Lords Sitting of 14 June 1922

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsuntide recess, the House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Cyril Forster, Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

TREATIES OF WASHINGTON BILL. [H.L.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, I ask leave to introduce a Bill for enabling effect to be given to two Treaties signed at Washington on behalf of His Majesty and certain other Powers, and to ask that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I have to ask your leave to absent myself for one day from the service of the House to-day fortnight. The University of Oxford has indicated its intention of conferring upon me the honorary degree of doctor of civil law, and I should like, if your Lordships would permit me to be absent for one day, to attend the function.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, this Bill has been prepared with a view to carrying out in Scotland the recommendations of the Departmental Committee that was appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Secretary for Scotland to consider the question of the provision of allotments by local authorities, and to make recommendations as to the best means of securing adequate provision of allotments and improved tenure and security for allotment
912
holders. The Bill follows the lines of the English Bill which has recently passed through your Lordships' House, with the necessary modifications required by the different conditions prevailing in Soctland.
Clause 1 provides that the tenancy of an allotment garden shall not be terminated by the lessor unless he gives the tenant at least six months' notice in writing to remove. To protect the tenant from disturbance in the course of the normal cropping season, such notice is to be given so as to expire on or before May 1, or on or after the first day of November in any year. In cases, however, in which land let for allotments is subsequently required for building, or mining, or other industrial purposes, or for some necessary public service, three months' notice will be sufficient, but if this notice expires between May 1 and November 1 the tenant is entitled, under the terms of Clause 2, to recover compensation in respect of growing crops and unexhausted manure. In other cases the tenant is not entitled, unless the lease contains provision to the contrary, to recover compensation on the termination of his tenancy.
In Clause 4 certain amendments are made in existing legislation with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments. The principal alterations are that the approval of the Secretary for Scotland to a compulsory order made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is no longer to be necessary; questions in dispute on the termination of a tenancy created by a compulsory lease are to be settled by arbitration; the local authorities are to be relieved of the obligation imposed upon them by Section 2 of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, to be satisfied, before acquiring land for allotments, that that land cannot be obtained by voluntary arrangement between owners and applicants. Clause 5 empowers the town council to enter upon any occupied land, and to adapt and let it for use as allotment gardens, but power is reserved to the owner to resume possession on giving not less than six months' notice to the council. This period is reduced to one month if the land is reasonably required for any other purpose than agriculture. In such cases, if the tenant is entitled to any compensation, he can recover it from the council. Provision is also made for payment of compensation by the council to any person interested in such land in

913
respect of any loss incurred by him as a result of the council's action.
Under Clause 6 the Board of Agriculture may let land acquired by them for small holdings to allotment holders or local authorities or associations for the purpose of being sub-let to allotment holders. Clause 7 empowers a town council working any tramway or omnibus service to charge reduced fares to occupiers of allotments provided by the council when such occupiers are travelling by such service for the purpose of proceeding to or returning from their allotments. By Clause 8 certain limitations are imposed on the expenditure which may be incurred by local authorities in connection with the provision of allotments. Before embarking on a scheme the authority must have a reasonable expectation that the receipts derived from the rents of the allotments (which must be let at the best reasonable rent obtainable) will balance expenditure on them. Certain items of initial expenditure may be omitted from the calculation and may be paid out of the rates. These would include legal and other incidental expenses attached to the acquisition of land, the cost of public roads to or across the allotments, and sinking fund charges in respect of loans raised in connection with the purchase of land.
The rating of allotments is dealt with in Clause 9. Under its terms, where allotments are provided by a local authority, the authority and not the tenant shall be assessed as occupiers. The same arrangement will apply, subject to the consent of the rating authority, to allotments provided by an association. For the purposes of assessment under Section 347 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, allotments are declared to be arable land. Clause 10 extends to eighty years the period for the repayment of money borrowed by local authorities for the purchase of land for allotments, and provides that money borrowed for this purpose shall not be reckoned as part of the total outstanding debt of the authority for the purposes of any enactment restricting the powers of borrowing possessed by the authority.
Clause 11, which is the interpretation clause, defines allotment gardens as an area not exceeding 40 poles which is wholly or mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable crops for consumption by himself or his family, and is not an appurtenance of his employment,
914
or let along with any dwelling-house. In subsection (3) it is provided that where any question arises as to whether land is reasonably required for any particular purpose the question shall be determined, except in the case of land owned by another Government Department or by a local authority, by a certificate issued by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which shall be final and conclusive. I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which I now formally move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, it would very much shorten discussion in Committee if my noble friend could tell us whether he will accept the Amendments which have been made in the English Bill, or Amendments on similar lines. There is one point upon which I hope your Lordships will make an alteration, and that is in regard to the powers of the Secretary for Scotland. At present compulsory orders have to be approved by the Secretary for Scotland, but my noble friend stated that in future this will be left to the permanent official in the Department. I think it is most desirable that any compulsory order of such a kind should be issued only by the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. I hope the Government will give way on that point. The question of allotments is not, of course, so important in Scotland as in England. Under D.O.R.A. over 14,000 acres were taken in England, whereas in Scotland only about 300 acres were taken. Still, the Bill is required.
The clause referring to allotments has been taken out of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, and I suppose some provision will be introduced into this Bill to make up for that. Otherwise, there will be difficulties. It would be a great advantage if allotments and allotment gardens were defined. The noble Lord says they are defined, but in my opinion the definition is not quite clear. I do not think your Lordships will object to this Bill if the Government will accept Amendments on the same lines as those introduced into the English Bill. It would be very useful if a codifying Bill were brought in after this Bill has been passed. Most allotment holders are not skilful in reading Acts of Parliament, and if we could have one simple Act it would be to their advantage.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the noble Duke is correct as to the points which require amendment, but on the whole it is quite a useful measure. It gives better security of tenure to the allotment holder; and that is as it should be. There are one or two points which require attention. Under this Bill the Secretary for Scotland is no longer required to approve a compulsory order. In England any order that is made has to go to the Minister of Agriculture, who has a seat in the House of Commons and can be asked any question on what is taking place. It is now proposed that in Scotland the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture should be able to make this compulsory order without the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland. There is, therefore, no one who can be challenged in any way either in the House of Commons or in your Lordships' House, and it is most essential that any official who is able to make compulsory orders should be open to challenge in Parliament, if necessary. That is one of the chief points that require amendment.
There is a definition of allotment gardens in the Bill. I think it is important that there should also be a definition of classes of allotments other than allotment gardens. At the present time you require to look up three or four Acts of Parliament in order to find the information you want. The people who occupy such land are not likely to be in possession of these Statutes. A considerable number of amendments will have to be made, and I hope the noble Lord will give us some indication that he is willing to accept Amendments such as were introduced into the English Bill.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I desire to ask one question. It is with reference to the inclusion in this Bill of an amendment with regard to allotments held by docks and railways. I think your Lordships will generally approve of doing for Scotland in this matter what has been done in the English Bill, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to give some assurance on this point.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I cannot give any definite promise that all the Amendments introduced into the English Bill can be accepted in the present measure, but I can say that a number of them will be accepted. Some of them may not be applicable to Scotland. With regard to the question of a Consolidation Bill raised
916
by the noble Duke, allotments are dealt with in such a variety of measures that it is impossible in the present case to undertake anything in the way of consolidation.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I meant in the future.
LORD STANMORE: In the event of this Bill passing into law I think I can promise that next session there will be introduced some measure of consolidation The Government will regard most sympathetically the suggestions made by Lord Saltoun, and as soon as I have seen his Amendments I shall be able to answer him better as to how we can meet him on the points involved. I think I can assure Lord Clwyd that we can meet him with regard to the question he has raised.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Protection of waters containing fish from poisonous matter and trade effluents.
8.—(1) No person shall cause or knowingly permit to flow, or put or knowingly permit to be put, into any waters containing fish, or into any tributaries thereof, any liquid or solid matter to such an extent as to cause the waters to be poisonous or injurious to fish or the spawning grounds, spawn or food of fish, and if any person contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:
Provided that—

(a) A person shall not be so liable to any penalty for any act done in the exercise of any right to which he is by law entitled, if he proves to the satisfaction of the court before which he is charged that he has used, the best practicable means, within a reasonable cost, to render harmless the liquid or solid matter complained of;

917

(b) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent any person from acquiring a legal right in cases where be would have acquired it if this Act had not passed, or exempt any person from any punishment to which he would otherwise be subject, or make Lawful any act or default which would but for this Act be a nuisance or otherwise contrary to law.

