607. Africa (Country produce traffic on the Uganda Railway). (April 13.)

II. ANNUAL SERIES.
No. 3135. West Africa (Report on the trade of Liberia). (April 9.)
TRINIDAD.
Further papers relating to the disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad, in March, 1903. (In continuation of [Cd. 1661], July, 1903.) (April 8.)
EGYPT, No. 1 (1904).
Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the finances, administration, and condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1903. (April 8.)
PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877.
Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Sixty-fifth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland. (April 12.)
PRANCE, No. 1 (1904).
Despatch to His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, forwarding agreements between Great Britain and France of 8th April, 1904. (April 12.)
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1903.
Tables showing the constitution of county, district, and burgh licensing courts. (April 13.)
LUNACY (SCOTLAND) ACT.
Forty-sixth Annual Report of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland. (April 13.)
ROYAL OBSERVATORY, EDINBURGH.
Fourteenth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland. (April 13.)
AGRARIAN OFFENCES (PROVINCES) (IRELAND).
Return for the year ended 31st December, 1903. (April 13.)
INDIA (LAND REVENUE).
Statement showing the number of processes issued against land revenue defaulters during the year 1901–1902. (April 13.)
BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
Forty-ninth Annual Report of the Registrar-General in Scotland for the year 1903, and Thirty - ninth Annual Report on Vaccination. (April 13.)
POOR LAW MEDICAL RELIEF (SCOTLAND).
Report of Departmental Committee appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland; Volume II. containing minutes of evidence, appendices, and index. (April 15.)

CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897.
Sixth Report of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board to the Secretary for Scotland. (April 15.)
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
No. 3136. Netherlands (Amsterdam).
No. 3137. Germany (Pomerania).

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Fifty-first Report.
INDIA (OFFICIAL SECRETS).
India Official Secrets (Amendment) Act, 1904.

EXPLOSIVES.
(Explosion at the Factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, Faversham, Kent). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain M. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion of gunpowder which occurred in the mixing house of the factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey,
482
Limited, at the Marsh, Faversham, on the 2nd February, 1904.
(Explosion at the Factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at Cliffe, Kent). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain A. P. H. Desborough, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an accident which occurred in the drying house for nitro-cotton at the Factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at Cliffe, Kent, on the 4th February, 1904.

EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND)
Report and Tables for the year 1903.
BRITISH COTTON CULTIVATION.
Report to the Board of Trade on cotton cultivation in the British Empire and in Egypt, by Professor Wyndham Dunstan, F.R.S., Director of the Imperial Institute at South Kensington.

LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Orders, made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade:—

I. Authorising the construction of light railways—

(1.) In the parishes of Arkley, Barnet Vale, Chipping Barnet, Bushey Rural, Bushey Urban, and Watford Urban, in the county of Hertford.

(2.) In the urban and rural districts of Rugby, in the county of Warwick.

(3.) From St. Osyth to Clacton-on-Sea, in the county of Essex, in the rural district of Tendring, and the urban district of Clacton.

(4.) In the Borough of Leicester and in the rural districts of Barrow-upon-Soar, and of Market Bosworth, in the county of Leicester.

II. Transferring to the mayor, alder men, and citizens of the city of Bradford the powers conferred upon the Nidd Valley Light Railway Company by the Nidd Valley Light Railway Order, 1901, and amending that Order.

BOARD OF EDUCATION (COMMITTEE ON THE MODEL COURSE OF PHYSICAL EXERCISES).
Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the model course of physical exercises.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
Return of all loans raised in England, under the provisions of any Act of Parliament chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 31st March, 1904, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc.
TRINIDAD.
Amended prison rule relating to indentured immigrants sentenced to hard labour.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903
Hull (Channel Islands Animals) Landing Place Order of 1904.
BOARD OF EDUCATION (WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889).
Report to the Board of Education on the administration of schools under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889.
GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
Account of all moneys received on account of contracts for the grant of deferred life annuities, and for payments on death, under the provisions of the Acts 27 and 28 Victoria, chap. 43, 45 and 46 Victoria, chap. 51, and 50 and 51 Victoria, chap. 40, and of the disposal thereof, and of the contracts made for the year ended 31st December, 1803.
POLLING DISTRICTS.
Orders made by the county councils of Hertford, altering certain polling districts in the Western or Watford Parliamentary Division; and Lancaster, altering certain polling districts in the Clitheroe and Westhoughton Parliamentary Divisions.

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896; MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
The Motor Cars (Use and Construction) (Scotland) Order, 1904.
The Motor Car Registration and Licensing (Scotland) Order, 1903.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1893.
Amended regulations made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND).
Order transferring to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland in respect of the portion of the fund placed at the disposal of the Department by the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899.
LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) ACT, 1888.
Order in Council, dated 24th March, 1904, adding the county of Armagh to the district assigned to the Belfast Local Bankruptcy Court.
LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1903, and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date.
EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
Account up to 31st March, 1904.
GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
Accounts up to 31st March, 1904.

