Lords Sitting of 25 June 1906

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North and South Shields Electric Railway Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Bill. Reported without Amendment.
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Bill; Kettering Water Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Metropolitan Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Brixham Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill. The consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [H.L.]; Hull Joint Dock Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Hackney Electricity Bill. Committed.
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Con-
562
firmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]. House again in Committee (according to order): Amendments m9.de: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Ascot District Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; Twickenham and Teddington Electric Supply Bill; Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Pontefract Corporation Bill; Edinburgh Corporation Bill; Lancashire Electric Power Bill; Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill; North West London Railway Bill; Bristol Corporation Bill. 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.) L. Clifford of Chudleigh (Chairman), L. Colchester,. L. Wynford, L. Ritchie, L. Sanderson;, agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 4th of July 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.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (KESTEVEN, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I do not propose to move the Amendment of which I have given notice. I have seen the Board of Agriculture and am satisfied with the Bill as it stands.
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETITION.
  THE EDUCATION BILL.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I desire to present to your Lordships a petition from the parents or guardians of children attending the Blackburn Church of England higher grade school, being a public elementary school in the diocese of Manchester, in favour of a continuance of denominational teaching.
  EDUCATION.
  Petition in favour of maintenance of existing religious teaching in Church of England schools; of parents and guardians of children attending school at Blackburn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3651. France (Martinique).
  No. 3652. Turkey (Erzeroum).

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1905. Report and statistics.
  (Dangerous Trades)—Statement of the action taken by the Home Office under the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1891, 1895, and 1901.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Return of advances made under the the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of February, 1906.

  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSION AT BLACK BECK, LANCASHIRE).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred in the gunpowder factory at Blackbeck, Lancashire, on April 30th, 1906.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Return of all loans raised in India chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the
  564
  half-year ended March 31st, 1906, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, &c.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT, 1888.
  Order made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the provisions of the above Act for the variation of an order for uniting the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries District.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CONVEYANCING BILL [H.L.] (No. 137). SETTLED LAND BILL [H.L.] (NO. 138). MARAIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.](NO. 139).
  Report from the Select Committee (with Proceedings of the Committee), made, and to be printed. (No. 136.): Bills reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended.
  EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWrose "To call attention to the proceedings of the International Council for the investigation of the North Sea; and to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries whether he would lay on the Table of the House the Reports of the British Delegates attending those meetings since the year 1902; and whether the investigations were likely to be continued after next year; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government intended to take further part in them; and to move for Papers."
  The Noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting these Questions I ask leave to direct your attention to the circumstances which have led up to the present state of affairs in connection with the International Council. The subject arose as long ago as the year 1885. At that time a Trawling Commission reported that there was undoubtedly a progressive diminution in the supply of edible fish in the North Sea, and shortly afterwards