(2) No person shall within a fishery district discharge any trade effluent into any waters containing fish by means of any new work unless such notice of the proposed construction of the new work has been given to the fishery board as is prescribed by this section, and if he does so he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act: Provided that the fishery board may at any time exempt any new work from the operation of this subsection as from the date of the exemption or any earlier date notwithstanding that the provisions of this section as to notice have not been complied with. Notice of the proposed construction of a new work shall be given to the fishery board—

(a) where under any Act or byelaw notice thereof or an application for the approval thereof is required to be given or made to a local authority, then at the same time as such notice or application is given or made; and

(b) in any other case not less than three months before the commencement of the work,

and a notice, if not accompanied by plans and specifications of the proposed new work, shall state where such plans and specifications can be inspected at all reasonable times by an officer of the fishery board.
The expression "new work" means any work constructed after the commencement of this Act or any alteration after such date of any then existing work.
(3) Proceedings under this section shall not be instituted except by the fishery board or by a person who has first obtained a certificate from the Minister that he has a material interest in the waters alleged to be affected.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (The EARL of ANCASTER): My first four Amendments to this clause are practically drafting. The manufacturer may not know the address of the local fishery board.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 5, after ("board") insert ("or to the Minister")
Page 5, line 7, after ("board") insert ("or the Minister")
Page 5, line 13, after ("board") insert ("or to the Minister")
Page 5, line 24, after ("board") insert ("or of the Ministry as the case may be").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:—"This subsection shall not apply to any work constructed by any sanitary or other local authority in pursuance of any power given by a Public General or Local Act or by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament." The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment at the request of the Ministry of Health.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Erection of gratings to prevent the ingress of salmon or trout int9 artificial channels.
(4) If any person without lawful excuse fails to place or to maintain a grating when required to do so in accordance with this section, that person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Amendment to this clause is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 7, leave out ("when required to do so").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Close season and close time for trout.
(4) The annual trout close season for rods and lines shall be in any place the period which has been fixed in that behalf by a byelaw under this or any other Act, or, if there is no such byelaw, the period between the thirtieth day of September and the first day of March following.
(5) The weekly close time for trout shall be in any place the period which has been fixed in that behalf by a byelaw under this or any other Act, or if there is no such byelaw, the period between the hour of six on Saturday morning and the hour of six on the following Monday morning.
(6) The provisions of this Act penalising the obstruction of salmon during the annual close season or the weekly close time, shall apply to migratory trout as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to migratory trout and the annual close season and the weekly close time fur migratory trout.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (4), after "such bye-law," to insert "for trout other than rainbow trout." The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment to alter the close time for rainbow trout, because their breeding season is different from that of brown trout. I see that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has an Amendment to leave out rainbow trout altogether. I think it is immaterial whether you have a close season for rainbow trout, between December 31 and June 1, or whether they are omitted from the Bill altogether. I should have thought it preferable that rainbow trout should be kept in the Bill and given a close season, but as they are almost always found in ponds which are under private ownership and not in streams, it is not a very big point. I do not know whether the noble Earl will prefer to move his Amendment or to accept mine.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If the noble Earl will accept my Amendment to leave rainbow trout out of the Bill, I will move it immediately.
EARL STANHOPE: In that case I will not move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 35, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(7) This section shall not apply to rainbow trout").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32:
Prohibition against side of trout.
32. No person shall buy, sell, or expose for sale or have in his possession for sale any trout between the thirty-first day of August and the first day of March following, and if any person contravenes this section he shall be guilty of an offence against the Act: Provided that a person shall not be liable to a penalty under this section for any act done for the purpose of the artificial propagation of fish, or the stocking or restocking of waters, or for some scientific purpose.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 40, leave out ("the") and insert ("this")
line 44, at end insert the following new subsection:
920
("(2) This section shall not apply to rainbow trout").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33:
Registration of sellers of salmon or trout.
33.—(1) No person shall sell salmon or trout unless he, or the person on whose behalf the sale is made, is registered in accordance with this section:
Provided that this section shall not apply to the sale of salmon or trout which has been canned, frozen, cured, salted, pickled, dried or otherwise preserved, or to the sale by the occupier of any premises of salmon or trout for consumption on such premises, or to any sale by a person holding a licence to fish for salmon or trout to any person registered in accordance with this section.
(2) Every local authority; that is to say,—

(a) As respects the administrative county of London the London County Council;

(b) As respects any municipal borough the borough council;

(c) Elsewhere the urban or rural district council

shall keep a register of the names and addresses of all persons applying to be registered under this section who are entitled to be registered there-under, and the register shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister, and shall be open to inspection by any officer of the Minister or of a fishery board.
(3) Any person, unless disqualified as hereinafter mentioned, shall, on making application for the purpose in the form prescribed by the Minister and on payment of a fee of ten shillings, be entitled to be registered and obtain a certificate of registration, and a person registered by one local authority shall not be required to be registered by any other local authority.
(4) Where any person is convicted of an offence against this Act, the court by which he is convicted may cancel any certificate of registration held by the person convicted and may declare that person to be disqualified for being registered under this section for such period as the court may think fit, and if the person so declared to be disqualified is registered by any local authority the local authority shall remove his name from the register.
(5) Any person selling or offering for sale any salmon or trout shall, if so required by any officer of the fishery board (if any) or of the Minister or any police officer, produce for inspection any certificate of registration held by him.
(6) If any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
(7) Any expenses incurred by a local authority under this section shall be defrayed out of the rate or fund out of which the expenses of the authority in the execution of their ordinary duties are defrayed and, in the case of a rural district council, shall be defrayed as general expenses unless the Minister of Health directs that they shall be defrayed as special expenses, and any receipts of a local authority under this section shall be paid into the fund out of which the expenses of the authority under tins section are defrayed.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in the proviso of subsection (1), to leave out "by a person holding a licence to fish for salmon or trout to any person registered in accordance with this section," and to insert "in a fishery district of salmon or trout by a person licensed to fish for such fish in that district if the fish sold have been taken by the person selling the same." The noble Earl said: This Amendment will enable a man who holds a licence to sell the fish he has caught.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 8, leave out from ("sale") to end a line 10, and insert the said words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 (Contents of the order):
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: All my Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 7, after ("recovery") insert ("by a fishery board")
Page 28, line 41, leave out ("fishery board") and insert ("Minister")
Page 28, line 42, leave out ("fishery board") and insert ("Minister")
Page 29, line 1, leave out ("they think") and insert ("he thinks")
Page 29, line 2, leave out ("fishery board are") and insert ("Minister is").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 43 agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after Clause 43, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) An order under this Part of this Act relating to the River Lee as defined by the Lee Conservancy Act, 1868, shall not be made without the consent of the Conservancy Board constituted under that Act.
"(2) The Minister may by an order made on the application of the Conservancy Board but otherwise in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act apply to the Board and the River Lee any provisions of this Act relating to a fishery board or a district of a fishery board."
The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment owing to the fact that the river Lee has an Act of its own, especially as regards pollution, and it is not necessary to include it in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 43, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46:
Appointed members.
46.—(1) Where a fishery district lies wholly within one county, the county council of that county shall annually appoint such number of persons not exceeding five as they think fit to be members of the board of conservators for that district.
(2) Where a fishery district does not lie wholly within one county, the county council of each county in the district shall annually appoint such number of members not exceeding three as they think fit.
(3) On every appointment of members of a fishery board by a county council the clerk of that county council shall, within fourteen days from the date of the appointment, send to the clerk or other officer of the fishery board notice of the appointment, specifying the names and addresses of the members appointed by that county council.
(4) The term of office of an appointed member of a board of conservators shall be one year, but a member ceasing to hold office may be re-appointed.
(5) If at the time when any annual appointment ought to take place no such appointment is made, the retiring members shall be deemed to be reappointed unless by reason thereof the members appointed by a comity council shall exceed the number of members which the council is by this section authorised to appoint.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "board of conservators," and insert "fishery board." The noble Earl said: This is to give representation on the boards to trout and coarse fish anglers, and the same remark applies to the two Amendments which follow.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("board of conservators") and insert ("fishery board")
Page 32, line 35, at end insert the following new subsections:
("( ) In any fishery district in which duties are payable for licences for fishing with rod and line for fish other than salmon the Minister shall appoint such number of persons to represent the holders of such licences as follows:
If the aggregate amount of duties paid in the last preceding fishing season for such licences does not exceed the sum of fifty pounds, one member; and if the aggregate amount of such duties exceeds fifty pounds, one additional member for every additional fifty pounds or part of fifty pounds.
( ) The fishery board shall, on or before the first day of December in each year, cause a certifcate