SUPERANNUATION.
Treasury minute, dated 13th April, 1904, declaring that David Gray, leading hand of fitters, Royal Gun Factory, War Office was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting (The Earl of Hardwicke); agreed to, and ordered accordingly. Then it was moved that the Motion on East Indian Revenues (Tibet) do have precedence of the Order of the Day which stands before it (The Earl of Hardwicke); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I have given private notice to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House of a Question which I wish to put to him before the ordinary business begins. As a rule, by the custom of this country, the duty of the Opposition is to criticise generally the acts of the Government. It is not often that an Opposition can give unstinted congratulation on any action it may take. I rejoice to think there are exceptions to this rule, and the present is an occasion when we may offer this congratulation, because I believe your Lordships will all rejoice to accept as a great achievement what the noble Marquess has lately done in certain very important negotiations. In my speech on the opening night of the session I was able to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the passing of a Convention as to arbitration between this country and France, and, speaking on that occasion, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs used these words—
"I do not think you will find either here or in Fiance that too much credit is taken to themselves by the diplomatists of either country for this happy condition of things. It is due, no doubt, partly to those courtesies which have recently been exchanged, and to which reference has been made; but I believe it to be due mainly to a deep-seated conviction on the part of the peoples or the two countries that there is no real divergence between our interests, that the greatest of our common interests is peace, and that there is no greater security for the peace of Europe than that it should be desired both by France and Great Britain."
We heartily concurred in those sentiments, and are glad that the noble Marquess has followed that up by further action in the interests of friendship between the two neighbouring countries.
486
It is a matter of the utmost importance to us to have friendly relations with France. It is the best pledge of peace for this country. One of the noblest aims of any statesman is to put peace on a profound and good security. We all know and appreciate the beneficent and admirable influence which the action of His Majesty the King has had with regard to this matter. His visit to Paris and the return visit to London of the President of the Republic had most excellent results. The noble Marquess has carried these results further, and has secured, by his negotiations, a Convention of the greatest possible importance. We thank him on this side of the House, and if I I may be allowed to speak not only for those I represent on this Bench, but for the whole House, all your Lordships thank him for what he has done in the interests of peace and conciliation. I cannot help hoping that the same success which has marked his negotiations with France may in the future attend further negotiations with other countries with which we have differences. He has removed many differences which have been causes of trouble, irritation, and even of danger between the two countries | in Asia, America, and in Africa. I beg to ask whether he proposes to present any further Papers on the recent negotiations, and whether any Resolution or Bill relating to the Convention will be brought before Parliament.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, before I attempt to answer the Question of which I the noble Earl has given me private notice, I must be allowed to offer him the thanks of His Majesty's Government. and I hope I may add those who support His Majesty's Government, for the manner in which he has referred to the Agreements we have recently concluded with the French Republic. I am using no idle phrase when I say that there is no one in or out of this House whose commendation we would on an occasion like this sooner receive than that of the noble Earl opposite. In the conduct of foreign affairs the Government of the day always has this advantage, at any rate, that they may look forward to the transaction of their business with a certainty that they are not

487
likely to be impeded or obstructed by anything like captious criticism or opposition on the part of those who sit on the other side of the House. That is an honourable tradition always respected in this House, and one which, I trust, will never cease to be followed. But upon this occasion we can say rather more than this. For throughout the long months during which these negotiations have been continued, we had the absolute certainty that we had behind us the general public feeling of this country, and that that public feeling would be grievously disappointed if we had had to bring those negotiations to a close without finding a friendly and satisfactory solution of these international questions.
And now that the Agreements have been concluded we have no occasion to be disappointed, for their reception has certainly been, so far as their general principle is concerned, all that we could possibly have expected or desired. The documents are in your Lordships' hands, and we have published with them a despatch, in which we have endeavoured to explain both the nature of the Agreements themselves and also some of the considerations which weighed with us in concluding them. I do not, therefore, think it necessary upon this occasion to add any further explanations, but I will make this one observation only. Because these Agreements have been well received at the outset, we shall not for an instant allow ourselves to run away with the idea that they are likely to escape criticism. They cover a very extensive ground, they deal with interests of the most complicated description, and it will not surprise us if, upon close examination, we should be told that we might have made a better bargain for this country, or that we have left certain weak points, which we had not at first detected; but we may, at any rate, say this, that the general principle which underlies these Agreements does find favour with the people of this country; and when I speak of the general principle which underlies these Agreements I mean the principle that it is good for two great nations to examine frankly and fully all points of difference that exist between them, and to endeavour to dispose of these points upon a basis of mutual consideration and mutual appreciation of
488
each other's aspirations. May I add that if this principle is a sound one in regard to our foreign relations generally, it is in my belief especially sound when it is applied to our relations with the French Republic? I only add that I desire to echo what was said by the noble Earl at the close of his observations, and to express the hope, which I share with him, that the arrangement come to in this case may form a precedent which may be usefully followed in our dealings with other Powers.
Answering the two Questions which the noble Earl has put to me I have to say that, as at present advised, we have no intention of laying further Papers. As to his other inquiry, we have come to the conclusion that part, at any rate, of the arrangement which has been effected between this country and France cannot be properly carried out except by means of legislation. We shall therefore introduce a Bill dealing with the subject, and when that Bill comes before your Lordships, your Lordships will certainly have an opportunity of discussing the question. That, of course, does not preclude any Member of this House from raising points connected with the Agreements at any convenient moment. It remains for me to thank the noble Earl once more for the tenor of his remarks, and in particular. if I may say so, for the personal friendliness towards myself, by which those remarks were characterised. If I do not deserve all he said of me, I shall none the less cherish for a long time to come the remembrance of the kind words which he has used with reference to me.

TIBET (EAST INDIAN REVENUES).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, having very recently dealt, on the Motion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay) for further Papers on Tibet, with the object and policy of Colonel Younghusband's Mission to Tibet, I do not propose, in asking your Lordships to agree to the Motion on the Paper, to deal at any length with the political aspect of this question. I might describe the policy of the Mission in the very words I used as recently as February last, with only this difference,

489
that whereas Colonel Younghusband was then on his way to Gyangtse, he has now arrived at that post, and also there has taken place that occurrence at Guru which we all so much deplore, and which is the real reason of the Motion now before the House. I, therefore, propose to confine my remarks to the substance of this Motion. As your Lordships are aware, the Government of India Act, 1858, contains this clause, which I believe was inserted in the Act at the instance of Mr. Gladstone—
"For preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Eastern possessions, or under other sadden or urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues."
The only criticism which suggests itself on the Motion, as it seems to me, is the question, Why did not His Majesty's Government make this Motion before? The answer to that question, as explained by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State in another place, is very plain. By doing so we should ipso facto have defeated our own object. We should have turned what we earnestly desired to be a peaceful Mission into a military expedition, and I can say that had it fallen to me to come down to this House and to have asked your Lordships to agree to this Motion a few months ago, I should have felt that I was giving the lie direct to all the professions that His Majesty's Government had made with regard to this Mission. It would certainly have shown that His Majesty's Government had very little confidence or faith in the pacific nature of Colonel Younghusband's movements; and I think we are entitled to ask, what would have been the effect on the minds of the Government of China and of the Lamas of Tibet, whose apprehensions we were most anxious not to arouse, had we taken such a course? I would also venture to ask what the impression would have been on the sensitive consciences of noble Lords opposite had we taken this course.
The necessity for this Motion depended not on His Majesty's Government, but on the action of the authorities at Lhasa, and had they not allowed their troops
490
to attack Colonel Young husband's escort, we should not have had to come to Parliament with any Motion of this kind. Moreover, my Lords, the very insistence of His Majesty's Government on the pacific character of this Mission unfortunately conduced to the injury of the Tibetan people. The recent encounter with the Tibetans must be fresh in your Lordships' memory. General Macdonald forced an advance to take the Tibetan position, but the troops were under the strictest injunction not to fire. They advanced towards that position with fine, I would almost say with extraordinary, self-restraint. They approached the position and were literally face to face and actually in touch with the Lama's troops. Not a single man of the force employed forgot the injunction not to fire, and no blood would have been shed had it not been that a Lhasa general, by discharging his pistol at an Indian sepoy, gave the signal for an attack which does not require a very large stretch of the imagination to realise would in all ordinary circumstances have resulted, if not in the destruction of the British force, at any rate in a very serious disaster. No one can wonder that our Indian soldiers used their arms with energy and with deadly effect. Nor can we wonder that they made the Tibetans pay the penalty for the rashness of that Lhasa general. They paid far more dearly than they would have paid had those pacific instructions of His Majesty's Government not been given. Had General Macdonald advanced to the attack in the ordinary course he would, the moment that he knew the Tibetans intended to oppose our advance, have given the order to commence firing at long range. It is evident that the Tibetans would not have stood fire, and that when the position had been occupied by his forces the Tibetan losses would have been counted by less than tens instead of, as unfortunately happened, by hundreds. This encounter having taken place, the only course open to His Majesty's Government was to come to Parliament with this Motion, which I ask your Lordships to accept. I have only to add that Papers of political import additional to those already published do not exist, but such Papers as there are, relating to the advance of the Mission