  565
  an invitation was received from Norway and Sweden to take part in some Internation Conference or Council to inquire into this important subject, affecting as it does the food supply of a large portion of the population both of this country and of our Continental neighbours. The Foreign Office replied that Great Britain would join—
  "if it is clearly understood that the main object with which the proposed researches are to be undertaken is the question as to whether any existing methods of fishing are or are not exercising a detrimental effect on the supplies of fish."
  That has been the key note of the position of this country throughout the whole of the sittings of the Council, but I am afraid that it has not, at any rate not until quite recently, been regarded with that weight and deference which I think are due to a country so largely interested in fishing as is Great Britain and Ireland.
  The delegates who were sent to the preliminary conference were instructed to propose a thorough scheme for obtaining statistical information as to the quantity and quality of fish obtained by different methods of fishing; and it was agreed that we should join for two years provided that before the end of that time the Council had collated and analysed the sea fishery investigations already made by the different countries. It was then proposed that Great Britain should charter a special steamer to carry on the work of the Council; but it was pointed out by the officials of the Department concerned—namely, the Board of Trade—that a steamer working 280 days at fifteen hours a day could only cover seventeen square miles, whereas the trawlable area of the North Sea was 100,000, and that it would therefore be of little use to collect statistics only by special steamers.
  Further meetings were held, and, in the year 1901, this country agreed to adhere to the scheme and to grant a sum of £42,000 in three years, and, if satisfied with the work, to extend that grant for two more years. That, my Lords, will bring the termination of the period during which this country agreed to contribute to the International Council to the month of July, 1907. I am, therefore, anxious to know whether His Majesty's Government have taken into consideration the results of the work of the Council, whether they are satisfied with it, whether
  566
  they have been invited to continue beyond the period of five years, and, if they have, whether they intend to do so. I venture to think, from the short experience I had when at the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, that we have not received value for our money, and I am very anxious indeed that His Majesty's Government, while there is yet time, should take this into their serious consideration, and that if they are pressed to continue the work of the Council and to act with other nations on the Council, they will, at any rate, see that we get good value for our money.
  The money allotted by this country has been administered by a Committee consisting of representatives (1) of the Treasury; (2) of, first, the Board of Trade, and afterwards, when the Fisheries Department was transferred to the Board of Agriculture, of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and (3) of the Scottish Office. The expenditure, however, has not been incurred in the collection of statistics, which from the outset it was the intention of His Majesty's Government should be the principal work of the Council, but it has been incurred on the two steamers, one the property of the Scottish Fishery Board and the other the property of a private association called j the Marine Biological Association.
  The Conference met in Copenhagen in 1902. The British delegates were instructed that statistics should be obtained from a sufficient number of vessels to be representative of the whole of the trawling trade. They were told that—
  "His Majesty's Government cannot help feeling that with the small number of surveying vessels available, investigations may be of too superficial a character to inspire confidence."
  What was true then is true to-day. In; 1903 an Act was passed transferring the Fishery Department from the Board of Trade to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and, being at the head of that Board, I called for a report from the Marine Biological Association and the Scottish Fishery Board as to what extent the instructions given to the delegates, which had been the policy of His Majesty's Government from the very beginning, had been carried out We were informed by the Marine Biological Association that they were quite unable to supply that information, as it would cause serious inconvenience to the

  567
  current work they were engaged on in connection with the international scheme. We then wrote to the International Bureau asking whether the scheme included investigation at various ports of landing into the number and size of fish brought by commercial vessels from the known grounds, and the reply we received was that schemes for investigation at ports of landing were to be prepared by the convener of committees, but none had yet been sent in.
  The instructions given to our delegates attending the next Conference were—
  "It appears now to be generally recognised that the most practically efficient means of extending knowledge of fishing problems is to utilise the material brought in by commercial fishing vessels from known fishing grounds at the termination of each trip, by the examination at the ports of landing of large quantities of fish, with a view to ascertaining their size, sexual maturity, rate of growth, and other conditions."
  I subsequently introduced into this House a Bill which had for its object the prevention of the catching of immature or under-sized fish in the well-known nursery grounds. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, who reported that in their opinion there was a continuous and serious diminution of the number of fish in the North Sea, and that it was time some active steps were taken. After that it was necessary to consider the position of this country at the end of the first three years, and it was determined that it was not advisable to interfere with the existing state of affairs until the termination of the five years.
  The question for the consideration of His Majesty's Government is whether this country is sufficiently represented, and whether her views have adequate weight on the International Council. The Council consists of two representatives of each of the participating States, viz., Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Russia, and Finland. The Council acts through a bureau, which is composed of three ordinary and four extraordinary members. The ordinary members are Dr. Her wig, Germany; Professor Petersson Sweden; and Dr. Hoek, Holland. The extraordinary members are Dr. Dreeshell, Denmark; Professor von Grimme, Russia; Professor Nanse, Norway; and Professor D'Arcy Thomp-
  568
  son, Scotland. It will thus be seen that on the Council England has but one vote out of eighteen, and on the bureau none. Yet England is by far the greatest fishing Power, her trawling industry being three-times greater than that of all the other Powers bordering on the North Sea combined. In any proposal to reduce the sea area of moderate depth—which is available to trawling vessels of all nations in common—by an increase of the three mile territorial limit, her interests, therefore, are necessarily opposed to those of the other nations, since she has more to lose and less to gain than any other Power. The last meeting of the Council was held in 1905 at Copenhagen, and the delegates were again instructed to press very strongly for an examination of the statistics which had already been collected, and for the formulating of some scheme for further collection. I am glad to say that that was adopted by the Council, but it was adopted in 1905 instead of in 1902, and I am afraid it is very unlikely that much progress will be made in regard to it during this year. The Council was furnished with a report from the convener of Committee B, which is the one that deals with statistics, and he said that the analyses and collection of the data would require considerable time, and that he hoped an opportunity would be afforded for full consideration before the time arrived for drawing up the definitive report of the Committee. In the meantime he submitted an ad interim report, in regard to which the Council returned thanks for the pains he had taken, but declined to accept responsibility for the conclusions contained in his report.
  When I first put this notice on the Paper of your Lordships' House, the Blue-book which I hold in my hand had not been presented to Parliament, and it was my intention to ask the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to lay these Papers on the Table of the House. But, even now, we have not got anything like all the information we wish to have. The Blue-book does not contain the preliminary report of the Marine Biological Association upon which the Council reported adversely; neither does it contain any account of the proceedings which took place in February of this year, and which: account is necessary to elucidate all that is set out in the Blue-book. I do not

