Lords Sitting of 26 April 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of Richard Jaeger's Patent—(Petition for Bill) ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill. Read, and agreed to.
  Ebbw Vale Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  Great Northern and City Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Corbridge Gas Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
  South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill [H.L.]; Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
  Shipley Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Hampton-in-Arden Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway (Steamboats) Bill; St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
  Mid-Cheshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. The Lord BALFOUR informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. The orders made on the 26th of February and Friday last discharged. Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
  Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Provisional Order. Ordered, That the evidence taken before the Committee of this House on the Bill for the Motherwell and Bellshill Railway Act, 1900, be referred to the Commissioners appointed under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to inquire into the Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Draft Provisional Order, 1904.
  Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on
  1166
  the Table. The orders made on the 4th and 24th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
  Thurles Urban District Council Water Bill; Wolverhampton Corporation Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  Appleby Corporation Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Southend Water Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  King's College Hospital Bill [H.L.]; Ilford Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; West Riding Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [H.L.]; St. Mary Woolnoth Bill [H.L.]; Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]; North Wales Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Oakengates, Dawley, and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ellenborough be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Rosmead; read, and agreed to.
  Manchester Ship Canal Bill [H.L.]; Trafford Park Dock and Railway Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]; Stretford Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz., E. Romney, E. Lytton, L. Bateman, L. Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Glanusk (Chairman); agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 4th of May next at eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 53.)

  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, there is a Motion standing in my name that Standing Order No. 93 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect to a Petition of the East Ham Urban District Council. I may explain that this Petition was late owing to a misunderstanding as to the date on which the Bill was read a first time in your Lordships' House. It was not thought that it would be read a first time before the Easter recess, and the opponents did not notice that it had so been. I have seen the parties in the case, and both the promoters and the opponents of the Bill are agreeable that the Petition should be presented. In those circumstances, I move that the Standing Order be suspended and that the Petition be allowed to be presented.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No. 93 be considered in order to its being dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the East Ham Urban District Council."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to,
  Leave give to present the said Petition.

NEW BILL.
  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read la; and to be printed. (No. 52.)
  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  Committed; The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3144. United States (Texas).
  No. 3145. Germany (Chemnitz).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY): My Lords, your Lordships have constantly discussed the question whether some legislation on this subject is not required, and by the consent of both sides of the House it has been agreed that some legislation is required. There is a great and advancing evil which it is necessary to meet, and it is urgent that steps should be taken to diminish what has been described as a canker which is eating away the commercial honesty of a great many classes in this country. Your Lordships are familiar with the provisions of this Bill. I have taken means to ascertain the reception which the Bill met with in the House of Commons, and I have accepted, with one exception, the Amendments which were made in Grand Committee. That, of course, ought to clear the way for the complete acceptance of the Bill. The exception is one which I shall insist upon as essential to any such Bill—it is the veto of the Attorney-General. I am unwilling to be a party to anything that will promote evils even worse than the corruption which the Bill is intended to put down. I do not think that any one who has not examined into the subject can appreciate the extent to which a Bill of this kind might be used for the purpose of blackmail unless this provision was inserted. It is the fear of being accused that the blackmailer avails himself of. One of the Amendments suggested as an alternative to the veto of the Attorney-General was that an indictment under this Bill should be part of the legislation in respect to what is called the vexatious indictment procedure. That