491
from Tuna to Gyangtse and up to Colonel Younghusband's arrival there, will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days.
Moved to resolve, "That this House consents to the revenue of India being applied to defray the expenses of any military operations which have or may become necessary beyond the frontiers of His Majesty's Indian Possessions, for the purpose of protecting the Political Mission which has been despatched to the Tibetan Government."—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
EARL SPENCER: My Lords. I do not propose to follow a different course from that of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary for India in dealing with this subject. I am quite aware that it has been very fully discussed already in your Lordships' House. It was alluded to by myself in the debate on the Address. My observations were replied to by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House; and subsequently a lengthy debate took place upon the subject on the initiation of my noble friend Lord Reay, a former Governor of Bombay. My noble friend was supported by my noble friend Lord Ripon, an ex-Viceroy of India, and others also took part in that debate. All I will say with regard to the question of policy is this, that we on this side of the House adhere to the views we put forward on that occasion, and I do not think it necessary to repeat them. I ventured in my speech on the Address to refer to the 55th Section of the Government of India Act, 1858, and I expressed considerable surprise that His Majesty's Government had not then brought forward a Resolution in accordance with that section. I stated that it seemed impossible to conceive that a Mission with an escort of such dimensions, with all the arms connected with a formidable army of attack, could be considered wholly a peaceful Mission, and I fear that what I said then has been fully borne out. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary stated that if the Government had come forward then and asked for that Resolution, they would have given contradiction to all that had been
492
I stated as to the pacific nature of this Mission. I cannot help thinking that, knowing as we did the position of Tibet and the very strong views always expressed, and the strong action taken by the Tibetan Government against the admission of foreigners, His Majesty's Government were over-sanguine and self-deceiving in their view.
I maintain now, as I did then, that the Government ought to have asked for this Resolution at once, and that it was impossible, in view of all the circumstances connected with it, to describe this Mission as altogether a peaceful one. I quite understand the wish of the Government that it should be so considered, but I know full well what the views were of all those who understand this subject. With hardly an exception, they were of opinion that the Tibetans would not alter their usual policy, but would oppose, by force if necessary, a Mission which proceeded into their country. We know the very melancholy circumstance that has occurred in consequence of the progress of this Mission. I do not for a moment wish to contradict the noble Earl, or to contend that there was not full self-restraint on the part of the troops: but the consequences were disastrous. There was heavy slaughter of these unfortunate men, who, no doubt, did attack us, and invited reprisals from our arms. They are an ignorant people: they seem to be not only ignorant of civilisation, but absolutely ignorant of the horrors and dangers of warfare. It is, I am sure, a matter of deep regret to the Government, as it is to everybody, that under such circumstances His Majesty's troops had to inflict severe punishment, not once, but, as I understand, twice, on these unfortunate people.
I will say no more upon that. I shall not, I need hardly say, now oppose a Resolution which I think ought to have been proposed to Parliament long before; but I should like to ask what the future policy of His Majesty's Government is to be. I think the policy set forth succinctly in a despatch of 6th November, is very complete, but I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they

493
adhere to that policy. The policy initiated in that despatch was contained in these words—
"In view of the recent conduct of the Tibetans, His Majesty's Government feel that it would be impossible not to take action, and they accordingly sanction the advance of the Mission to Gyangtse. They are very clearly of opinion that this step should not be allowed to lead to occupation or permanent intervention in Tibetan affairs in any form. The advance should be made for the sole purpose of obtaining satisfaction, and as soon as reparation is obtained a withdrawal should be effected. While His Majesty's Government consider the proposed action to be necessary, they are not prepared to establish a permanent Mission in Tibet, and the question of enforcing trade facilities in that country must be considered in the light of the decision conveyed in this telegram."
That is a very important statement of policy. It is a statement of policy which, I need hardly say, I, and those who sit with me, heartily support, and we are most anxious to hear from the noble Marquess whether that policy is to be adhered to now in Tibet, and whether the Government, who have at present only authorised the advance to Gyangtse, intend to give permission to go further. If we can be told that there is every prospect now of a settlement of the grievances we shall rejoice, but I think it is of the utmost importance that we should have clear and satisfactory assurances on the points that I have mentioned.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I should not like this Resolution to pass your Lordships' House without a few words from me on a different aspect of the subject from that touched upon by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. The function which your Lordships have to perform to-day is one of very grave importance. It is to give the sanction of this House to the application of the revenues of India to an expedition sent beyond the frontiers of that country. This is one of those occasions on which the Parliament of this country has the responsibility put upon it of protecting the interests of the people of India against the improper application of the revenues of that Empire. No man can have a stronger opinion than I have of the importance of economy in the administration of the finances of India, and of the desira-
494
bility of reducing taxation in that country, and I think I may say that since I left India I have taken great pains on every occasion that has presented itself to advocate the interests of India in this House. With those feelings I have to inform your Lordships that in my opinion you can accept this Resolution with perfect propriety. This Mission is undoubtedly taken in the interests of India. The relations between India and Tibet only remotely affect this country, and therefore it seems to me that the application of the revenues of India which your Lordships are asked to sanction is a proper application of those revenues.
I wish, my Lords, on this occasion to go somewhat further, and to say that I have read the Papers connected with this Mission with attention and interest, and it has given me great satisfaction to observe the moderation with which His Majesty's Government and the Government of India have treated this question, which is one of great difficulty. The treaty with China on the subject of Tibet was not made at the instigation of the Indian Government or of the Government of this country. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was then Viceroy of India, and it was the Chinese themselves who urged upon the Government of India the conclusion of the treaty. At the same time they informed the Government of India—and this has been the origin of all these difficulties—that China was ready to undertake that the Tibetans carried out the provisions of that treaty. My noble friend opposite, the then Viceroy (The Marquess of Lansdowne) treated the matter with the greatest caution. I think he allowed three years to pass before a supplemental convention was concluded. He gave way upon several points which the Chinese Government asked him to give way upon, and nothing could have been more gentle or moderate than the course he pursued. The same course was taken by his successor the Earl of Elgin, and by Lord Curzon, the present Viceroy.
It fell to the Government of India and the Government of this country to take some steps to see that the provisions of the treaty were carried out. I think eight years must have passed since the