923
of the aggregate amount of duties paid up to the date of the certificate for such licences to be sent to the Minister, and the number of persons to be appointed by the Minister shall be determined in accordance with the amount specified in such certificate").
Page 32, line 37, leave out ("board of conservators") and insert ("fishery board").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 (Qualifications of ex-officio members):
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 35, lines 1 and 2, leave out from ("lands") in line 1 to ("in") in line 2
Page 35, line 4, after ("waters") insert ("over which the fishery board have jurisdiction").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53:
General powers of board.
53.—(1) A fishery board shall have, in addition to any other powers given to them by this Act or by the order constituting the board, power within their district to do any of the following things; that is to say,—

(a) To appoint by writing under the hand of the chairman of the board a clerk and a sufficient number of water bailiffs and other officers, to assign to them their salaries and duties, and to remove any clerk, water bailiff, or officer so appointed;

(b) To take legal proceedings in respect of any offence against this Act, or for the enforcement of any provision of this Act, or for the protection of the fisheries in their district from injury by pollution or otherwise;

(c) To expend any moneys in their hands in any manner which they think most conducive to the maintenance, improvement or development of the fisheries within their district;

(d) To purchase or lease by agreement any fishery or any establishment for the artificial propagation or rearing of salmon, trout or freshwater fish, and to use or work the same; and

(e) generally to execute such works, do such acts, and incur such expenses as they deem expedient for the said purposes.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My two Amendments to this clause are merely intended to make the clause clearer.
Amendments moved—
Page 37, line 38, after ("fishery") insert ("fishing rights")
Page 37, line 41, leave out ("or work the same") and insert ("work or exercise the same by themselves, their lessees, or any person duly authorised by them in writing").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58:
Power of boards to make bye-laws for certain purposes.
58.—(1) A fishery board, or where there is no fishery board the Minister, may, subject to the provisions of this Act, make bye-laws for any of the following purposes; (that is to say)—

(a) To fix or alter the annual close season for salmon so that such close season is not less than one hundred and fifty-three days and does not commence later than the first day of September in each year:

(b) To fix or alter the close season for fishing for salmon with rod and line so that such close season is not less than ninety-two days and does not commence later than the first day of November in each year:

(c) To fix or alter the weekly close time for salmon so that such time is not less than forty-eight nor more than seventy-two hours:

(d) To fix or alter the annual close season for trout so that such annual close season is not less than one hundred and eighty-one days and does not commence later than the first day of September in each year, or to fix or alter the annual trout close season for rod and line so that such close season is not less than one hundred and fifty-three days and does not commence later than the first day of October in each year, or to fix or alter the weekly close time for trout:

(e) To fix or alter the annual close time for freshwater fish so that such annual close season is not less than ninety-three days:

(f) To determine the nets and other instruments (not being fixed engines) which may be used for taking salmon trout and freshwater fish, the dimensions, size of mesh, and description thereof, the manner of using them, and the conditions under which they may be used:

(g) To require or regulate the attachment to licensed nets and instruments of marks, labels, or numbers, or the

925
painting thereof upon on the affixing thereof to boats, coracles, or other vessels used in fishing:

(h) To prohibit the carrying in any boat or vessel whilst being used in fishing for salmon or trout of any net which is not licensed and has not attached thereto the mark, label, or number prescribed by byelaws of the fishery board:

(i) To prohibit the use for taking salmon trout or freshwater fish of any instrument not being a fixed engine in such waters within the fishery district and at such times as may be prescribed by the byelaw:

(j) To determine for the purposes of this Act, the period of the year during which gratings need not be maintained:

(k) To prohibit or regulate the taking of trout or any freshwater fish of a size less than such as may be prescribed by the byelaw:

(l) To prohibit or regulate the taking of fish by any means within such distance as is specified in the byelaw above or below any dam or any other obstruction whether artificial or natural:

(m) To prohibit or regulate fishing with rod and line between the expiration of the first hour after sunset on any day and the beginning of the last hour before sunrise on the following morning:

(n) To regulate the deposit or discharge in any waters containing fish of any liquid or solid matter specified therein detrimental to salmon trout or freshwater fish, or the spawn or food of fish, but not so as to prejudice any powers of a sanitary or other local authority to discharge sewage in pursuance of any power given by a Public General or Local Act or by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament:

(o) To require returns of fish taken within the district to be made to the fisheries board by the person by whom the fish is taken:

(p) To regulate the use in connection with fishing with rod and line of any lure or bait specified in the byelaw:

(q) To determine the time during which it shall be lawful to use a gaff in connection with fishing by a rod and line:

(r) Generally for the better execution of this Act, and for the better protection, preservation, and improvement of the fisheries in the district.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "less" and insert "more." The noble Viscount said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I called attention to the great hardships under which the Solway fishermen are suffering at the present time and would suffer in the future. The Eden Fishery Board
926
controls the Solway. The Solway waters are fished by Scottish fishermen and English fishermen. The Scottish fishermen have a certain close time, size of mesh, fixed engines, and various advantages which the Cumberland fishermen have not, and I need hardly say—your Lordships are well acquainted with the Scottish character—that the Scotsmen have got much the better of the Englishmen in this matter. I am hoping to remedy in some slight degree some of the grave inequalities and injustices from which the Cumberland fishermen are suffering, but I am compelled, owing to the form in which the Bill has been presented to your Lordships, to begin really at the wrong end. What I should like to do, and what I have put down a clause to do, is to bring the English fishermen into line with the Scottish fishermen, but I cannot reach that point until we arrive almost at the conclusion of the Bill. I am, therefore, compelled to take these matters one by one; I cannot deal with them as a whole.
My first Amendment is in paragraph (c) of subsection (1). The clause says:
"A fishery board, or where there is no fishery board the Minister, may, subject to the provisions of this Act, make bye-laws for any of the following purposes:—
(c) To fix or alter the weekly close time for salmon so that such time is not less than forty-eight nor more than seventy-two hours."
I am proposing to leave out "less" and insert "more," and, later, to leave out the words "nor more than seventy-two," so that the paragraph shall read: "To fix or alter the weekly close time for salmon so that such time is not more than forty-eight hours." Even if that were accepted and carried it would leave the Englishmen at a very grave disadvantage. The Scottish close time at present is only thirty-six hours. The close time in Cumberland is forty-two hours, and if the Bill goes through in this form that close time will be increased by six hours, so that the Cumberland fishermen will still be left with a very considerable grievance. The Scotsmen now have an advantage of six hours every week for catching fish. My arithmetic is correct, I think, and it shows that the Scottish fishermen get 312 hours in the year, or the equivalent of 13 days a year, more than we do in which to ply their trade in competition with ours. If my proposal were adopted it would mean that the fishery board would not be permitted so to

