Lords Sitting of 16 February 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:— Barnard Castle Gas [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway [H.L.]
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Bristol Tramways (Extension).
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:— Govan Burgh (Electricity).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [H.L.] Presented; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
Lancashire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; West Riding Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth Gas Bill [H.L.]; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill [H.L.]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]; Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway (Extension of Time, &c.) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a.
Dumbarton Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a [The Lord Kintore (E. Kintore)], and reported from the Committee. (No. 12.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  COLONIES (MISCELLANEOUS).
  No. 26. Northern Nigeria. Report on a series of mineral and vegetable products
  1454
  from Northern Nigeria, by Professor W. R. Dunstan, Director of the Imperial Institute.

  AFRICA, No. 3 (1904).
  Correspondence respecting the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal.

  TREATY SERIES, No. 3 (1904).
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and Italy providing for the settlement by arbitration of certain classes of questions which may arise between the two Governments; signed at Rome, 1st February, 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL (ARMY PRIZE MONEY AND LEGACY FUNDS, 1902–1903.)
  Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital (for services other than those voted by Parliament), in the year ended 31st March, 1903; together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Twelfth Annual Report of the proceedings of the Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks, for the year ended 20th November, 1903; with appendix.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM.
  Statement of the funds, 5th January, 1904. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SEA FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, undersized flat fish have not been fortunate at the hands of Parliament. Many Bills have been brought in to endeavour to preserve them, but none of them have succeeded in commanding the support of both Houses of Parliament. As long ago as 1888 this question was brought before Parliament by a conference of those interested in the trawling

  1455
  industry. Some of them waited upon me as a deputation a short time ago, and one or two of those gentlemen pathetically observed that most of those who had originally taken part in urging this question had now joined the great majority. A Bill was brought in by Mr. Bryce, then President of the Board of Trade, in 1895. Another Bill was brought in by the present Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (the Earl of Dudley), then representing the Board of Trade in this House, both in 1896 and 1897. In 1898 my noble friend Lord Heneage brought in a Bill, and in 1899 a measure was introduced by Lord Camperdown, and the last Bill on the subject was one brought in by Mr. Ritchie when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1900. That Bill was referred to a Commitee, which considered it very carefully. The Committee reported that in their opinion it had been established that there were certain well-known areas in the North Sea where small and young fish congregate, and that if we could prevent fishing in such areas it would obviously be of great value. They further reported that the proposal in the Bill to prevent the sale of undersized flat fish would introduce certain harassing conditions upon those who carried on their business along the shore and in the smaller trawling vessels, and in those circumstances the Committee thought it would not be expedient for the Bill to pass without further investigation; but they added that they were confident that the question of the diminution of he fish supply was a very pressing one and that the situation was going from bad to worse. No effort, they thought, ought to be spared to provide especially for the regulation of the Nort Sea area and for the adequate equipment of the Government Department which had control of the subject. Since then the catch of fish has, it is true, not materially fallen off, but the area to which the vessels go— from Iceland in the North to Portugal in the South—has increased enormously, as also has the number of vessels engaged in the trade. Therefore I do not think that the former statistics are at all comparable with the statistics obtainable to-day.
  If your Lordships are pleased to give this Bill a Second Reading I propose to
  1456
  ask you to send it to a Select Committee of this House, before whom I believe I shall be able to lay an amount of evidence which was not before the Committee of 1900, and which, if it had been before that Committee, would, I think, very materially have influenced their decision. This question is not one which is being brought forward by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on its own mere notion. It has been pressed upon it on all sides by those who are interested in the fishing industry. It has been pressed upon it by the owners of those large fleets that go to the North Sea to pursue their business, and it has been pressed equally by the various fisheries committees throughout the Kingdom. A very large sum of public money is being expended in investigation and research. This country joined an International Conference which was to inquire, among other things, into the reason why the supply of flat fish in the North Sea was being gradually depleted. A sum of £42,000 has been voted to be expended in three years. The investigations are to last for a longer period than that, but for at least three years this country is committed to an expenditure of £42,000 in the aggregate for the purpose of those investigations. After that it will be necessary to reconsider our position. When that £42,000 was authorised there was no Department specially concerned with the administration of the fisheries. Certain statutory duties concerning the interests of the fishing population of England and Wales were entrusted to the Board of Trade. It was therefore thought advisable to hand this sum of money over to two existing bodies, to the Scottish Fisheries Board and to the Marine Biological Association. The latter is a scientific institution, whose headquarters are at Plymouth, which is primarily, in fact I think I may say entirely, a biological association managed and administered by biologists; they have directed the investigations under their control more particularly to the direction and the temperature of the currents in the North Sea plankton, and also to that curious floating organism which is the fish food found in all parts of the ocean; but they have not directed their attention, at any rate to any great extent, in the direction of ascertaining what are the