495
treaty was concluded, yet not one single provision of that treaty has been carried out by the Tibetans or the Chinese. The matter then was brought before Lord Curzon by the Secretary of State for India, Lord George Hamilton. He asked—and it was very natural that he should have asked—what the condition of things was, eight years after the treaty had been made, in respect of the trade between Tibet and India and the demarcation of the frontier. The answer was most unsatisfactory. The place selected was found to be quite unsuitable for a trade mart. The Tibetans prevented any trade taking place with their country. Surely some step was necessary to be taken to remedy that condition of things. For three years Lord Curzon treated this matter with the greatest moderation. He went so far as to prohibit the erection of any pillar posts on the frontier—a proceeding which would naturally have created opposition on the part of the Tibetans; and his conduct appears to me to have been marked by great moderation. At last, however,—I think it was in the beginning of 1903—he made suggestions that a Mission should be sent to Lhasa and a Resident appointed in that country. With those suggestions His Majesty's Government did not concur, and Lord Curzon. having received the opinion of His Majesty's Government, accepted it with perfect loyalty, and from that time on wards carried out the views of His Majesty's Government. I naturally feel sympathy with anyone in the position of Viceroy of India, and I wish your Lordships to be in full knowledge of Lord Curzon's views on the matter. Writing on 5th November last year, Lord Curzon said—
"We (the Government of India) share the reluctance which His Majesty's Government have hitherto entertained to embark upon strong measures. We have no quarrel with the Tibetan people, and we have no desire to invade or permanently to occupy their country. Even now all that we solicit is sanction to transfer the scene of our negotiations to a locality in Tibet more suitable for the purpose than Khambajong and better calculated to impress the Tibetan Government with a sense of our earnestness and power."
That is the view with which Lord Curzon has been carrying out the despatch of this Mission. Those being the
496
circumstances of the case as they present themselves to me after reading the Papers, I have no hesitation in supporting the Motion which has been moved so clearly by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for India. I feel sure that His Majesty's Government will act in the future with the same forbearance and with the same moderation.
My noble friend behind me has alluded to a despatch which was sent by the Secretary of State for India to the Viceroy on the subject of the future policy with regard to Tibet. There are two other despatches which strike me as of much greater importance as committing the Government than the despatch sent to the Viceroy. There was a despatch sent by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Mr. Spring - Rice for communication to the Russian Government. In that despatch, after explaining the reason for sending the Mission, the Secretary of State wrote that—
"This step must not be taken as indicating any intention of annexing or even permanently occupying Tibetan territory."
That was to the Government of Russia. There is another despatch, still more important, which was sent to the Government of China—the suzerain Power over Tibet. That despatch contains these words—
"In view of the recent conduct of the Tibetans His Majesty's Government feel that it is impossible not to take action, and they have, therefore, sanctioned the advance of the Mission. As soon as reparation is obtained the Mission will be withdrawn, as this step is to the taken purely for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction,"
and so on. I feel satisfied with those assurances. It hardly needs a statement from the Secretary of State to satisfy your Lordships as to the future policy of His Majesty's Government, for these miserable attacks by Tibetans upon our troops can hardly be a serious reason for changing the policy of the Government in this matter. I trust that His Majesty's Government will be very cautious in respect to the sanction of a permanent Resident at Lhasa. No one will deny that the presence in a native State such as Tibet of an English Resident cannot but be a great advantage to the country in which he is placed, as well as to the

497
Government sending him there, and no one can dispute the advantage of being able to communicate with such a Government in a diplomatic manner. But, at the same time, in these States, the people of which have very strong prejudices—and probably the prejudices are nowhere more strong than they are in Tibet—against foreigners, and where also, there may be religious fanaticism, it would be in my opinion a dangerous thing to have a resident Minister unless with the thorough assurance on the part of the State to which that Minister has been sent of the desire to receive him and to be responsible for his protection. The time may arrive when Tibet, like other countries, will be more open to us, and when we may be able to send Residents into that country; but I hardly think anyone will assert that that time has yet arrived. There is another smaller matter which I would venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government, namely, that great caution should be enjoined on those in charge of this Mission not to send parties all over the country for the purpose of surveying the tops of the mountains and making maps, for there is nothing more likely to alarm ignorant people like the Tibetans than such proceedings.
I cannot conclude my remarks without assuring my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I read with great satisfaction the language he used to the Russian Government in respect to certain communications which passed on the subject of Tibet. I hold that, while any military danger to India from Tibet is perfectly preposterous on account of the nature of the country, yet circumstances justified the remarks made by my noble friend the Foreign Minister. It has always been my opinion that plain speaking to Russia is the right way to treat affairs of this kind. I believe that difficulties, and, perhaps, even war, might have been avoided if we had spoken perfectly plainly to Russia in former years in somewhat similar circumstances. Therefore, I am glad that my noble friend used that language, and I will say also that I cannot conceive that the use of that language ought to be prejudicial to the friendly relations
498
between Russia and this country. Russia must perfectly well understand our position with regard to Tibet, and must have received, without surprise, and I should say without any adverse feeling, the remarks of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I heartily concur with what has fallen from my noble friend behind me, the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to the Anglo-French Agreement, and I trust, with him, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I may be enabled, perhaps at some more favourable time than the present, to enter into a similar arrangement with the Government of Russia with respect to those matters which he referred to on a former occasion in this House and in which our interests may not appear to be altogether identical.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords. the speech just delivered must have had the effect of removing from the minds of your Lordships any lingering doubts as to the propriety of this Resolution. This Mission has been undertaken in the interests of India, and the only question is at what moment that Mission ceased to have a political complexion and acquired a military complexion. We have been taken to task for not recognising from the first that the Mission was likely to acquire the character of a military operation. We desired in all sincerity that the Mission should have a political and not a military complexion, and as far as we were concerned there was no reason whatever why the Mission should not have achieved its object without firing a single shot, and why it should not have maintained its political character to the last. But the unfortunate collision which has taken place left us nothing to do but to regularise the matter by bringing it before Parliament in accordance with the 55th Section of the Government of India Act. If we had taken the other course, and had at the outset described this Mission as a military Mission we should, in the first place, have mis-described its true aim and purport; and by proclaiming the fact that it was an invasion of Tibet we should have increased the chances of collision and