  569
  think that the results have been in any way commensurate with the expenditure of the International Council. What we want to know is, Is there over-fishing? Is there destruction of small and immature fish? And on that we have no information whatever, although the Council has been sitting for over four years. It is true that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has made some investigations on its own account, but not out of money provided for the International Council.
  I believe that a much better way of attaining the object we have in view would be to follow the recommendation contained in the Report, of the Royal Commission presided over by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which it was urged that there should be established in each Department concerned an independent and efficient branch charged with fishery matter only, including the collection of statistics and carrying out of investigations and experiments. If that were done, instead of an expenditure of between £14,000 and £15,000 a year which this country has been incurring for the past five years, we might for a sum of £4,000 or £5,000 have a most important collection of statistics. We might have investigation at all the ports of landing; we might have adequate analyses; we might establish a laboratory of our own; and we might obtain some results which would at any rate inform us as to whether or not we are depleting the North Sea, and, if we are, how we can avoid doing so in future; and that without of necessity communicating the results to rival fishing nations.
  I have not ventured, because I do not consider myself in a position to do so, to criticise the proceedings of either the Scottish Fishery Board or the Marine Biological Association, but I do humbly submit to your Lordships that they are not being conducted on the right lines, because they are being carried out with individual vessels that can only traverse a very small portion of the trawlable area of the North Sea. I wish I could stop there. But I am bound, in view of certain remarks made by the President of the Marine Biological Association at a meeting of the Society of Arts, to call your Lordships' attention to a reflection upon the officials of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Speaking of the
  570
  Marine Biological Association Professor Ray Lankester said—
  "No kind of assistance or even goodwill had ever been received by the Association from the paid officials connected with fishery matters in this country. Their work had been hindered and threatened by the jealousy of highly-paid officials, who failed to understand the importance of the work of the Association."
  I heard my noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn the other night characterise statements in a notice on the Paper of your Lordships' House as utterly untrue and worthy only of the gutter Press. If that is language suitable to your Lordships' House I can only say, having had the honour of presiding over the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, that it adequately described my feelings when I read that attack by one member of the Civil Service upon other members of the Civil Service officials of that Department who are not in a position to reply except through their representatives in Parliament. I greatly regret that such a statement should have been made, because I am satisfied that the officials of my noble friend's Department are anxious to act only in the public interest, in the interest of the trawling industry, which has a large amount of British capital invested in it, and which provides food for an enormous mass of the people of this country and especially the poorest of the poor. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that His Majesty's Government either have given or will give this matter their serious consideration and endeavour to obtain the scientific and statistical information which we have consistently pressed for, and that if they cannot get that by adhering for a further period to the International Council they will he prepared to get it on their own account.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, before I answer the questions that have been put to me by the noble Earl I wish to thank him in the name of the civil servants in my office for the defence he has made on their behalf. I was not aware that any such attack as that quoted by the noble Earl had been made, and I thank my noble friend very sincerely for his words. Though it may not be necessary to use the strong language to which the noble Earl referred, yet at the same time such