  1457
  sizes of the fish caught, the localities in which they are caught, where they pass the different periods of their lives, and where they can be caught with least detriment to this industry. These things have been rather, I think, put aside, and indeed our Minister at Copenhagen has represented to His Majesty's Government that, while England has by far the largest take of fish, she is the most backward in giving information on the subjects to which I have just directed your Lordships' attention. When the time comes for a reconsideration of the relationship of this country to the other countries taking part in the conference, at the end of the first three years, I think it will be necessary very carefully to consider whether those two bodies to whom the expenditure of Great Britain's very large pecuniary contribution is entrusted are those most competent to expend it wisely and well. In addition to this sum £1,600 a year is expended by the Department over which I have the honour to preside in ascertaining the total catch and the total value of the fisheries of this country, and a further £1,000 a year is given for scientific purposes to the Marine Biological Association. I am happy to say that, owing to the generosity of one of the great City Livery Companies—the Fishmongers' Company—we have had the advantage of having placed at our disposal facilities which have enabled us to prosecute inquiries a little further. Under those arrangements we have been able to ascertain the fish brought into the market at Billingsgate and to divide them into three classes—namely, "large," "medium," and "small," and carefully to analyse them. From these returns we find that, during the months of March to July inclusive, the fleets fishing in the area off the Danish coast, in the nighbourhood of Heligoland, took very large quantities of small plaice. In 1902 the proportion of these fish to the total take was 82·6 per cent. by weight and 71·8 per cent. by value; in 1903 it was 69·2 per cent. by weight and 56·2 per cent by value. The term "small plaice" is however, merely a market distinction and includes fish from six inches to fifteen inches in length.
  The investigations which I have referred to were conducted so as to ascertain the average proportion of fish
  1458
  of each size in a box of small plaice obtained from these grounds. A sufficient number of boxes to constitute a fair sample of the whole were bought on the market, and their contents, consisting of over 40,000, were measured. Similarly a sufficient number of each length were weighed so as to establish the average relation between length and weight. The average contents of a box was thus established, and by applying such knowledge to the statistical returns it was found that the fleets fishing on the Eastern grounds referred to had in 1902 an average catch of over 40 per cent., and in 1903 over 36 per cent. by weight of plaice under ten inches, and, in 1902, of over 60 per cent., and in 1903, of 53 per cent. by weight of plaice under eleven inches. I think that conclusively proves that the vessels which go out to fish in this great nursery ground in the North Sea bring home a very large number of fish which, if they were allowed to grow to mature size, would enormously increase the amount of the food supply.
  This Bill is of a somewhat elastic character, and I have so drafted it because the Icthyological Committee which sat in 1903 recommended that, in view of the difficulty of carrying out reliable investigations as to the effect of natural causes on the supply of fish, the effect of such operations on the fisheries could best be tested by regulating such operations experimentally, and it is experimentally that we desire to proceed in this Bill. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth is not in his place, because he has taken a great interest, from the beginning, in all these fisheries questions. I have read carefully the objections which he advanced against the Bills that have been introduced in former years. One suggestion which he made was that this ought to be dealt with rather by international agreement than by legislation in this country. There is nothing in this Bill which will prevent our entering into any international agreement, but that is a matter involving considerable time and a great deal of waiting, and we cannot afford to wait in this matter. I think your Lordships will see that it is highly desirable that this country at any rate should proceed as rapidly as possible to do something to prevent the destruction of undersized fish