499
diminished the chances of peace. We were, therefore, amply justified in preserving for the Mission its political complexion as long as we could. As to what was said by Lord Northbrook on the manner in which these negotiations have been conducted, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for his speech, for no one speaks with more knowledge than he does in regard to Indian affairs. I therefore rejoiced when I heard him give credit not only to Lord Curzon's Government but to other Governments before his for having dealt cautiously and considerately with this question. There, I am convinced, is no case on record in which a strong civilised Power has dealt more considerately with a weak and semi-barbarous Power.
I was glad to hear what fell from the noble Earl opposite in regard to the manner in which Lord Curzon has handled this question, because an attempt has been made to represent Lord Curzon as having from the first taken up an attitude of antagonism to His Majesty's Government—an attempt which is based on a misrepresentation of the facts. If your Lordships will look at Lord Curzon's despatch of 8th January of last year, you will find in it a full and complete account of the principles upon which Lord Curzon proposed to deal with the Tibetan question. What were they? In the first place, Lord Curzon insisted that it was necessary to resort to more practical measures in dealing with the Tibetans, measures more likely to be productive of results than the policy of friendly representation upon which we had so long relied. Then Lord Curzon proposed that, instead of attempting to deal with Tibet through China as the suzerain Power, we should deal directly with the Tibetans on Tibetan territory, and for this purpose he proposed a Mission with a sufficient military escort. Besides this, Lord Curzon laid down—and I ask your Lordships' particular attention to this point—that there was in the mind of the Government of India a complete absence of any political designs upon Tibet, and that we did not desire to establish a Protectorate or anything in the nature of a permanent occupation of the country. In all this His Majesty's Government and the Viceroy were completely at one, and the only point of
500
difference of opinion was that which arose when we came to consider whether negotiations should or should not be conducted at Lhasa, and whether a British agent should be left at that place, and upon this point Lord Curzon loyally accepted the policy of His Majesty's Government and has given effect to it. You will find that we applied this policy cautiously and considerately, and that it was not until the Viceroy represented to us that there was absolutely no prospect of bringing the negotiations which were in progress at Khambajong to a satisfactory result, and when all other means had failed, that we authorised the advance of the Mission to Gyangtse. It is not the case, as has sometimes been represented, that there was a kind of "Rake's Progress" on the part of His Majesty's Government, egged on by a militant Viceroy; our policy was deliberately adopted after very careful discussion, and after a complete accord had been arrived at between the Government in India and the India Office at home.
The noble Earl has expressed a hope that upon one point I would make an announcement to your Lordships' House. He asked me whether His Majesty's Government still adhere to the general line of policy indicated in the telegram sent to the Government of India on 6th November last. My Lords, we do adhere to the policy laid down in that despatch. I do not by that mean to say that, whatever happens, we are never to move an inch beyond the limits therein laid down, but the policy was adopted after the fullest consideration, and by it we shall be guided in dealing with the future aspects of the question. So far as we are able to understand the situation in Tibet, there seems now to be a better prospect than there has ever been before of arriving at a satisfactory settlement upon the basis of that despatch. Up to the present time the Tibetans have been induced to offer persistent resistance to our diplomatic overtures and to any attempt to send a Mission into their country by their reliance on the inaccessibility of their country and the stupendous difficulties to be encountered by an advancing force. These obstacles have been successfully surmounted by the gallant body of troops

501
which Colonel Young husband has led into Tibet, and, although we may speak with more regret than pride of the actual collision which took place between Colonel Young husband's soldiers and the badly armed and badly disciplined body opposed to them, I think we may speak with unmitigated pride of the energy and endurance displayed by our troops under great privations and the severe climatic conditions which they have experienced during protracted operations conducted at an altitude exceeding that of Mont Blanc. We have reason to know that the result has not been without effect on the minds of the Tibetan people.
But there are other considerations which are likely to have an effect upon the Tibetans. The noble Earl who spoke last referred to the relations between Russia and Tibet. We have received from the Russian Government official statements which are recorded in the Blue-book; we have received them without in the least calling in question their absolute sincerity, and I would rather not attempt to add anything on the point during the present discussion. But we have to consider not only the attitude of Russia towards Tibet, but the attitude of Tibet towards Russia, and there can be no doubt, because we are so informed by those who have the best means of knowing, that the comings and goings which have taken place, and which have not unnaturally taken place, between the monks of Lhasa and the Buddhist subjects of the Tsar in different parts of Asia have resulted, or had resulted, in creating in the minds of these extremely ignorant and superstitious people a belief that they might rely on Russian sympathy and assistance. That belief must by this time have been rudely dispelled by events which have taken place. Therefore I think we may fairly assume that the result of these events may be, and probably will be, to bring the Tibetans to a sense of reason, and we may hope before long to find them ready to accept the moderate and neighbourly terms we are ready to place within their reach. Meanwhile it is satisfactory to know that the Mission, after undergoing immense hardship and privations, appears to have arrived at a point where the conditions are much less rugged and unfavourable,
502
and where we can afford to wait, at any rate for a time, and see whether some ray of reason will steal through the solid darkness which appears to characterise the Tibetan mind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEA FISHERIES BILL, [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1—
LORD TWEEDMOUTH, in rising to move the Amendment standing in his name, said that one of the commendable objects of this Bill was to do something to prolong the life of a large proportion of the vast number of small flat fish which were year by year destroyed in the North Sea. With that object he was entirely in sympathy, and he could assure their Lordships that if they accepted the Amendment standing in his name it would make the provisions of the Bill clearer and more acceptable to the fishermen of the country, and it would also make the Bill itself more efficient in practice. In all questions of sea fisheries there were certain considerations which should be clearly kept in mind. The first was the fact that. come what might, they could not help catching small fish, especially in trawling. When the trawl was down everything. big and small, went into it, and very little escaped out. The small fish were included in the general catch, and were brought up and taken on board the trawler. It was said that something could be done by means of enlarging the size of the mesh, but that could not be: effective to any very great extent, I because directly they enlarged the mesh to such a size as to allow of an appreciable escape of small flat fish, they also allowed round fish to escape, and the catching power of the net was thereby largely reduced. When a trawl which had? been down for a considerable time dragging along the bottom of the sea was brought up and the fish released, it was generally found that a large proportion of the smaller fish were dead, and those that were not dead got trampled upon whilst the bigger and more marketable