927
increase the close time, as against the net fishermen at the mouth of the Eden, as practically to drive the nets off altogether.
This Bill, as I said on the Second Reading, is a Bill in the interests of the anglers in the upper waters, but we must not forget that there are a very large body of men in the Eden, living on the Cumberland side, at the mouth of the Eden, who make their living by catching salmon. They have a very hard time of it. They have not got fixed engines as the Scottish fishermen have. The fixed engines of the Cumberland men have all been taken away, while the Scottish fixed engines remain. The Englishmen, therefore, have to go out into the sea and catch salmon with what are called haaf nets, which are longish nets kept in an erect position by poles or stakes. The men have to walk out up to their armpits in water at all times of the year, and as far as they are able they enclose a certain amount of the water and then draw the net ashore. Sometimes they get a salmon and sometimes they do not. Those are the conditions under which these unfortunate men have to work and earn their livelihood, and I say that it would not be fair, or reasonable, to impose upon them as a close time as much as seventy-two hours every week. It must be borne in mind that they have to compete with Scottish fishermen opposite, who are not affected by this Bill, and who have only a close time of some thirty-six hours.
I do not propose in the least to detract from the rights of the Scotsmen, but I leave them exactly as they are. All I ask is that in this case the fishery board should not have it in its power so to increase the number of hours of the close time that, practically, the Cumberland fishermen would be driven out of their trade altogether. It may be said, in answer to me, that I may safely leave that to the fishery board, who will take care that no injustice is done. The fishery board have been in existence about fifty years, and they have never yet done anything for the Solway fishermen. Their actions have all been—I do not quarrel with them for a moment—in favour of the fishermen in the upper waters of the Eden. It is not, perhaps, surprising that the fishery board have not taken any action which would favour the Solway fishermen, because on that board there are only two representatives of the
928
fishermen, as against twenty representatives of the upper waters, and therefore, whenever the Solway fishermen have brought forward any proposals which would assist them in the carrying on of their trade, those proposals had been turned down. For these reasons I beg to move the first of my Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 10, leave out "less" and insert "more."—(Viscount Ullswater.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, because it aims at the whole root of the Bill. I agree with much that the noble Viscount has said about the difficulties in the Solway, but your Lordships will recollect that my noble friend, when he raised the subject the other day, made an excursion into "Redgauntlet." Under the influence of the wizard of the North I think the rest of his speech remained in the land of romance, and many statements which he made were not really quite correct. Now, as regards the fishermen on the Scottish side, stake nets are objected to by us just as much as they are on this side of the Border, but this is not a fishermen's question but a question of the owners. Stake nets were granted years ago on the condition that they were to remain there as long as Berwick-on-Tweed belonged to England, and I would suggest to my noble friend who has influence with this Government, which has already been able to give a large portion of Ireland to people who are at any rate not friendly to this country, that he might persuade them to give Berwick-on-Tweed back to Scotland; then the whole question of these fixed engines would disappear.
It is really a question of the fishermen. The fishermen in Scotland themselves object to these stake nets just as much as the English fishermen do. What is really wanted is that the recommendations of the Howard Commission should be carried out. My noble friend, I think, is well acquainted with that Report. My noble friend stated the other clay, that in 1865 a large number of nets were removed from the English side, and none from the Scottish side. That is perfectly true, but what he did not say was that in 1877 an Act of Parliament was passed empowering the Commissioners to do exactly the same on the Scottish side as was done on the English side. The Commissioners removed a large

929
number of nets, but they were unable to take away the stake nets because they found that they were absolutely legal.
The case has since then been tried in the Courts. Let me quote an extract from the Report of the Howard Commission—
"The labours of the Special Commissioners have undoubtedly facilitated the tusk of solving the Solway question. They have on the one hand, placed an effectual limit to the erection of new fixed engines; they have, on the other hand, proved the impracticability of the proposal that the legal engines on the Scotch shore should be thrown down. Property held to be legal by a duly constituted court cannot be summarily extinguished without compensation …"
That is the real difficulty with which the Commission were prepared to deal. I might also quote this—
"Up to 1866 the fishermen on the English shore paid rent to Lord Lonsdale, an Lord of the Manor, for the engines which they erected. The Special Commissioners held that Lord Lonsdale had no good title to the foreshore, and Lord Lonsdale acquiesced in this decision. But it is still believed in the neighbourhood that Lord Lonsdale only did not appeal against the finding because the removal of the fixed nets had a beneficial result in improving his own fishery in the tideway immediately above them."
I think my noble friend will find that that actually happened, and that afterwards there was an increase in the value, although I think it very likely that it came from other causes than those to which the fishermen attributed it. The particular river with which I have had to deal suffers both from the stake nets and the English nets, which belong to the estate which my noble friend represents, but whereas in any dealings we have had to have with them they have always been most conciliatory and met the public in every way, we have not had the same success with the owners of the stake nets.
As regards this Amendment, the Howard Commission recommended that the weekly close time should be not less than 48 hours; therefore, I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted. The Howard Commission was presided over by Sir Stafford Howard, who is a Cumberland man, and not likely to report adversely to the Cumberland or the English interests. What I would suggest, and what I hope may have the support of my noble friend, is this. There is no question whatever that the position of the Solway is most unsatisfactory. The Howard Report made what I think was a very fair recommendation to solve these difficulties, and I suggest that the Government should initiate legislation
930
on the lines of that Report; that is to say, that they should, roughly speaking, bring the Scottish side of the border under the same law as the English side—the English law.
There is another matter with which I think something might be done at once. When the present Acts were passed originally these Scottish nets continued in use till September 26, while the English nets were not used after September 21. The Secretary for Scotland increased the Scottish netting time, and that time might now be reduced to the original time, which would give the English nets five days longer, as they now start the season ten days earlier. It might be quite possible, if the inspectors of salmon fisheries both in England and Scotland took up the matter, to make some arrangement with the owners of the stake nets as regards close time. The difficulty in Sir Stafford Howard's time was that the nets were nearly always leased. At the present time there are only four owners of stake nets. A large portion of them belong to the Government, and another owner owns an equal or even a larger portion. A Scottish burgh owns a few, and I happen to own one, which I should be only too glad to have swept away, if the others were similarly treated. It would pay me very well if that happened. My interests are very much the same as those of the noble Viscount who proposes this Amendment, because the river on which I live is mostly under the English law.
If an effort were made now it is possible that there might be an opportunity of making some arrangement. If my noble friend's Amendment were carried, however, I think the only result would be the almost complete destruction of the salmon in the Solway, which is now over-netted—or, rather, the nets are not properly regulated. In connection with that my noble friend, in his Second Reading speech, complained that the advantages obtained under the 1907 Act were being taken away—I think he said "filched"—from fishermen in the Solway. I believe they are all incorporated in this Act, and no doubt the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will correct me if I am wrong in that. The noble Viscount said that the Howard Commission of 1895 had recommended that stake nets or fixed engines should be re-erected on the English side. That is not the case; they were against it. It was suggested by Mr. Little, agent for

931
Lord Lonsdale, and Mr. Johnstone Douglas, who also represented Scottish stake nets. The Commission said that they thought this could be done without proposing the re-establishment of stake nets on the English coast, which would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the English salmon fishery laws, whatever might be said in its favour. I do not think any of us on the Scottish side would have any objection to that; in fact, we would welcome the erection of these nets on the English side if they would place nets higher up the Solway on the other side. There seemed to be some doubt in the mind of the Commission about that.
In regard to rod fishers, may I remind the noble Earl that it is pointed out in the Howard Report that unless the fish are preserved in spawning rivers there will be none for the fishermen to catch in the sea, At the present time the fish have become so low in number that it is very doubtful whether we shall go on in future preserving the spawning fish in the river with which I am associated. Your Lordships know that if spawning fish are not carefully looked after and preserved, but are taken out, it means an end of the fishery altogether.
According to the valuation for 1914, the stake nets were worth £2,500; in 1920–21 they were worth £1,600, a decrease of 36 per cent. in seven years. If that goes on it will not be a very difficult process to buy them out. I would suggest that this Amendment should not be pressed, and that His Majesty's Government should give a pledge to introduce legislation on the lines of the. Howard Report which, I think, would receive support from both England and Scotland and might do away with these difficulties which have gone on for so many generations. The real object of my noble friend who moved the Amendment and myself is the same, but my proposal would improve the fisheries, whereas I think his would not.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: Before the noble Earl in charge of the Bill replies, may I explain that there is not a single word in any of my Amendments about stake nets?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I was alluding to the noble Viscount's speech on Second Reading.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: Yes, that was a month ago, or more. I know it is impossible
932
to move the Scotch away from their stake nets; they will die at the stake nets rather than surrender them for a moment. Our stake nets were confiscated long ago; they are gone, and I do not ask for their restoration. There is not a word in any, of my Amendments about stake nets. All I am asking for in this Amendment is that we should not have the close time against us increased to seventy-two hours, which is possible. The noble Duke has a close time of thirty-six hours and we do not hear a word from him about increasing that close time.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Yes, I am in favour of it, and always have been.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: But nobody else in Scotland is. None of the Scottish fishermen in that district would have supported it. The noble Duke says he is all in favour of fish running up the rivers. Of course, he is in favour of fish running up the English rivers—running up the Eden—but he will not have a close time of seventy-two hours along the Scottish side. All I ask in this Amendment is that if our close time is to be increased from forty-two hours, as it is now, it should not be increased to more than forty-eight. That is really a very reasonable request. We are sacrificing six hours a week; the Scotsmen are keeping their thirty-six hours, and we shall have forty-eight. That does not seem to me to be a very unreasonable request.
Then, with regard to the possibility of future legislation, I have heard of that since—I forget what year it was, but I know it was before I became Speaker of the House of Commons or Chairman of Ways and Means, and that carries me back for a quarter of a century. We have been talking about this proposed legislation as between Scotland and England, starting a board, and buying up nets, and so on, ever since; but no nets have been bought up and nothing has ever been done. It is perfectly true that Sir Stafford Howard recommended certain proposals and that after a long interval those proposals were embodied in an Act, but that Act stands amongst the enactments repealed in the Fourth Schedule of this Bill, and that is all we have got out of it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In view of the differences of opinion which exist over fishing affairs I think it is a matter for congratulation that I have been able