  1459
  in the great nursery grounds of the North Sea.
  The Board of Agriculture, to which has been referred the duties of watching over the fisheries, has for many years been entrusted by Parliament with discretionary powers by way of Order. That was originally done in the case of diseases of animals, and the object of the Board, which has been completely attained, has been, not to force public opinion, but to endeavour, as far as possible, to follow and to live up to it. We have begun with Orders which, perhaps, have been by many people thought not sufficiently stringent. We have increased from time to time their stringency, and in the case of diseases of animals we are at present most loyally supported by those who are interested in agriculture, in our desire to stamp out the diseases which we have not already obliterated. It is in the same way that we hope to proceed by this Bill. If you look at Clause I you will observe that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are to be empowered to make Orders for the purpose of preventing the destruction of undersized flat fish, either absolutely or subject to such exemptions or conditions as may be prescribed.
  The matters which we shall have to consider, and which the Committee will have to consider, are, first, what months in the year shall that prescription apply to; secondly, what is the class of vessels which shall be prohibited from landing undersized fish; and, thirdly, what shall be the size of fish the landing of which shall be prohibited. Under the former Bills it was an offence to sell any fish under a certain size, that size being prescribed in the Bill, and it was stated, with, I daresay, a great deal of truth, that as that applied indiscriminately to everybody engaged in fishing, it might work great hardship to the small people along the shore, who, although they may destroy a certain number of undersized fish, do nothing like the damage done by trawlers in the North Sea. The object of this Bill is to exempt many small boats catching undersized fish to an extent which is infinitesimal compared to the resources of the sea, but which may be of vital importance to the immediate owner in obtaining his livelihood. Such vessels may be found at Rams gate, Brixham, and, indeed, all round the coast, and I do not propose to interfere
  1460
  with people getting such a livelihood. It is true that it is impossible to avoid catching these small fish if you go to the ground where they are, but we believe, from the evidence before us, that it will not be worth the while of the trawlers to go to these nurseries of small fish if you prevent them from landing them after they have been caught. They will go to other parts of the North Sea, and these nurseries will be preserved as breeding grounds for the fish.
  Perhaps I may explain how it comes that this particular area is the breeding ground of the North Sea. The current is always running from West to East, the spawn of the fish floats in the water and is carried by the current into that angle between the North of Germany and Jutland; it cannot get any further and strikes up against the coast; the young fish are hatched out and travel back to the large banks adjoining Heligoland. If they are allowed to remain there a year undisturbed they become good sized fish, and swim out into the larger area of the North Sea. There is a clause in the Bill which gives power to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to prevent trawling within a three mile limit of the shore; that power is already in the hands of the fisheries committees all round the coast. There are, I think, 1,700 miles of coast line, and there are some parts where the prohibitions might with advantage be extended. All we ask is that Parliament should give to us the same powers as are now possessed by fisheries committees all round the coast. It is high time that England should set an example to other countries. Other countries have passed limits for fish, but we have no undersized limit in this country. I am informed that there is no sale for undersized fish on the Continent, and certainly the first vessels we should prohibit landing fish on these shores would be foreign vessels bringing them in when English vessels are prevented from doing so.
  We should first confine the prohibition to those steam carriers and large trawlers that go out to the North Sea. We are invited to do so by the great companies who own these trawlers and carriers, and I believe there is no difference of opinion

  1461
  amongst those who represent the great fishing interest upon this subject. The diminution of the fish food supply of this country is a very serious matter. It is one which at a very early date will inevitably come home to the population, particularly the poorer population, and unless something is done, at a very early date, my fear is that there will be a very serious diminution in the food supply of this country. This Bill is designed, as I have said, with a certain amount of elasticity, to enable us to proceed tentatively, so that if we make a false step we are able to retreat. I think the way in which the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has been supported by the farming interest in this country is such that I may safely ask your Lordships to give it a certain discretion in this matter. The Bills that have been introduced before have not been very successful, but I earnestly hope, and confidently expect, that a measure of this kind, which will not interfere with the small shrimper and the longshoreman round the coast, while it will impose a self-denying ordinance on the owners of large steam trawlers and carriers, will meet with but little opposition. I therefore invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a— (The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble friend on having put his shoulder to the wheel and brought forward this measure. Although it is a somewhat different measure from that brought forward in previous years, I, for my part, speaking as the President of the Sea Fisheries' Protection Association, prefer the lines on which it is drawn, because it is an enabling Bill; it is not a hard and fast measure. It will enable my noble friend who has the interest of sea fisheries and other fisheries to look after, to alter at various times his Orders by the light of experience, and that, I think, will be a very great gain, without having to go to Parliament. I do not propose to enter at all into those parts of my noble friend's speech in which he alluded to certain controversial subjects. These will be thoroughly threshed out in the Select Committee
  1462
  which he proposes to ask your Lordships to appoint. I should like to say that we who represent the sea fisheries industry do not look upon the Report of the Select Committee of 1900 with very much respect. We think it was rather a perfunctory examination of the question, and that the object of the Select Committee was rather more to cover the retreat of Mr. Ritchie in withdrawing his Bill than to get at any amount of satisfactory evidence. We prefer to go back to the Committee of 1893, presided over by my noble friend Lord Tweed-mouth, which thoroughly threshed out this question and took evidence on all sides. The opposition to the Bill was very well managed, but, notwithstanding that, this very large Committee, representing England, Scotland, and Ireland, were unanimously of opinion that it was time something was done to stop the destruction of undersized fish; they were also unanimously of opinion that, considering all the proposals made to them, there was only one possible way of doing it, and that was to prevent the sale of undersized fish. It was on the Report of that Committee that all these Bills were brought in, first by Mr. Bryce, then by Mr. Ritchie, and afterwards by myself. They were all framed on the Report of this Committee which had thoroughly threshed out the question. We do not, as I say, pay very much attention to the Report of the Committee of 1900, as we think that the recommendation that more scientific evidence was required was against the weight of evidence. The Committee stated distinctly that one of the causes of this diminution of the fish supply was undoubedly the destruction of immature fish. Again they said—
  "Your Committee find that the subject of the diminution of the fish supply is a very pressing one, and the situation is going from bad to worse."
  But, notwithstanding those statements, they decided that the measure should be postponed for want of more scientific evidence. We do not think that scientific evidence is of so very much importance. We think this a] practical question, on which practical men who go out to the North Sea have a far better knowledge than these scientific professors.