503
fish were being selected on deck. When they necessarily had so many of these fish destroyed, was it not better to let them be used rather than be thrown back into the sea and altogether wasted 1 His first point was that they could not by any legislation prevent the catching and destruction of a great many small fish in the course of fishing operations.
The next consideration he would impress upon their Lordships was this, that it was a very moot question as to how far any operation of man could make any impression on the number of fish in the sea. Anything that man could do bulked very small in comparison with the destruction of fish caused by other fish, by birds, by whales, porpoises, and so forth. Many scientific observers held the opinion that the operations of man among fish were almost a negligible quantity. That certainly was the opinion held by the late Professor Huxley, who calculated that all the food fish caught by men of all the nations of the world did not amount to more than 5 per cent. of the whole of those fish living in the sea. He (Lord Tweedmouth) did not go so far as to say that he thought the operations of man were of no effect, but he did say that, so far as he was able to judge, those operations were of no effect in limiting the reproductive powers of the sea. He did believe that the operations of man might, temporarily, and in certain places, diminish the number of fish in a particular part of the sea, especially in limited areas where there was more difficulty for the sea to recuperate itself from the supply of fish outside. That was the reason why he had always strongly supported the prohibition of trawling in the territorial waters.
The third consideration he would press upon their Lordships was that they should realise the enormous reproductive power of the fish themselves, and also their methods of spawning. An ordinary sized sole would have about 50,000 eggs, and a good sized turbot would have 2,000,000 or upwards of eggs in it. The whole process of the hatching out of spawn was carried out with the spawn held in suspension in the water. It was carried about by the winds, the currents, and the waves. The same thing applied
504
to the young fish after they were first hatched; they were all carried about in the water, and were the prey of every sort of fish and bird. The destruction of spawn by being used as food by all sorts of creatures that inhabited the sea was something enormous. It had been conclusively proved that in the course of this operation a large quantity of the spawn and the young flat fish were carried across to the other side of the North Sea, to the comparatively shallow water bordering on the coast of Holland and to the east side of the North Sea, where there were great sandbanks which seemed to have become very favourite nurseries for these young fish. Again, too, he would remind their Lordships that when these fish were hatched out of the eggs they were not flat fish, but round fish, and did not become fiat fish until they reached a certain size and settled at the bottom. That operation went on to a very large extent in the eastern waters of the North Sea, and at certain seasons of the year these waters were perfectly swarming with small fish.
These grounds were open to the fishermen of every other nation just as they were to the fishermen of this country, and they would see it stated in the Report of their Lordships' Committee that the ideal method would be to have a convention between all the Powers in the North Sea which would deal with this subject and prevent the catching of small fish on the banks. That, however, might be a counsel of perfection. As he understood, Lord Onslow desired to do what he could at any rate to protect these nurseries of small flat fish from the operations of the fishermen of this country. They must all recognise that they could not prevent fishing there. They could not say that these men should not fish there. The only thing they could do was by some means or other to secure that it should not be worth their while to go there. That was the method which had been adopted in the Bill, but the Bill gave the fisheries authorities the power to forbid the landing of small flat fish in this country from all vessels. He thought that was going too far. It was giving a power that was not necessary and a power which the Department

505
would say themselves they did not intend to use. They only wanted to have it in case they might like to use it. What they wanted to do was to prevent those vessels which fished at certain seasons of the year on these particular grounds from landing small fish, in the hope that they would not find it worth their while to go there during the months in which the landing of the small fish was prohibited. The clause, as at present drafted, read—
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, if they think it expedient so to do for the purpose of preventing the destruction of undersized flat fish, make orders for prohibiting, either absolutely or subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be prescribed, the landing of any flat fish not exceeding the prescribed length."
He proposed by his Amendment to omit all the words after the word "prohibiting." and to insert in their place the following words—
"the landing from steam trawlers, steam carriers, and sailing smacks with auxiliary power or of 65 tons and upwards, of turbot and brill not exceeding 13 inches in length, and of soles and plaice not exceeding 11 inches in length."
He believed those were the only vessels which could possibly fish in these particular waters, and that if they limited it to them they would get all the good they could out of their proposal, and would make it perfectly clear to the owners of. and the fishermen working in. the smaller fishing-boats that it was not intended to at all interfere with them. He desired to limit the powers of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to dealing for this purpose with only certain vessels. With regard to the second part of his Amendment fixing the size below which fish should not be landed, the Bill at present left the limit to be laid down absolutely to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. He did not see any necessity for that at all. He thought a size should be definitely named in the Bill, and that the Department should not be allowed to go above that size, though they should have power to fix a size below the maximum laid down. He moved his Amendment in all friendliness towards the Bill, believing that, so far from injuring the measure, it would make it sounder and more efficient.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word 'prohibiting' to the word 'pro-
506
vided 'in line 10, and to insert the words' the landing from steam trawlers, steam carriers, and sailing smacks with auxiliary power or of sixty-five tons and upwards, of turbot and brill not exceeding 13 inches in length, and of soles and plaice not exceeding 11 inches in length."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
LORD HENEAGEwas afraid he could not agree with his noble friend that this Amendment would be of any assistance in passing the Bill. He thought it would have a contrary effect. The point they had before them was an extremely narrow one—namely, whether they were going to put a limit into the Bill with regard to the size of the fish and the boats. They had had various Bills before them at different times, and they had all been wrecked on exactly this point when they got to the House of Commons. The proposal now was to give powers to the Department so that they might use them in an experimental way in order to prevent the destruction of small fish. He believed that if they placed in the Bill the limits proposed it would meet the same fate as previous measures. He could not help regretting that after the exhaustive discussion that had taken place in Committee, and after the Amendment had been defeated there by six to one, his noble friend should have thought it necessary to bring it forward again in their Lordships' House. Wishing, as he did. to see the Bill passed through the other House, he strongly opposed the Amendment being inserted. He also objected to it on a second ground. As his noble friend had said, the ideal state of things was a convention of all the nations concerned, and he believed that to put an Amendment of this kind into the Bill and thereby prevent the Government from having a free hand in experiments, and in joining other nations in experiments, would be a fatal mistake. He did not believe that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would want to exercise undue powers; he did not believe that they would desire in the slightest degree to injure the trade. Of one thing, however, he was quite certain—that the trade at this moment was pretty well able to take care of itself, and the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would have a bad time if he attempted to go beyond the requirements and necessities of the case. It was