933
to introduce a Bill which has reached the consideration of its fifty-eighth clause in Committee without raising any violent, controversy. We are now arrived at an Amendment which raises to a small extent the much-debated question, between Scotland and England, of the Solway. If I may say so, the noble Viscount's Amendment goes further than the Solway, and I think I had better defer what I have to say about this question until we reach his further Amendment, which directly concerns the Eden district fishery board.
On this question of a general close time for nets, I am afraid I cannot give way to the noble Viscount. He proposes that his Amendment shall apply to every fishery board throughout England, and that is why I say it reaches much further than the Solway. The Report of the Royal Commission of 1892 recommended 48 hours as the minimum period for the weekly close time for fish. We have accepted that, and proposed 48 hours as the minimum time and 72 hours as the maximum time. The extra difficulty of the river Eden does crop up, and it would be better, perhaps, to raise the question a little later on in relation to the size of the mesh or some other matter. I cannot accept this Amendment, which would practically put back the law to the old position that the minimum period was to be 42 hours. As I say, the Royal Commission recommended a minimum of 48 hours, and we propose to put that minimum into the Bill with a maximum of 72 hours. In addition to being recommended by the Royal Commission it is supported by practically every fishery board in the country. In these circumstances we are bound to stand by the provisions in the Bill, and I much regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
I should like to say further that if a fishery board decides to make the close time longer than 48 hours there are, even then, a good many protections. If your Lordships look at Clause 59 you will see that paragraph (e) states that where a bye-law has been made making this close time longer than 48 hours that, bye-law has to be confirmed by the Minister. The Minister, naturally, would hear the people who have objection to it. In the special case of the river Eden, if the Eden fishery board attempted to put the close time up to 72 hours per week, I could hardly conceive the Minister, after
934
making inquiry, confirming the by-law. Passing from the fight between England and Scotland, and dealing solely with the question of the rivers of the whole of England, I am certain that it will be for the material benefit of the fishing of the rivers in England, and the stock of salmon in those rivers, that this should be this rule regulating close time. I do not for a moment believe that it will in the least prejudicially affect the rights or interests of those who earn their living by netting fish. If you improve a river the first people to benefit are the net fishers, for 90 per cent. of the fish are caught by net.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I always thought that there was difficulty in asking your Lordships to agree to deal generally with a case which really only has a special application. As I said at the beginning, my difficulty arises from the fact that I am not able, in consequence of the way in which the Bill is drawn, to put the case of the Cumberland Solway fishermen as a whole, and I have to take it piecemeal. I recognise what the noble Lord has said, and that it would be ridiculous on my part to press this Amendment after those observations. I can only hope, if any proposal for unduly lengthening the close time comes up front the Eden Fishery Board, that the Ministry will very carefully consider the rights and the prospects of obtaining a living of the Cumberland fishermen. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 22, leave out ("time") and insert ("season").—(The Karl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved, at the end of subsection (1) (f) to insert "provided that in the Eden Fishery District the mesh shall not be greater than 2 inches from knot to knot." The noble Viscount said: Two inches from knot to knot is the present size of the mesh in England. I do not know what the noble Duke opposite will say, or how he will explain the fact that in Scotland the net is only 1¾ inches. That permits them to catch fish in their nets which escape the English nets. We consider that to be a grievance. I am not asking that the mesh should be 1¾ inches; all I am asking is that the 2-inch mesh should be stereotyped. If the Eden

935
Fishery Board were to increase the mesh from 2 inches to 2½ inches or more, a great number of salmon trout that are caught in the nets would go through, and to that extent the living of the Cumberland fishermen would be damaged. I need not detain your Lordships any further upon this point, but I would emphasise that my proposal is simply to stereotype the existing size of the mesh.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: This Amendment, of course, raises the question of the English and Scottish sides of the Solway Firth, and it is proper that a discussion upon that should take place here. Practically, the Amendment refers only to the Eden fishery district. The first point I have to make about it is to reaffirm what the noble Duke said upon this question. I do not wish to arouse any controversy between Scotsmen and Englishmen. The noble Viscount, in his speech on the Second Reading—and he has repeated it again to-day—said that the one Act which Parliament had passed in favour of the fishermen of the Solway, namely, the Act of 1907, for which they had been struggling for one hundred years, was amongst the Acts proposed to be repealed. It is true that in the Schedule that Act is down to be repealed, but the reason is that the whole of that measure is re-enacted in this Bill. Therefore, the English fishermen in the Solway are not going to be put in any worse position by this Bill than they are at the present time. We are reminded of these controversies which have been going on for a hundred years. I admit that they have been going on for that length of time, probably longer, but that only shows the complexity and difficulty of dealing with this vexed question. I should be most happy to collaborate with, or to assist in any way possible, both the noble Viscount and the noble Duke opposite in framing sonic Bill dealing with the Solway, but, as the matter has been standing in abeyance for more than a hundred years, it is clear that it is not a particularly easy one to deal with. I can only say that I hope legislation may very speedily be introduced, with the help of the two noble Lords, that will put matters in the Solway on a better footing.
936
As to the question of the mesh, by the Act of 1861, Section 10, the salmon net mesh is not to be less than 2 inches from knot to knot, or 8 inches measured round each mesh when wet. By Section 39 (1) of the Act of 1873 this can be varied, by by-law, from 1½ inches to 2½ inches. At the present time there is a by-law in existence in the Eden fishery district making the mesh 1¾ inches from May 15 to July 15. Therefore, the noble Viscount will see that the mesh can be varied to the size of the mesh used by the noble Duke and his friends on the Scottish side. This legislation will remain as it is at present. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary to put in this Amendment, and I should be very sorry to have to accept it because we hope to give the fishery boards as much power as possible, or rather as much initiative as possible, subject always to the confirmation of the Minister. In the past the Eden Fishery Board have recognised that during those months a small mesh should be allowed, and there is a by-law to that effect in force at the present time.
Having said so much, perhaps it would be convenient if I referred to the noble Viscount's Amendment after Clause 81. He is proposing to insert the following new clause:
". In order to remove an anomaly between the English and Scottish sides of the Solway Firth, the regulations as to mesh of nets in the tidal portion of the Eden Fishery District shall be the same as those in force on the Scottish side."
I should be prepared to accept that Amendment with the exception of the words "in the tidal portion of the Eden fishery district." Perhaps he will be prepared to move it in that form, or it may be that I should have to bring it up on the Report as a new clause. It comes to this, that so far as the size of the mesh is concerned, as long as you are in neutral waters in the Solway, the regulation of mesh should be the same in England as in Scotland, but that in tidal waters it is unreasonable to say that Scottish law should prevail in English territory.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: The whole point really is the tidal portion because that is the portion fished by Scotsmen and Englishmen. When the tide is running, or when it is out, at a particular period of the tide, the Englishmen go out and put their nets round. It is in the tidal portion that the fishing is done; that is where the