  1463
  This question has now been before the country for nearly twenty years. In 1888 and 1889 it was the subject of discussion before the Sea Fisheries' Association, when 200 delegates were present from England, Scotland, and Ireland; and in the following year there was also a large conference in which representatives were present from Belgium, Den- mark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain, and they were absolutely Unanimous with regard to the solution of the question, which was that the only possible chance was to stop the sale of undersized fish. My noble friend said just now that he thought a country like this ought to lead in promoting such legislation. Well, Mr. Ritchie, speaking seven years ago, made a very strong speech in favour of it, and he then said—
  "It is one of those questions on which oilier countries have moved, and on which we ought not to be behindhand."
  That was seven years ago; therefore what we have to do now is to make up for lost time. I hope the Bill will not only be given a Second Reading, but that it will successfully pass through the Select Committee and the other House of Parliament. I have much pleasure, as President of the Sea Fisheries' Protection Association, in giving the Bill my support.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to a Select Committee.

  RAILWAY RATES ON MILK AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any arrangements have been made by the Board with the railway companies with regard to the conditions affecting the carriage of milk and other agricultural produce. With regard to the latter part of my question— that which refers to other agricultural produce—I do not intend to trouble your Lordships at any length. It is a very complicated and difficult matter, and is chiefly, I imagine, a question of rates; but, at the same time, it is one of vital importance to the whole agricultural interest in the United Kingdom, and I cannot help hoping that the negotiations which I believe have been going on between the Board of Agriculture and the railway companies
  1464
  may be successful from our point of view, and that the President of the Board of Agriculture will be able to announce that he has made satisfactory arrangements with those companies. But on the question affecting the carriage of milk, I should like to trouble your Lordships with a few words, because the conditions are so extremely unsatisfactory to the agricultural community, Your Lordships may be aware that the only way in which milk can be carried on the railways is either at the parcels rate, which is practically a prohibitive rate, or at the owner's risk rate. As a matter of fact, nearly the whole of the milk trade is carried on at the owner's risk rate, and the unfortunate farmer is allowed no compensation for loss or damage to his milk. The railway companies only undertake to compensate when it has been proved that their servants have been wilfully neglectful.
  Those conditions are extremely unsatisfactory for the farmers, and I should like to read to your Lordships one or two typical cases. Here is the first. Milk duly consigned, carriage paid, takes eleven days to reach its destination — a distance of about 100 miles. The railway company, although repeatedly pressed, absolutely decline to make any compensation. Here is another case. Milk duly consigned, carriage paid, is spilt on the railway. The company admit this, but refuse to entertain a claim for compensation. The third case that I will quote is that of milk duly consigned, carriage paid, but never heard of again. The railway company said that they could find no trace whatever of the milk in question, and declined to give any compensation. I can assure your Lordships that those cases are typical of many hundreds throughout the kingdom, and what we hope the Board of Agriculture will be able to arrange is that the railway companies should admit responsibility and pay the farmer in cases of loss or damage.
  I should like also to call attention to the exceedingly insanitary state of the milk vans in hot weather. I have heard of cases in which fish has been sent in the same van as milk, and also a live boar. Milk has also been sent in the same van as offal from slaughter-houses, the stink from which was said to be abominable.