  571
  undeserved attacks cannot be too severely condemned. With regard to the noble Earl's question, I may say at once that I greatly regret that the preliminary Report has been omitted. The unable Earl placed his notice on the Paper some three weeks ago, and in consequence we have issued the Reports of the British delegates attending the meetings of the International Council in the years 1903, 1904, and 1905. The Council met in February this year at Amsterdam, but the British delegates have not yet been able to send in their Report. As soon as we receive it we shall place it at the disposal of the noble Earl and the House. The destruction of immature fish, to which the attention of the Board has been directed, is, I venture to think, a separate question, and I will therefore confine myself entirely to the proceedings of the Council.
  My noble friend the Chairman of Committees has explained the facts to the House and has correctly stated that a grant of £15,000 a year was made by the Treasury towards the expenses of the International Council. The five year as the noble Earl has stated, will end on July 22nd next year, and then, and not until then, it will be the duty of His Majesty's Government to consider how, if at all, the propose to continue this grant. The question has not yet been considered by His Majesty's Government, and therefore it is impossible for me to give any decided statement at the present moment as to what the proposal of the Government will be. But I can assure the noble Earl that we are fully alive to the importance of the subject. The number of the British vessels engaged in steam trawling is seven times as great as that of all the vessels belonging to other countries put together. The instructions to the British delegates have been very succinct and very clear. The delegates attending the Copenhagen meeting in 1905 and the Amsterdam meeting in 1906 clearly contemplated the conclusion of the work of the Council at the end of the five years. In 1905 they were instructed that His Majesty's Government did not intend to continue the expenditure after the expiry of the five years, and this year they have been instructed to impress on the Council the importance of considering the lines on which they will next year draw up their Report, with a view to arriving at a definite conclusion by July,
  572
  1907. They were instructed to impress on their foreign colleagues that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to participate in the investigations on the present footing after July 22nd, 1907. I will not go into the practical suggestions which have been made by the noble Earl, but I can promise him that they will receive every consideration and attention at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries I feel compelled to say something on behalf of the National Sea Fisheries Association, of which I am president. I do not think the answer is at all what we would have expected after reading the Report, and I hope my noble friend is not going back on what has been stated—that the Council were to prepare their Report with a view to the inquiry coming to an end at the termination of the five years. I am quite certain that those engaged in the fishing industry are very much indebted to the noble Earl for having brought this question forward.
  It ought to be pointed out that the fishing industry have never been: consulted from first to last with regard to this scientific inquiry. The National Sea Fisheries Association represent the whole of the industry of Great Britain and Ireland and comprise other trades connected more or less with it; the members of that association have millions of money invested in this trade; and yet from first to last we have never been asked to give any advice or given any representation with regard to this inquiry. Since the association was founded, nearly a quarter of a century ago, with the exception of the three years from 1900 to 1903, we have always had the most friendly relations with the presidents of the Board, but I am sorry to say that those relations became very strained during the last two years of Mr. Ritchie's presidency and during the whole of Mr. Gerald Balfour's presidency, and the result was the Resolution carried at the' Grimsby Conference and the separation of the Sea Fisheries Department altogether from the Board of Trade.
  The Sea Fisheries Association, as I have said, was not consulted in this