937
salmon are caught, and where the salmon trout are caught. If the words "tidal portion of the Eden fishery district" are left out I am afraid that Amendment would mean little or nothing. Scotsmen do not come and fish in the English portion of the Eden. They have no rights there. What we complain of is that in the tidal portion of the Solway, Scotsmen have these many advantages. They have the advantage of close time, of fixed nets, of annual close time, and the advantage of mesh. I am prepared to yield all the others, if the noble Earl will give me the mesh; I do not ask to interfere with Scotsmen but will leave them as they are—nemo me impure lacessit—I ask that the English fishermen, who are competitors with Scotsmen in that district, shall not be placed in a worse position so far as mesh is concerned. If he will yield me that then I am prepared to surrender the questions of fixed engines, weekly close time, and all the rest.
After all, it is a very small concession, but I believe it would go a long way towards settling these disputes. The noble Earl says that as they have gone on for a hundred years they may as well go on for another hundred years. That is perfectly true, and every Committee and every Commission, as the noble Duke knows, has reported on it. I happen to hold in my hand the Report of Sir Herbert Maxwell's Committee. They said:
"It is impossible to hold an inquiry upon the fisheries of this district without being impressed by the anomalous state of matters and the consequent confusion and irritation prevailing. We feel sure that no satisfactory or salutary end will be attained until the law is put on an equal footing on both sides of the Firth. In making this observation we are only expressing the view which has forced itself upon the conviction of everyone appointed in the past to inquire into the Solway fisheries, and has found repeated expression in the annual reports of the Scottish Fishery Board's Inspector."
And Messrs. Walpole and Young, who were specially asked to inquire into this matter, were appointed by the Government under this reference:
"To investigate and report upon the fisheries on both sides of the Solway Firth with a view of placing them under uniform legislatiall."
Here is an opportunity. Do not let us be put off by the suggestion, made by the noble Earl, "Put your heads together and prepare a Bill, and we will consider it." There are many other things which the House has to consider besides this Fisheries
938
Bill. Here is an opportunity, a chance. It can be done, as the noble Earl admits, by accepting a portion of my last Amend-meat. It can be done here and now, and I ask Why not do it thoroughly? If it is once done, I can promise him that a great deal of the difficulty will come to an end, and that he will not hear anything further from me about it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCILEUCH: While I am by no means in opposition to the noble Viscount, I fear that his Amendment will not achieve the object he has in view, which is to improve the fishing of the Solway. A Commission recommended that the mesh should not be less than 2 inches, and that drift nets should not be less than 2½ inches. This Amendment, of course, goes against that recommendation. There is great force in what he said, that it would be desirable to make the mesh on the English side the same size as it is on the Scottish side; and perhaps the Government will do right to give way on the point. It will not do much good, because, unless some legislation is passed, the livelihood of these fishermen will largely decrease. At the present moment there is nothing like the number formerly employed because of the large decrease in fish, and on one river On the English side they are seriously considering whether it is worth while going to the expense of preserving the spawning fish.
LORD GAINFORD: I do not know whether I understood the noble Earl correctly, but I am under the impression that he intended to convey that in the tidal waters where Scotsmen are on one side and Englishmen on the other there would be a uniformity- of mesh; it is only in those portions of the tidal water where Scotsmen and Englishmen do not come on each side of the bank that he proposes to leave the matter in the hands of the fishery board.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: By bylaw.
LORD GAINFORD: If that is so, it seems to me that the suggestion made by the Government will, to a very great extent, meet the point which the noble Viscount has raised.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord has explained what I, perhaps, did

939
not make very clear first of all. I should like to thank the noble Viscount for holding out the hand of compromise on this matter, but I do not think he quite understood the suggestion which I made. The only portion of his Amendment as to which I entertain some doubt is that relating to the tidal portion of the Eden fishery district. There is a lot of tidal water in the fishery districts, but in the case of the Solway Firth, one side of it is England and the other side is Scotland. I am not well acquainted with the river Eden. The tidal portion of the Eden fishery district may extend twenty miles up the river, though I do not know how far it actually runs, and the Eden is purely an English river. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would like me to reconsider it on Report.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: No, I accept that.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That is the only portion I am in any doubt about.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: In that case my new clause, after Clause 81, would read:
"… the regulations as to mesh of nets shall be the same as those ill force on the Scottish side."
I will accept the noble Earl's proposal and withdraw the Amendment now before the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 (Rules for making, confirming, and publishing byelaws):
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My first two Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 42, line 20, after ("byelaws") insert ("made by a fishery board")
Page 42, lines 33 to 36, leave out from ("Minister") in line 33 to the end of line 36.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following new subsections—
"( ) The Minister shall not make or confirm any byelaw which will be operative within the limits of any dockyard port unless the Admiralty consent thereto.
940
"( ) The Minister before making a byelaw under this Part of this Act shall cause notice of his intention to make such byelaw to he published in a paper circulating in the district proposed to be affected specifying the time within which notice of any objection from any person affected by such byelaw may be presented to the Minister, and shall take into consideration any objection so presented, and if he thinks fit, direct a local public inquiry to be held for the hearing of any such objection."
The noble Earl said: The object is to enable a Minister to make byelaws where there is no fishery board.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 27, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60:
Licences to fish for salmon and trout.
60.—(1) Every fishery board shall grant licences to fish for salmon or trout with any instruments which may be lawfully used for the purpose, and such licences shall be issued and shall have effect in accordance with the following rules:—
(f) Different licence duties may be made payable on similar instruments for different periods, or in different parts of a district, or for different kinds of fish if so stated in the licence.
(i).—(i) A licence for an instrument (other than rod and line) by which salmon or trout may he caught, shall be used only by the person to whom it is granted or his agent or servant, and for the employment of the instrument described therein:
(ii) No person shall be deemed to be an agent or servant of a licensee for the purposes of this section unless his name is endorsed on the licence, in accord-mice with the provisions of this section;
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 35, after ("of") insert ("trout or other").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved to add, at the end of subsection (1) (i) (ii): "or is accompanied by a licensee." The noble Viscount said: I understand that the noble Earl accepts this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am told that it ought to run—"or he is accompanied by the licensee."
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I will move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 25, at end insert ("or he is accompanied by the licensee").—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61:
Limitation of licences.
61.—(1) A fishery board may by order confirmed by the Minister limit the number of licences to be issued in any year for fishing for salmon or trout in public or common waters within the fishery district with any instrument other than rod and line specified in the order, and provide for the selection of the applicants to whom licences shall be issued where the number of applications exceed the number of licences which may be granted:
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("or common").—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 76 agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after Clause 76, to insert the following new clause:—
".Any of the following officers, that is to say:

(a) Any officer of a fishery board acting within the fishery district;

(b) any officer of a market authority acting within the area of the jurisdiction of that authority;

(c) any officer appointed for the purpose by the Minister;

(d) any officer appointed in writing by the Fishmongers Company in that behalf;

(e) any officer of police;

may seize any salmon, trout, or freshwater fish bought, sold, or exposed for sale by, or in the possession for sale of, any person in contravention of this Act."
The noble Earl said: The Bill, as it stands, imposes penalties for catching salmon or trout during either the weekly close time or the annual close season. The Bill also provides for the confiscation of fish illegally taken by any person and grants a power of seizure to water bailiffs appointed in accordance with the Act. The Fishmongers' Company already exercise the powers referred to in the clause, and the other authorities mentioned have somewhat similar powers in respect of
942
salmon or trout when consigned by any common or other carrier. It would seem to be reasonable that, where you have definite close seasons and restrictions on the sale of fish, some person should have the power to seize any such fish caught or exposed for sale in contravention of the Act. That is the reason for mentioning these different authorities.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 76, insert the said now clause.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 77 to 81 agreed to.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER had given notice to move, after Clause 81, to insert the following new clause:—
".In order to remove an anomaly between the English and Scottish sides of the Solway Firth, the regulations as to mesh of nets in the tidal portion of the Eden Fishery District shall be the same as those in force on the Scottish side."
The noble Viscount said: I will move this Amendment in an amended form, with the omission of the words "in the tidal portion of the Eden Fishery District."
Amendment moved—
After Clause 81, insert the following now clause:
".In order to remove an anomaly between the English and Scottish sides of the Solway Firth, the regulations as to mesh of nets shall be the same as those in force on the Scottish side."—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had given Notice that after the Bill had passed through the Committee of the Whole House, he would move that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I gave notice to move this Resolution after the Bill had gone through Committee, in order that the House might see whether the Bill had been examined from the point of view of consolidation. There can, I think, be no doubt in the mind of anybody who reads this Bill that consolidation is a very important part of it. Nor do I think that anybody who has watched the proceedings of the Committee would say that it has been at all examined by the House from that point of view