  1465
  The result is that in the hot weather the milk so sent is very liable to arrive at its destination sour and tainted, and is refused on that account by the consignee. What we desire is that there should be some special regulations under which milk should be carried in vans by itself, and that the vans should be properly cleaned and washed out. In many cases they are not swilled out half frequently enough. An individual farmer by himself is practically powerless to get any redress from the railway companies, and, as a consequence, many societies have, of late years, been started throughout the country to help the farmers in these and other matters, and representations have been made to the Board of Agriculture through these societies, giving cases of complaint, and urging the Board to take up this question on behalf of the farmers and endeavour to make more satisfactory arrangements with the railway companies.
  I cannot help thinking that the railway companies will accede to a request put before them by such a powerful institution as the Board of Agriculture. Our railways are managed by able and sensible men, and I feel convinced that they will find it to their own interests to accede to those demands. The present conditions do not favour an increase in the milk trade, for farmers get discouraged. I am confident that if there were better regulations and more chance of farmers getting compensation when they suffer loss on the railway, the trade would be increased, and in the end the railway companies would benefit. There is one thing certain, that under present conditions the servants of railway companies know that their masters will not have to pay if they are careless, and the result is that they are extremely careless. If the railway companies undertook to pay for damage, they would very soon make their servants much more particular and careful in handling the milk, and, therefore, I do not think that in the end the companies would have to pay very much by way of compensation.
  There is only one point further that I should like to submit to the President of the Board of Agriculture, and it is this. Is the noble Earl correctly reported as having said the other day that his Board intended at an early date
  1466
  to introduce a measure dealing with adulterated butter? I hope that may be so. We were all very much disappointed that no mention was made of the subject in His Majesty's most gracious Speech. It was alluded to last year, and a Bill dealing with the subject passed through several stages in the House of Commons; but, I suppose, mainly owing to the lamented death of Mr. Hanbury, and the dislocation that ensued at the Board of Agriculture, the Bill did not pass. I can assure the noble Earl that this is a very important matter, and one in respect of which we look to him for help. I hope that not only will a Bill be introduced, but that every effort will be made by the Government to get it passed into law this session.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, this is a matter of vital concern to Ireland, as well as to England. The Irish farmers' grievance is even greater than that of the English farmer, and I have no doubt that if anything is done the benefits of that measure will be extended to Ireland. I should like to point out one or two special points where this matter touches us in Ireland. The question roughly divides itself into one of rates and one of facilities. The question of rates is not so much for the Board of Agriculture as for the Board of Trade; but with regard to the question of facilities, the difficulties of the position are very much aggravated for the Irish farmer by the breaking of bulk in crossing the channel. It is practically impossible for the Irish farmer to get any redress. In these cases where a grievance exists of goods being injured in transit by what must be gross negligence, there is a difficulty of bringing it home to any of the different companies concerned, because there are more than one of them. I believe that the law is that the receiving company alone is responsible, and once they have handed over the consignment to a steamship company their responsibility ceases. The person sending the goods has to proceed against the company that receives them from him, and he cannot get any redress, for all that the company has to do is to prove that it passed the goods on to another company. That is one of our grievances. As regards other agricultural