  573
  matter. They were not given any representation on the inquiry and no one was sent from the Board of Trade to represent officially the sea fishing interest. It was agreed to spend £42,000 spread over three years, and £18,500 was handed over to the Scottish Fishery Board, which is not at all in agreement with the English fishing industry on many important questions, and another £18,500 to the Biological Society at Lowestoft, £5,000 being retained for incidental and miscellaneous expenses by the Board of Trade. The whole of the interests of the great fishing industry in the United Kingdom were thus handed over to a local fishery board in Scotland and to a scientific body at Lowestoft without any official representatives whatever.
  I should like to remind your Lordships who the representatives were at the first meeting of the Council. The British representatives were the Minister at Copenhagen, Professor D'Arcy Thompson (of the Scottish Fishery Board), Mr. Mills (of the British Rainfall Association), and Mr. Garstang of the Biological Association at Lowestoft. Those were our representatives. There was not on the Council as representing this country one single practical person connected either with the Fishery Board in London or the Association of which I am president In 1904 my noble friend Lord Onslow, who was then President of of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, consulted our association and very kindly attended personally the discussion which took place as to whether we should approve of another two years extension of the inquiry. We emphatically said no. We held that it was doing more harm than good, and that if the Government had that money to spare we would rather they handed it over to the Fishery Board to spend for the benefit of our own nation. We were told, however, that it could not be helped and that for some diplomatic reason or another it must be extended for two years. But my noble friend did manage to get more representation for us. We had Mr. Archer, one of our ablest officials at the Board at Whitehall, Mr. Masterman, and a gentleman from Ireland put upon the inquiry, and they have been upon it ever since.
  574
  But what is the real result of this inquiry? We have gained nothing whatever for the fishing industry in this country. On the other hand, we have handed over a great deal of information which our practical fishermen have gained during the last twenty years or more to foreign countries for their advantage and for which they are paying a very small sum indeed. That is a very serious matter. Only last year the various associations round the coast and the different smack owners were asked to send in returns, not only of how much fish their vessels got, but in what particular parts of the North Sea the fish were caught, and at what times of the year. We are, therefore, handing over to other countries knowledge as to the best places at which to fish, the best times of the year to go there, and the kinds of fish that can be caught at particular times. It is well known that Germany is at the present moment fitting out a fishing fleet which will be ready in the course of a couple of years, and that they have already established in Germany a Fishery Department. Moreover, they have founded a journal for all the information they can get, and anyone who has read that journal will see that they are not very friendly towards this country.
  We have had, as I say, no representatives on the inquiry. Scotland, however has; but on two important points the Scottish Fishery Board is entirely at variance with the English Fishery Board and the National Sea Fisheries Association. In the first place, we distinctly desire to uphold freedom of sale for foreign vessels in all our ports and that hospitality which we have always obtained in consequence from other nations. We also entirely repudiate the idea of the three-mile territorial limit being increased, for it will not be to our benefit, but to the benefit of other countries; whilst the Scottish Fishery Board are in favour both of preventing foreign vessels selling in English ports and of increasing the territorial limits. We cannot consider, therefore, that they represent the great fishing industry in this country, and we certainly do not consider, however scientific they may be, that we can put all our faith in the Biological Association. This inquiry may be of great interest to scientists, but it will be a great loss so far

  575
  as the fishing industry in this country is concerned. I speak for the trawling industry in Scotland as well as the whole of the fishing industry in this country. We desire that an end shall be put at the conclusion of the five years to this inquiry, and that there shall be no more money thrown away upon it.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I understand that my noble friend the President of the Board has no objection to laying Papers on the Table of the House, and I therefore move for Papers.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House further Papers relating to the procedings of the International Council for the investigation of the North Sea."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  THE MERCANTILE MARINE
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether, if the wages of seamen of merchant vessels are improperly withheld by their employers, it is enacted that the wages shall continue to run and be payable until time of the final settlement thereof; and, if so, to ask whether in view of cases which have happened of improper withholding of the wages of masters of merchant vessels by their owners, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to insert an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Bill which will give masters the same rights as seamen in respec to their wages continuing to run when there is any improper withholding of moneys earned by them in the course of their employment.
  As the law stands at preent, the captains of our merchant ships are exposed to the most barefaced robbery. Under the Merchant Shipping Act all persons on board a vessel who have signed on, no matter whether they wear trousers or petticoats, or possess any knowledge of seamanship, are seamen, with two exceptions—namely, the captain of the vessel and the apprentices if the ship carries any. I will tell your Lordships how this injustice works out. A seaman who has some dispute about his or her pay receives from the shipowners every farthing up to the date of the final settlement of the
  576
  dispute—that is to say, the seaman may be on shore for a year or two doing nothing, yet when the matter is finally settled he is paid for every day spent on shore up to the date of the final settlement. The captain of the vessel, not being a seaman under the Act, has not those advantages, and the consequence is that the moment he is thrown out of employment the payment to him ceases.
  Your Lordships may remember that I gave a striking example last year of how this provision works. A certain captain of a sailing vessel met with very bad weather and had to put into port in America to refit. This was an underwriters' job, and the underwriters had such a high opinion of the captain's knowledge of seamanship that they asked him to oversee the repairs that were required. The junior partner of the owning firm, however, went to this port. He found great fault with the captain and finally said to him, "Now, captain, according to your agreement I give you a week's notice and you must go." There was a considerable sum to the credit of the ship, and at the junior partner's request the captain drew a cheque in his favour for that amount. This captain had been in the service of the particular firm for 18 years. The captain naturally did not expect the treatment he was going to receive, and he said, "What about my wages?" The money due to the captain amounted to about £124. "Oh," replied the junior partner, "you may go and be damned. You will get paid when you return to Liverpool and not before. The captain was, therefore, left stranded. He had to cable to England to his wife to send out money to pay his passage home. The wife happened to be an invalid and was away at the time at some watering place, with the result that the money was not sent out. He then managed to borrow the money and returned home. The captain went to the office of this company, which was in Liverpool, and asked for his money, producing all his vouchers, every one of which was duly signed. The reply he received was, "We cannot pay you. You must wait till we hear from the captain who replaced you in the ship." The ship had in the meantime gone to Sydney. Finally, a writ on the captain's behalf was served on this firm, who then applied