943
There is a great difficulty, no doubt, in referring to the Joint Committee a Bill which, instead of consisting purely of consolidation, combines amendments with it, but although difficulty will arise, I do not think that it will be found insuperable, and I venture to submit to the House that a Bill of this kind requires even more examination than an ordinary Bill which has been drafted on lines of pure consolidation.
Of course, if the House is satisfied with the examination that this Bill has received, there is no reason for sending it to the Joint Committee, but there stands on record in your Lordships' House a Resolution, passed at the beginning of this session, with which the House of Commons concurred, and on which both Houses have acted, that Consolidation Bills should go before the Joint Committee. I think, therefore, that I will move that this Bill be now referred to the Joint Committee for examination and report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend did me the honour to consult me on this point, I think it right to say that I hope the Government will accept this Motion. I believe it to be the wish of the House that as a general rule the processes of amending the law and of consolidating the law should not take place in the same measure. I cannot put my hand upon the actual discussion in which that opinion was generally expressed, but I have a very clear recollection of it, and indeed I think it will appear to your Lordships that it is a very salutary rule. Amending the law and consolidating it are really two different processes, but, unfortunately, on the present occasion—I have no doubt for a very good reason with which we are not acquainted—the Government have departed from that rule, and have embodied in the same measure an amendment of the law and a consolidation of it.
It seems, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord has taken the only course that is open to him, namely, of moving, after the Bill has passed through Committee and your Lordships have, to some extent, dealt with those portions of it which are new, and which are alterations of the law, that this Bill should take the ordinary course of Consolidation Bills and be sent to the Joint Committee of the two Houses. I hope that the Government will consent to this. We in this House ought to be
944
very jealous of our revising power. It is specially the duty of the House to see that measures are put into proper shape, and that when the laws issue from Parliament they shall issue, as far as we can compass it, in a form which it is easy for the Courts to interpret and for litigants to understand. For that purpose the process of consolidation is very important, and is specially the function of this House. Therefore, to allow the Bill, which is avowedly, as to a great portion of it, a Consolidation Bill, to go through without that process, would seem to be a dereliction of duty on our part. Moreover, it is perfectly true, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that those who have been present will realise that a great portion of the Bill has been unexamined in Committee, and necessarily so. Therefore, unless it is sent to the Joint Committee we run the risk of turning out a very bad piece of work.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I fully appreciate the object of the noble and learned Lord, and also the remarks of the noble Marquess opposite. The only hesitation which I have in my own mind is due to the fact that I rather fear for the future of the Bill and whether it will pass into law this session if there is any undue delay. I think that the Bill will really go a long way to assist the salmon and freshwater fisheries of this country, and it would be a thousand pities if it should be lost, when there is a chance of really benefiting these inland fisheries. Naturally, as responsible for the Bill, I get a little anxious lest anything may be done in the way of delaying it. It has already been somewhat delayed. Through pressure upon the time of the House, due to the debates which we had on the complicated question of allotments, it has been postponed on two occasions. Now it is only just emerging from Committee after Whitsuntide, and in assenting to any proposal such as this I should, as far as possible, like some special note to be made in the reference to the Consolidation Committee.
I do not know whether it would suit the views of the noble and learned Lord if a reference somewhat in the following terms were made to the Committee: To report as to the extent to which the provisions of the Bill involve substantial alteration in or addition to the existing law, distinguishing (a) the provisions which reproduce the existing law without alteration or without substantial alteration, (b) the

945
provisions which reproduce the existing law with substantial alteration, (c) the provisions which involve new law. I rather understand that the noble and learned Lord who moved this Motion will be willing to accept some such reference, and will be willing to press on, as far as possible, the hearing of this Bill by the Joint Committee. I do not think that, with the assistance of Parliamentary counsel and the legal advisers of the Ministry of Agriculture, the noble and learned Lord and his exceedingly able Committee need very long delay their Report.
If, therefore, the noble and learned Lord can agree to some such reference as that, and be willing to do his best to get the Report of the Committee before the House at an early date, I should not stand in the way of his Motion.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, it seems to me that the division of the clauses of the Bill that has been described by the noble Earl is a very sound one. I had myself examined the Bill and had drawn up the amendments in my own mind, also in three classes. My own description of them would not be exactly the same as that of the noble Earl, but in substance it is the same. That is to say, there are amendments of importance, as to which I should like to say that I think the noble Earl did great service towards carrying through his Bill when he circulated, along with the Papers, a White Paper in which attention was called to all the substantial amendments of the law contained in the Bill. Those are amendments with which the Joint Committee would consider that it had nothing to do. It would have to accept those amendments. Then there are classes of amendments with which the Committee is very familiar, namely, drafting amendments and amendments of form, and so on, which naturally are occasioned by consolidation. Then there is a sort of mixed lot which you cannot say at once affect the substance of the Bill, but which really have been put there as amendments of form and improvements for the working of the law and for making it harmonise with practice.
The form of Report which would come from the Joint Committee would be very much on the lines which the noble Earl has laid down. The Committee would report that in their opinion, subject to the Amendments which have passed this House
946
and to which attention has been called, the Bill was an exact consolidation of all the Acts of Parliament, and that the Schedule to the Bill giving the repeals showed all the enactments which are reproduced in the Bill. I have only one observation to make, which illustrates the importance of what I have suggested. It will no doubt be remembered that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that the only thing that had happened to an important branch of this subject was that the Act referring to it had been repealed, and the noble Earl replied: "Yes, it has been repealed, but it has been reproduced in the Bill." The business of the Joint Committee is to verify that statement; it is to see that every one of these Acts in the Schedule is fairly reproduced, without anything except improvements in form, and so on, in the new Bill. I think I should only be doing right in accepting the form in which the noble Earl would make the reference, although it is not of my own drafting, and not in the exact words, perhaps, that I should have chosen. I would, therefore, move in that sense.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and that the Committee be requested to report as to the extent to which the provisions of the Bill involve substantial alterations or additions to the existing law distinguishing (a) the provisions which reproduces existing law without alteration or without substantial alteration; (b) the provisions which reproduce existing law with substantial alteration; (c) the provisions which involve new law.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this Bill does not involve the raising of any new money by the Soudan Government, but merely the re-allocation of money already raised, and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will move formally that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Amendments made in the Consolidation Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments made in the Consolidation Committee be agreed to.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, the noble Earl just now said something about delay. I do not think there has been much delay with this Bill, or with the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I should have said that we are much indebted to the noble Lord and his Committee for the labour they have expended on the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and for the expeditious way in which they have reported it to the House. I can only hope, for the sake of the fisheries of England, that he and his Committee will be as expeditious with the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill. I have no doubt he will do his best.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments made accordingly.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Amendments made in the
948
Consolidation Committee be agreed to. I should like to add my thanks to those of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, for the industrious and efficient way in which Lord Muir Mackenzie's Committee has dealt with this Bill.
Moved, That the Amendments made in the Consolidation Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments made accordingly.

AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES, ETC.) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