  1467
  produce, I believe there are also great difficulties in the matter of proper sanitary precautions and so forth for the cross channel traffic, both as regards milk, butter, and other perishable traffic, and the cattle trade. But perhaps this is also rather within the purview of the Board of Trade, and therefore I will not detain the House upon it. I only rose for the purpose of emphasising the importance of this matter to Ireland, and of making an appeal to His Majesty's Government that any benefits extended to English farmers should be extended also to Irish farmers.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to reply first to the Question which the noble Earl has put to me, but of which he did not give me notice—the question as to the introduction of a Bill for the regulation of the sale of butter. The Speech of His Gracious Majesty was, I think, of an unusual length, and perhaps butter was one of those subjects which might with best advantage be left out in the competition for mention in the King's Speech. As it had been generally announced in the country that the Government intended to reintroduce the Bill, I do not think any disappointment can have occurred in the minds of agriculturists. As a matter of fact, Mr. Fellowes, who represents the Board of Agriculture in the other House, has already given a promise to that effect, and he will introduce the Bill probably on Monday or Tuesday next, and it will then be printed and circulated. The noble Lord who has just sat down appealed that whatever was meted out to England should be meted out equally to Ireland. I am afraid I must say that in my opinion the Irish farmer is in a much better position, so far as regards funds, than the English farmer. We in England are always trying to get a little money out of the Treasury, whereas the Irish farmer has a very large sum of money at the disposal of the Agricultural Department in Ireland; and, more than that, he has one of the ablest representatives to deal with the matter in Mr. Horace Plunkett, and I am sure that in his hands the interests of Irish farmers have no chance of being neglected.
  So far as the general question is concerned, I have been in correspondence
  1468
  with all the railway companies in England for some time past on the subject of facilities for agricultural traffic, and I shall hope, in the course of a few days, to lay upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament the correspondence which has taken place between us. Naturally, attention has been given to that very important trade, the milk trade. As the noble Lord has informed your Lordships, there are two rates —the owner's risk rate and the company's risk rate—and there is a material difference in the amount of the two. Not unnaturally the farmer prefers the lower rate, and the companies, when asked to compensate for loss, reply that if the owner chooses to send the goods at his own risk ho must take the loss. However, I am glad to say that in this matter, at any rate, the companies have been disposed to meet the agriculturists as fairly as could reasonably be expected. They tell me that whilst they must maintain their legal position in regard to traffic conveyed at owner's risk, it is their practice, in a friendly way, to consider on its merits every case of total loss, wilful pilfering, or misdelivery. I should have thought that the can of milk that went astray for eleven days did so owing to misdelivery, and I am surprised that the company refused to entertain the application for compensation. But it must be remembered that this is ex gratia and not a legal position that can be enforced.
  There is, I am afraid, a disposition to think that the Board of Agriculture can do a great deal more than they can. The only effective weapon is in the hands of every individual Member of Parliament, that is, to invite Parliament to refuse to consider any Bill which a particular company may put on the Table of the House unless they do so and so. That would be a strong step, and one which would not be supported in the country unless it was shown that the company treated those who sent produce by that railway in a manner which was manifestly inequitable and unfair. I have been lately considering whether it would not be to the greater advantage of farmers to send their goods at owner's risk, but to insure them. I believe that the difference between owner's risk, plus insurance, would be considerably less than if transmitted at company's risk, and I think that is worthy of their consideration. Farmers are, of course, entitled to ask

  1469
  that such a very delicate product as milk shall not be mixed up with anything which might easily taint it, such as fish. I can assure your Lordships that the Board of Agriculture have not lost sight of this very important question, but are in negotiation with the companies; and I hope to be able to show you exactly what the nature of those negotiations has been in the course of a very few weeks.

  THE CASE OF CAPTAIN HARRISON.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government what has been the result of the further communication which has been addressed by the Board of Trade to the Canadian Government relative to the ease of Captain Harrison, of the ss. "Grecian," who successfully appealed in this country against the suspension of his certificate in Canada, but was required to pay the costs of his appeal: and whether there is now any probability of Captain Harrison being recouped the costs referred to.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, in answer to the Question of my hon. friend I have to state that the circumstances of the case of the "Grecian," to which the noble Lord refers, were put by the Colonial Office to the Canadian Government. After careful consideration, the decision of the Canadian Government is that, as the master neglected to avail himself of his right of appeal to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in Canada, it is not considered that any obligation rests upon that Government to repay his expenses.

  THE STRANDING OF THE "ISLE OF LEWIS" AND THE "DRUMBAIN."
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government what were the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamer "Isle of Lewis," which drove ashore near Plymouth in October last; whether she was in ballast, and became unmanageable; and whether any formal investigation into the cause of the serious damage to this steamer has been held. Also, whether, in regard to the court of inquiry which investigated the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamer "Drumbain" in October last, any opinion was expressed by the court
  1470
  as to this disaster being caused by this vessel being light and in improper trim.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised two cases—the case of the "Isle of Lewis" and that of the "Drumbain." In the case of the "Isle of Lewis," the vessel took shelter in Plymouth in what may be described as a "whole gale" and was brought to an anchor. The master, however, found that the berth was likely to be a foul one owing to the proximity of another large steamer, and he hove up his anchors and navigated the vessel to what ho considered a safer berth. In letting go the anchors a second time, a terrific squall struck the vessel and turned her broadside on to wind and sea, with the result that she dragged her anchors and finally went on the rocks. No lives were lost. A preliminary inquiry was held, but no formal investigation, as the severity of the weather accounted for the vessel dragging her anchors. With regard to the "Drumbain," the court of inquiry stated their opinion that the vessel being light, and five feet by the stern, the sea and wind prevented her making good her course. This goes to show that, in setting the course, allowance should have been made for the drift caused by wind and sea; and, as such allowance was not made, the vessel did not make good her course. No lives were lost.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.