507
for these reasons that he strongly opposed taking away from the Department the power of exercising a free hand. Moreover, if they adopted the Amendment they would be going in the teeth of their own Report, which declared that it was very desirable to give the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries a free hand.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (The Earl of ONSLOW)said he welcomed the friendly spirit in which the noble Lord opposite had greeted the Bill. He quite understood that the Amendment which had been suggested to their Lordships was couched in terms which the noble Lord believed might facilitate the passage of the Bill in another place. But he would venture to point out to the noble Lord that there were many classes of persons engaged in the fishing industry, and it was quite possible that if they passed an Act preventing interference with trawlers of sixty-five tons or under a great many who now took a lively interest in the passing of this measure would cease to do so. They must recollect that the very large steam trawling industry would strongly object to a possibility of sailing-vessels coming in and fishing where they were either prohibited from going or where it would be useless for them to go if they could not land fish under a certain size limit. The noble Lord had quite correctly described the object of the Government in introducing the Bill. It was not proposed to prevent the destruction of every small flat fish in the North Sea. There were a very large number of His Majesty's subjects who exercised a calling which provided them with a somewhat precarious living and which necessitated the capture and even the sale of a number of small fish. The Bills which had been introduced in former sessions had invariably been directed at the act of sale. The object of this Bill was to protect not the whole, but a large portion of the small fiat fish in the North Sea. The idea was that by an order of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries it should be made no longer worth the while of the large steam trawlers to go to the eastern grounds where small fish most abounded. But if it was to be limited exclusively to steam trawlers and to the very large sail-
508
ing trawlers, the day might come when the smaller vessels of sixty-four tons and under might say that here was a rich ground to which the large steam vessels were debarred from going, and they would go there and reap the harvest which was denied to the larger vessels. He did not think it would be necessary for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to put in operation an order which would affect any other vessels than those described in the Amendment of the noble Lord. At the same time he thought it would be rash if Parliament were to deprive the Department of elasticity of powers in regard both to the vessels and the size of the fish. As regarded the latter point his noble friend was well aware that the evidence given before the Committee tended to show that there was considerable variation in the size of small fish at different periods and at different times, and that a size limit which would be perfectly efficient to-day might not be so ten years hence. Again, the North Sea was not the only part of the coast of these islands where it might be desirable to protect undersized fish. He had received a representation only the other day from the Solway Firth in which he was strongly urged that a limit of eight inches for plaice and soles would be heartily welcomed by all those who fished there. He did not say that the moment had arrived when that should be done, but he thought that where there was a general consensus of opinion in I favour of adopting a size limit in any part of the territorial waters the Department over which he presided ought not to be debarred from giving effect to the wishes of those who fished in the particular waters concerned.
It was quite true that his Board had only recently taken over the Fisheries Department, but they had exercised powers of a very similar nature for many years past in the interests of agriculturists. They had had to impose orders which no doubt at first were considered somewhat onerous and vexatious, but ho ventured to think that the Board of Agriculture had never gone beyond the mature opinion of the agriculturists of the country, and that the orders had always been framed in the interests, and with the general consent, of those for

509
whom they were acting. He therefore asked their Lordships to believe that in the matter of fisheries the Board would not act in any manner different from that in which they had acted in agricultural matters. He would have no objection to accepting the Amendment if he thought that it would be easy to persuade Parliament next session, or in any succeeding session, to give such further powers as experience might prove to be necessary, but the fishing industry had been suing at the doors of Parliament for years past, and many Bills had been introduced not only by private Members but by the representative of the Board of Trade in both Conservative and Liberal Administrations, but none of those measures had ever passed into law. With that experience before them it would, he thought, be most unwise to tie the hands of the Department in the hard-and-fast manner proposed by the noble Lord, more especially as the Select Committee, of which the noble Lord was a member, had added a clause to the Bill which so far curtailed the powers of the Department in this direction as to provide that no order of the Board should come into force until it had been laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and every opportunity given for its consideration, and, if necessary in the interest of the fishing industry, its alteration. With that safeguard given to Parliament he thought they might safely entrust to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries elastic powers, especially in view of the fact, as already stated by Lord Heneage, that the fishing industry was well organised, and that it would be very difficult for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to fly in the face of the expressed wishes of that industry.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid this demand for a limit with regard to the taking of flat fish was purely a North Sea demand. This Bill had arisen out of a desire that there should be some such arrangements made in regard to the North Sea. The mass of these small fish were on the far side of the North Sea. Unless they could somehow or other induce the nations on the other side of the North Sea to prevent their men fishing on those grounds, His Majesty's Government never would be
510
able to enforce it against their own people. The noble Earl himself, in the Report which he drafted, had made it clear that he looked upon this Bill as a method of giving a lead to other nations. The noble Earl hoped other nations would take a similar course, and that the result would be that the larger vessels of all nations would be induced not to fish in those waters at the time they were so full of small fish. For his part, he would like to see a close time in those waters against all nations. If they thought that by any legislation in this country they were going permanently to exclude the trawlers of Great Britain from fishing there while the waters remained open to French, Danish, and Dutch trawlers, they were mistaken. Therefore he held that it was best to show clearly to foreign nations that they meant only to put a certain restriction on the wholesale catches of fish. Foreign nations, when they saw that it was not proposed to interfere with their small fishermen, would be much more likely to agree to some restriction on their bigger fishing boats. He did not propose to place any limitation whatever on the powers of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to make whatever regulations they thought fit as to the size of fish to be prohibited from being landed, except that he wished to provide that they should not prohibit the landing of turbot and brill above thirteen inches in length and of soles and plaice over eleven inches in length, at which size they were quite marketable
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid the bulk of the evidence went to show that there was practically very little market for small fish on the Continent. Of course, it would be in the power of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to prohibit the landing of undersized fish from foreign ships of any tonnage.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that in his opinion the evidence on the first point was conflicting.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Verbal Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid that the next Amendment standing in his name