1169
is not a sufficient safeguard against blackmailing, because if the case we nt before a magistrate there would be publicity of the accusation, and it is publicity that the blackmailer makes the great instrument of oppression. If, however, the blackmailer has to obtain the permission of the Attorney-General, there will be no publicity if the law officer of the Crown decides that it is not a case in which a prosecution should be instituted. Moreover, a blackmailer is the last person in the world to pay a visit to the Attorney-General to ask for his permission to proceed with a prosecution. I hope your Lordships will read the Bill a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill now be read 2a"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack knows the estimation in which I hold his opinion in matters of legislation and how strongly I am disposed to support this Bill. But I must say that I heard with great regret the statement which the noble and learned Lord has just made, because I fear that, if the provision to which he has referred is persisted in, the Bill is not likely to pass into law. I do not think my noble and learned friend can be aware how widespread is the view among commercial men and the legal profession against the safeguard which he thinks so necessary, and I am afraid he does not recognise what is the fact, that the House of Commons will decline to pass the Bill with this provision in it. I am informed that it is strongly felt that if this safeguard — this so-called safeguard—is inserted, the Bill will, for all ordinary purposes, become nugatory. I have no doubt that where there are important prosecutions to be supported, persons in a position to employ solicitors will be able to secure the Attorney-General's fiat; but the chief object of this Bill, so far as I have understood it from its inception, is to produce, if possible, a more honest method of dealing in every-day life. Even in domestic matters we know of great evils that spring from this system of secret commissions, and persons are daily defrauded by those in
1170
their households who really ought to be their guardians. If a man in the country wished to bring to light some such evil, the initial step under this Bill would not be to take proceedings at once and let the matter be determined then and there before a magistrate. No; he would have to employ a solicitor who in his turn would have to engage an agent in London, file affidavits, and marshal all the evidence to be adduced. This substantial expense would have to be incurred before the fiat of the Attorney-General could be obtained, and all this, perhaps, in order to bring to light an offence of a domestic character. Do your Lordships really think that any ordinary person will undertake to go through this process in order to institute a prosecution for an offence under the Bill. Why, I ask, is this exception made in this case? I cannot see how the possibilities of blackmail can be greater in these prosecutions than in others. Persons can be given in custody straight away for embezzlement and other serious offences, yet under this Bill it will be necessary, even in small matters of a domestic character, to adopt the cumbrous procedure set forth. The matter, of course, is in the hands of my noble and learned friend, but I fear that, with this provision in it, an obstacle is created to the passing of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All I can say is that experience shows that blackmailing is on the increase, and I will not be a party to any Bill which does not contain the safeguard that I have indicated. I may add that those who have preceded me in introducing measures of this character have come round to my view on this point, and your Lordships have twice passed a Prevention of Corruption Bill containing this provision, against which no new reason has been given.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WARSHIP TRIALS.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the damage to local fisheries that may be caused by the trials of warships on the new measured

1171
mile off Polperro; whether he has taken, or will take, the opinion of fishery experts on this subject; and what proposals are to be put forward by the Admiralty for compensation to the local fishermen for any damage done during the course of such trials to the fisheries or to their boats and gear.
The facts on which my Question is founded can be briefly stated, and, I think, involve no controversial matter. The Admiralty are in need of a measured mile somewhere in close proximity to Plymouth for the purpose of the speed trials of His Majesty's ships of war. I believe that the original intention was to have this measured mile somewhere in Whitesand Bay. There were also proposals for it to be between Rame Head and the Eddystone Lighthouse, and, so far as the fishermen were concerned, I am sure that locality would have been the one they would have greatly preferred. The Admiralty, however, after careful consideration, have come to the conclusion that the most suitable place is off the fishing village of Polperro, and arrangements have been made for the measured mile to be located there. The Admiralty have bought certain pieces of land on the rocks, on which they have erected two of the most successful eyesores that have been put up in any part of Great Britain. That, however, is no part of my business, though it does seem a pity that ugliness should necessarily be conjoined with utility. I am afraid the noble Earl opposite may hear a good deal of this subject from that brotherhood of artists who make their home on the Cornish coast, but I will not say any more about it.
The point I wish to bring out is what I believe to be the justifiable anxiety of the fishermen on the coast— in Fowey, Looe, Polperro, and the other fishing villages. All these little ports on the coast are inhabited by the same sort of fishermen—fishermen with small undecked or partly-decked boats, who rely for their fishing on the waters close to the shore, probably largely within the territorial waters. The measured mile is as I understand, to be within a mile and a half of the coast off Polperro. A mile and a half at sea is a very short distance indeed, and I
1172
think your Lordship will realise what a disturbance in the water one of these great battleships going along at full-speed must necessarily make.
The fishermen are anxious on three grounds. First, they are anxious as to what the result maybe to their comparatively small boats. They are afraid that the wash of these great vessels will subject them to some danger, and they also think that even boats lying in the harbour of Polperro itself— which is nothing but one of those little inlets running into the land so common on the Cornish coast —will be damaged by being knocked together as the result of the wash of these large men-of-war being, as it were, focussed up the channel of the inlet. Next, they are afraid of the actual disturbance to the fisheries themselves on the fishing grounds which these boats frequent, and in the centre of which this measured mile is to be located, It will be said, no doubt, that the trials of these ships will only take place on perhaps twenty or thirty days during the year. That may be so, but what I want the House to remember is this, that the real harvest for the fishermen on this coast, as in many other places, occurs when a big shoal of migratory fish is on their particular fishing ground. That is especially the case off the coast of Cornwall. These fishermen rely for their important harvests on the occasions when shoals of pilchards, mackerel, and the like are close in shore and when they can get at them. I do not think it requires great knowledge to realise that, if a big shoal of pilchards or mackerel was on the particular ground through which this measured mile runs at the time that a great battleship was being driven full speed through it, the fish would almost inevitably be dispersed, and the fishermen would lose their great chance of a large haul. That is one point. I will not press the possible damage that might be done to other more regular forms of fishing, but even to those there is a risk of some damage.
I now come to the danger of damage being done to the gear of the fishermen. The migratory fish to which I have referred are caught by drift-nets, which are set in the water at the depth at which the fishermen judge that the