  577
  to Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane, in Chambers, to have the action of the writ suspended till they could hear from the new captain, but his Lordship saw no reason for this. "You have all the papers before you," he said; "you have; all the vouchers, and I shall treat this shearing in Chambers as a hearing in Court, and give a verdict for the plaintiff." This is a case which happened last year. I am informed, and believe it to be true, that there is a practice among certain managing shipowners of withholding the payment to captains for some considerable time. The process is known among them as "starving the captain." Eventually they say to the captain who is, of course, losing money, having his family to keep up, "We will give you so much"—possibly a half or a quarter of what is due to him—"and we will give you a good reference." The unfortunate captain accepts that offer and goes off with half, or less, of what is due to him. I contend that that is nothing less than bare-faced robbery. If the captain were a seaman under the Act no managing owner would attempt to do such a thing, because during all the time of waiting for the settlement his pay would be accruing.
  There is another matter which I think ought to be looked into. It is very doubtful whether the sums withheld from the captains ever go into the shareholders' account. The idea is that the managing owner takes the money as a sort of commission. Therefore, I think it is necessary, now that the Government are promoting a Merchant Shipping Bill, that masters should be included in the designation of seamen. It does seem an absurd thing that you should describe a stewardess, say, who goes on board for the first time, and a fireman who may never have been at sea before, as a seaman, and that the captain of the vessel, who occupies his position by reason of his superior knowledge of seamanship, should not be a seaman under the Act. I therefore hope His Majesty's Government will give a favourable Answer to the Questions I have placed on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the law with regard to the payment of wages of seamen has been correctly stated by my noble friend. The Board of Trade take the view that masters are in a much
  578
  better position than seamen to make such conditions as they may consider necessary to safeguard their own interests. Any agreement which a master makes with his employer as to the payment of his salary is separate, and of an entirely different character from an agreement made between the master and his crew. His Majesty's Government, therefore, are of opinion that there is no reason for any special legislation on this subject, and they do not propose to bring it in under the Bill which they intend introducing in your Lordships' House in the course of next month.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, to put myself in order, I beg to move the adjournment of the House. I desire to correct one statement made by the noble Earl. The master of a ship is not in a better but in a much inferior position. There are plenty of masters, but few berths going for masters, and there is considerable difficulty in getting seamen, hence the large number of foreign seamen and aliens in the merchant service. But there are plenty of officers holding masters' certificates. The master is, unfortunately, bound to fall in with the agreement made. He is compelled to accept the terms imposed by the shipowner, and I think it is a monstrous thing that a man with his professional qualifications should be dismissed at one week's notice, which is less than would have to be given to a domestic servant. When the Government's Merchant Shipping Bill is in your Lordships' House, I shall move an Amendment on these lines.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend, but he has made a second speech upon a Question. There is no Motion before the House, and I hope my noble friend will excuse me for saying that he has been slightly irregular.

  AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTIONS.
  LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has been able to consider the representations made to the Secretary of the Board, on December 5th last, by a deputation from universities, colleges, and agricultural institutions;