511
was merely to enable the Board to make use, for the purposes of carrying out the Act, of the officers appointed by the fisheries committees round the coast.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, line 23, after the word 'or' to insert the words 'any fishery officer appointed under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, or, in England or Wales, any officer appointed in that behalf.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWexplained that there were a number of different kinds of soles, and he proposed to insert the scientific title of the common sole—namely, solea vulgaris—for the purpose of avoiding any possible misdescription.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 2, line 10, after the word sole' to insert the words solea vulgaris'."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid the object of the next Amendment standing in his name was to apply the Act to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 2, line 21, after the word 'Fisheries' to insert the words 'and a reference to the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, shall be substituted for the reference to the Sea Fisheries Resulation Act, 1888.' "—( The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid his next Amendment was drafted with the object of giving to the City of London the same powers as were possessed by the county councils, the City Corporation having, within its jurisdiction, the only fish markets existing in the Metropolis.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 2, after line 21, to insert the words 'In the application of this section to the administrative county of London references to the "mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London in common council assembled" shall be substituted for references to the council of a county or borough.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:—
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that in his last Amendment he had endeavoured to limit the powers of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, but in the Amendment which he now moved, he desired to extend those powers. If the opening words of Clause 2, which he proposed to delete, remained in the clause the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would be limited, so far as this clause was concerned, to matters affecting the prevention of the destruction of undersized flat fish. He desired these words cut out because he thought the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries should have power over every kind of fish in the sea all round the coast. Already they had in different parts of England a number of sea fisheries committees, which had done an immense amount of useful work, especially those in Lancashire and Northumberland; and he thought it would be a great advantage if the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries had the power of securing uniformity wherever possible between the action of; the various fisheries committees. He thought it would be a good thing for the Board to have concurrent powers with those committees as to regulations, which would enable them to fill in the gaps where fisheries committees did not exist at present, or where they might fall in in the future. The noble Earl would be well advised in taking this additional power for his Board, and he, therefore, trusted ho would see his way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 2, page 2, line 33, to leave out the words 'for the purpose of preventing the destruction of any undersized flat fish'."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYhoped that His Majesty's Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. It seemed to him that to confine the Bill simply to the prevention of the destruction of immature fish was rather a timid action on the part of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and he thought it would be a good thing if opportunity were taken of this Bill to enable the Board to secure the powers which the noble Lord proposed should be given to them. At

513
the present time there were many anomalies existing. Foreign trawlers, for instance, that fished in the Moray Firth were allowed to land the. fish in English ports, whilst they were precluded from landing them in Scottish ports. This Amendment would give to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries power to assimilate the various by-laws. He understood that the same thing was going on in the Clyde, where waters which were closed to home trawlers by the order of the Fisheries Board were being fished by trawlers under a foreign flag, and the fish were being landed in Lancashire, where a very extensive market was being got for them. That was an anomaly which was creating very great heartburning in Scotland. Their experiments were useless as long as foreign vessels were allowed to go there and catch fish and land them in England. Therefore he thought it would be wise for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take the powers which the Amendment would give them to remove this anomaly. Lord Tweedmouth had been told that the Committee were six to one against him in regard to his first Amendment, but on the subject which their Lordships now had before them the Committee were unanimously in favour of something being done, for in their Report they declared that it was desirable that so far as possible there should be greater uniformity of bylaws round the whole of the coast, and they expressed the opinion that Clause 2 of the Bill would tend in that direction. It was true quite that the clause would tend in that direction, but, if the words which the noble Lord proposed to strike out were left in, it limited the Bill to the prevention of the destruction of undersized flat fish. He hoped that if the numbers in the House were sufficient the noble Lord would divide on the Amendment, and that if there were not a sufficient number of noble Lords present to go to a division, he would bring it up at a future stage.
LORD HENEAGEsaid his noble friend had apparently forgotten that by international law foreigners were entitled to fish at a distance of three miles from the shore outside the territorial waters, and that neither any by-law in Scotland or
514
any where else could possibly prevent them. Having that right, the noble Lord asked the House to deprive them of the right of selling their fish in English ports, which they had always up to the present time enjoyed and which was hoped—and hoped sometimes in vain—would encourage them to give to British trawlers the same right in their ports. The Bill, as introduced and read a second time, was to prevent the destruction of undersized fish, and it had been thoroughly thrashed out before a Select Committee on that principle. Witnesses were never called with regard to any other question except to the best way of stopping the destruction of undersized flat fish. To now put in the Bill a clause which would be a red rag to every fisherman round the coast would be a great mistake. He hoped uniformity might be promoted amongst the various fishery committees, but he did not wish to see this Bill turned into one for enforcing by-laws which the English fisherman objected to so much.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid he did not know which to admire most, the solicitude of the noble Lord opposite to protect the fishermen of the country from the tyranny of the Board of Agriculture or the confidence which he reposed in that Board in his desire to give it power to make by-laws on any subject connected with fishing round the whole of the coast. He viewed with some misgiving the idea of throwing open the Bill to other purposes than that of the prevention of the destruction of undersized flat fish. A great deal of what his noble friend aimed at in regard to the uniformity of by-laws was already provided, for there was power given to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to make bylaws themselves in cases where there were no fishery committees, and to assimiliate the by-laws which existed so far as they applied to undersized fish. The noble Marquess opposite had alluded to the anomaly of foreign vessels not being permitted to land fish in Scotland but being permitted to land them in England. He admitted that that was an anomaly, but he did not think it would be proper to deal with it in a Bill of this sort. It should be dealt with in an entirely separate measure. He had considerable

515
sympathy with the views of his noble friend, though he was afraid he had not quite as much sympathy with the policy which closed the Moray Firth to British trawlers. But, be that as it might, he did not think it would be wise to extend the scope of the Bill.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he did not wish to force powers on the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries which they did not wish to possess, and he would not, therefore, persist in his Amendment. But he thought it was an anomalous state of things that all round the coast they had fishery committees able to deal with all sorts of fishing in their jurisdiction, whilst the principal Department in London had only power in regard to the prevention of the destruction of undersized flat fish. Surely they might have equal powers with the sea fishery committees to deal with the catching of round fish as well as flat fish.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived.
The House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.