1173
particular shoal is at the time. The usual depth to set drift-nets for pilchards and mackerel is from eighteen to twenty feet below the surface, and the damage which will be done to a fleet of nets by a great battleship running down the centre of them is obvious. It is, of course, a necessity that the Admiralty should have a proper site for a measured mile. I grant that at once. But if it involves loss and damage to other of His Majesty's lieges it is the country at large which ought to bear the responsibility for the cost. The case calls for a very favourable and a very kindly and generous consideration, and I would press it all the stronger on my noble friend because these fishermen are to a large extent the very class from which the Navy draws many of its best men.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY(The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords. There is no class of civilians in this country for whom the Board of Admiralty naturally have greater sympathy than for the fishermen around our coasts. What the noble Lord has said in respect to them is perfectly true and the Board of Admiralty always has, and always will approach any question affecting their welfare as one of great interest to themselves and as indirectly affecting the welfare of the Navy. But so far as I am in a position to form an opinion, the alarm to which my noble friend has given expression is really unnecessary, and at all events premature. This is not a new question. The question of a particular site for a measured mile course—the need for which, of course, my noble friend fully admits — is a very old-standing question, and the site we are now discussing was fixed upon no less than six years ago, after very prolonged examination, as the best possible site. There has never been any secret in the matter. There was some difficulty in obtaining land on which to erect the leading marks, owing to the architectural difficulties to which my noble friend has made allusion, and it was only within the last few months that this land was finally acquired and these leading marks were begun to be erected. Although the question was raised six years ago, and although there was no mystery about it, it was only when the leading marks were practically
1174
finished and the measured mile was about to be used that any objection was made. My noble friend has not raised the aesthetic question and therefore I will not deal with it, but in respect of the fishing ho has not mentioned that this water is very deep. It is a deep coast and this question of possible injury to fishermen's gear has not been neglected. I am advised, however—and so far as I am in a position to form an opinion, although I am no expert, I am rightly advised—that the chance of injury to fishermen or their gear is very improbable. That being the case I cannot undertake to answer a hypothetical question as to what compensation the Admiralty would be prepared to give for injury which has not arisen, and which I do not think is likely to arise. I can only say, and my noble friend Lord Spencer will confirm me, that whatever questions as to injury to fishermen by His Majesty's Navy have arisen in the past, the Admiralty has never dealt with such questions either unsympathetically or in a niggardly manner.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment.
House adjourned at Five o'clock' to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.