  579
  and whether there is any prospect of an increased grant to such institutions.
  In the autumn of last year the various university institutions of this country which are engaged in the teaching of and research in agriculture, finding that the Government grant was not sufficient to enable them to carry out their work satisfactorily, organised a deputation to the then President of the Board of Agriculture in order to press upon him their claims for an increase in that grant. Unfortunately, on the date fixed for the deputation Mr. Fellowes, the then President, although he had not yet gone out of office, thought that the circumstances were such that he would not be justified in receiving the deputation; but as the gentlemen composing the deputation had come long distances, it was felt that it would be inconvenient to put them off, and with great courtesy the officials of the Board of Agriculture determined that Sir Thomas Elliott should receive the deputation. This he did on December 5th, and in reply to the representations which were then made he gave us a very sympathetic answer, and promised to lay those representations before the new President of the Board as soon as he came into office. I have no doubt that he did so, and that my noble friend Earl Carrington has studied them.
  In asking the Question standing in my name, may I be permitted to impress upon the noble Earl that, as was stated by the deputation, we are not asking for money exclusively for instruction, but that we appeal to be placed on the same footing as other countries in being assisted by the Government with the means for carrying on agricultural research. I know it is a difficult thing to press for Government help for this and that object, but I venture to think that this is one of those objects which, without such help, cannot be attained at all. Very large profits are made in many branches of industry in this country which are represented by technical instruction in the colleges, and the great captains of industry in those centres are no doubt able to assist very largely by pecuniary means the endowment both of research and instruction. But we all know the utter impossibility of obtaining such assistance from the agricultural industry. Therefore we look to be put upon an equal footing
  580
  with foreign countries. I believe that all foreign countries assist very materially in this particular line, and I think I am right in saying that in England we are behind even Scotland, and certainly behind Ireland, in regard to Government help for this particular object.
  I sincerely hope that if the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries cannot promise us a grant in the immediate future, he will hold out some hope of further assistance of some kind. At Armstrong College we found it impossible during the past year, and it will be impossible in the present year, to carry on the agricultural department, of which I have the honour to be president, without additional support. The result is that we had to go to the council of the college last year and beg for an extra grant of £100 a year, and I hold in my hand a letter from the secretary of the college, intimating that the council had agreed to this grant for a further year, but had expressed the opinion that it was high time the State did more for agricultural education. The money voted for this purpose at the-present moment is£10,000. The addition of a few thousand pounds would make all the difference.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the deputation to which the noble Lord has; referred was a very important one. as it represented the universities and five or six colleges. It was introduced, I think, by Sir Isambard Owen, and letters of sympathy were sent by the Duke of Northumberland and other noble Lords who were unable to be present. The noble Lord who has called attention to the matter to-day himself made an important speech on that occasion, and probably no one had a greater right to speak than my noble friend, who is chairman of the agricultural committee of the Armstrong College. In his speech the noble Lord then urged that help should; be given to those who helped themselves, and he has brought before your Lordships this afternoon an instance of how the subject being tackled in the Armstrong College and the way in which they have helped themselves.
  I can say that His Majesty's Government appreciate all these efforts to provide better facilities for agricultural education. I think everybody will agree

  581
  that no money could be better spent than that applied in helping farmers to meet the fierce and growing competition which they have to encounter from all sides. The Exchequer has not been ungenerous to my Department. In 1889 £4,500 a year was voted towards this object, and in 1906 the Vote had risen to £11,500. The sum is small, it is true, when compared with the amounts voted in other countries, but it is satisfactory to note that the country has received the full value of the grant owing to the cordial co-operation and good work of the different county councils.
  It must not be forgotten that the burden of public expenditure is already heavy, and that it is proposed to provide an extra £1,000,000 for the maintenance of Church schools. At the same time I think that this question is one which might receive the practical consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would venture to propose to the noble Lord that some inquiry should be held into the system of agricultural education. There has been no inquiry since 1888—nearly twenty years ago. If it should appear, as I venture to think it would, that there is good ground for an increase of grant, I think those who advocate such an increase would find their hands strengthened very considerably, and it would be possible for us to address ourselves to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject with stouter hearts. The Government are grateful to the noble Lord for putting the Question, as it gives us an opportunity of expressing our full sympathy with the object he has in view and our earnest desire to see those objects carried out at the earliest possible opportunity.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Might I suggest to the noble Earl that the money he saves from the International Council on Fisheries could be given for agricultural education?

  GROUND GAME BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BURCHCLERE: My Lords, this Bill only appeared on the notice paper for Second Reading this morning. As your Lordships are aware, it is usual
  582
  that a Bill coming from the other House, as this one does, should be put down within a certain time; but I am aware that there are many noble Lords interested in this question, and I think it would perhaps be convenient that they should have longer notice before the Second Reading of the Bill is taken. I therefore propose, with your Lordships' permission, not to take the Second Reading until Tuesday, July 3rd.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six O'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Tea O'clock.