THE DOCTRINE OF COERCION.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he has received any Report from Mr. Justice Avory's Committee upon the question of the legal presumption that wives are under the coercion of their husbands in the commission of crimes in certain circumstances; whether the Report of the Committee will be published, or, if not, whether the Lord Chancellor will announce its purport; and whether His Majesty's Government contemplate the introduction of a Bill to carry out the recommendations of Mr. Justice Avory's Committee if any alteration of the present law is suggested by the Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Report of the Committee which I appointed to consider the responsibility of the wife for crimes committed under the coercion of the husband has been published, and it may be obtained at the Vote Office by any noble Lord who has not got the document already. The noble Viscount asks me whether it is proposed to take any steps on the Report. The document has only recently been at the disposal of members of the Government, and it has not been considered by the Government as a Government. I have applied my own mind to it with some care, and I am of opinion that the case recommended by the Committee in a difficult matter has been established. My own advice to the Government will undoubtedly be that they should legislate upon the lines of the proposals contained in the Report of the Committee. I am hopeful that the Government may adopt that view, but I am not in a position at this moment to carry the matter further.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time resumed (according to Order).
LORD BEARSTED LORD BEARSTED had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which deals with matters affecting the shipping industry without regard to their international aspect, and which would inflict grave injury on the Port of London; and that His Majesty's Government be requested to refer the matter in its wider aspect to a Committee for inquiry and report.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is most unfortunate that this Bill has been introduced in the manner in which it has been. I never saw the Bill until it was placed on the Table of the House, and the moment I did so it occurred to me that it would do such an immense amount of harm to the trade of the country and to the Port of London in particular that I felt compelled to put down the Motion for the rejection which stands in my name. Your Lordships will remember that it was not very many years ago that it was considered necessary to carry a red flag in advance of a motor car, and the attitude represented by this Bill towards the means of livelihood of a most important industry savour very much of the same order of thought.
I should like to give your Lordships some idea of the magnitude of the question with which you are asked to deal in this Bill. It is a fact that shipping either propelled by boilers fired with oil or by internal combustion engines is growing enormously, and one of the main objections I take to the Bill is that if it is passed into law in its present form—and I hope to convince your Lordships of this—London might as well be ruled out for dry-docking or repairing ships carrying oil or burning it in internal combustion engines. According to Lloyds' Register, the increase in the world tonnage of oil-burning vessels is most striking. Leaving out of account the fact that the Imperial Navy is now burning 90 per cent. of oil, I find that in July, 1914, that tonnage amounted to 1,310,209 tons; in July, 1919, it had increased to 5,336,678 tons; in July, 1920, to 9,359,354 tons, and in July, 1921, to 12,796,635 tons. The number of ships actually fitted with internal combustion engines in July, 1914, was
950
297, with a tonnage of 234,287 tons, which in July, 1921, had increased to 1,473 vessels of 1,248,800 tens. The tonnage built in the last three years shows a steady decrease in coal-burning ships and a proportionate increase in oil-burning ships. In 1920–21—and I should like your Lordships to digest this figure thoroughly—every vessel built in the United States, with the exception of three ships, totaling 8,581 tons, was fitted for burning oil. The tonnage of oil tankers had also increased nearly fourfold, and in 1921, 112 tankers were built totalling 614,461 tons, or more than 18 per cant. Of the total tonnage built.
According to the provisions of this Bill, the only possible course for vessels either carrying or burning oil, or using it in the way I have explained to your Lordships, would be to go beyond the three-mile limit and discharge into the open sea the water containing the oil. The statistics that have been given to me show that on a tonnage of 8,000 tons of heavy oil the loss in weight is approximately under 95 of 1 per cent. Dealing with the tank steamer, your Lordships will realise that if it is necessary for such a steamer—as it would be—after discharging her cargo, to take in about 800 tons of oil and water to enable her to shift berth, and so on, she might have, at the extreme outside, lot r tons of oil in solution. This Bill ordains that the only way in which she can get rid of that oil and water is to go out to sea and discharge it, and I suggest to your Lordships as a practical shipowner of many years' experience that she will never conic back. It stands to reason that she will go to a port where she can cleanse her tanks on the way down, and do her dry-docking there.
There has been a spirited attempt that every one will welcome to try to establish in the Thames the industry of shipbuilding and ship repairing. That, if successful, would afford employment to thousands of people, and, as your lordships are probably aware, when a ship is in dry dock or is undergoing repairs she spends a good deal of money in one way and another. She takes in her stores and bunkers and large quantities of lubricating oil from the port in which she is berthed. I cannot under-stand the method which would drive ships away from London, and it is on the method that I desire mostly to expatiate to your Lordships. Owing a the unfortunate way in which this Bill has been dealt with, I am told by those concerned that the great

951
public bodies have had no opportunity whatever of expressing an opinion upon it. It came before the Corporation of the City of London, who are the Port Sanitary Authority, yesterday for the first time. It had never been reported to them, and it looked such a harmless little Bill that no one seemed to attach any great consequence to it.
As a matter of fact—nd I ask your Lordships to accept this at once— agree with the principle of the Bill and that we must and should take measures absolutely to prevent oil going into the water. But my objection is that the Bill compels oil to be put into the water. There is no other way of getting rid of it, and I will give your Lordships an instance which will, perhaps, bring that more forcibly before you. A few months ago a new departure was made, one which I may perhaps be forgiven for saying that I had foreseen. A cargo of grain arrived in the Port of London from the Pacific Coast. It came, of course, in a steamer propelled by internal combustion engines. That is the only way in which it could come, because that form of transport is so economical that it must prevail, and that is what I am endeavouring to impress upon your Lordships. Supposing this Bill had been in force and the ship had discharged her cargo in the Port of London, in the docks. As she got towards the end of her cargo she would be obliged to take in water ballast and she would take that water ballast into the double bottom in which the oil had been carried.
I am sure that I need not expatiate to your Lordships upon the fact that no ship-owner or merchant is going to waste a single drop of oil that lie can possibly preserve, and you may take it, therefore, that the ballast tank would have been emptied as far as possible before the water was taken in. Look at the absurd position. The amount of water ballast required in such a case is about 300 tons, which might contain a ton and a half of oil in solution. If the Bill passes as it stands to-day there will be no alternative before that ship but to go out of the Thames and, as soon as she gets off Ramsgate or Margate, or wherever you like, to discharge that water because it contains that infinitesimal quantity of oil. She may then be allowed to return to port. It is, however, quite conceivable that she may take in water which may still be contaminated and
952
condemned by some official as having slight traces of oil.
So very serious is the evil, that you may say that the remedy is worth trying, but I submit to your Lordships that the Bill tackles the question at the wrong end and in the worst way. We want to keep the oil out of the waters, but this Bill insists that it shall be put, not of course into tidal waters, but into the sea. I am amazed that a Bill like this should be brought forward when the remedy is so simple. It is said that an agreement has been made between the Board of Trade, the shipowners, and the port authorities by which receptacles shall be provided into which all oil, which might otherwise have to go into the waters, shall be put. That is the solution. No one wants anything else, and if that is agreed then I think it is a thousand pities that that agreement was not put into this Bill. If this Bill is to pass your Lordships' House, I think that that agreement must be put into it. I submit that, having a remedy of that kind, we should not pass a measure which would inflict immense harm upon the ports of the United Kingdom, and upon London in particular. Because of the great distance that the Port of London is from the sea it would be especially injurious to London.
I suggest also that we should not penalise our own shipping in order to benefit foreign nations. In that connection perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to what is being done in the United States. It is no exaggeration to say that in the Port of New York probably more oil is handled in a month than is handled in any port in the United Kingdom in twelve months, and I think we should not be above learning from New York. I shall read to your Lordships certain extracts showing what is being done there. I think your Lordships will at once be struck by the fact that American shipping is better off, in the way that it is taken care of and its interests protected, than is our shipping. The extracts I will read are:—
"The New York authorities proposed action on April 13, 1922, and, under the heading of 'Harbour Pollution,' Representative Appleby introduced into Congress a resolution proposing an international conference of maritime Powers with a view of adopting means to prevent the pollution of the seas by oil.
"The new resolution has been amended somewhat to meet the suggestion of the State Department of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it is expected to be reported favourably from that body before long."
On April 19, 1922, the following was published:—
"Pollution of harbours. The Appleby Bill which is now before Congress, and tends to protect American harbours from oil pollution, has been pronounced unfair and drastic by steamship operators. According to a statement made by one of the American steamship representatives the Bill would penalise American ships, but, by reason of existing Treaties and regulations, would not include foreign vessels which it is said are equal offenders with American ships. The calling of an international conference to be attended by representatives of all maritime nations has been proposed in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution of this problem."
Your Lordships will see that the United States are not so mad as to penalise their ports and shipowners as it is suggested we should do.
I do not for one moment say: "Do nothing." I would very much like to see sonic steps taken of an international character. We might then get some agreement. I will not disguise from your Lordships my own opinion that no matter what we may do in our own ports, so long as ships discharge within the three-mile limit you will get some oil upon our shores. If the noble Lord in charge of this Bill is prepared to say—as the Board of Trade have informed me already—that an agreement has been made between the dock and harbour authorities and the shipowners by which facilities will be provided, thereby clearly recognising the desirability and the necessity of it, I should be quite prepared to ask your Lordships to give me permission to withdraw this Amendment, and to move in Committee such Amendments as will make the Bill workable.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and add at the end of the Motion ("the House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which deals with matters affecting the shipping industry without regard to their international aspect, and which would inflict grave injury on the Port of London; and that His Majesty's Government be requested to refer the matter in its wider aspect to a Committee for inquiry and report").—(Lord Bearsted.)
THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have listened to the speech which the noble Lord has just delivered, and I am not clear as to whether he is agreeable that this Bill should receive a Second Reading, or whether lie is anxious that it should be thrown out. It is a matter of surprise to me that he does not seem to be aware of the information, which I have received, that this Bill embodies an
954
agreement which was come to by a Committee set up by the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Transport, the oil companies, the Chamber of Shipping, and the Dock and Harbour Association. My duty now is to voice the view of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. That is the only reason I would venture to claim the indulgence of your Lordships for the few remarks if will make. The provisions of this Bill are applicable to Northern Ireland, and these provisions have been made applicable to Northern Ireland at the request of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. It seems to me an astonishing thing that there should be such a wide difference of opinion between the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and my noble friend, who, we all recognise, is one of the greatest authorities in the shipping world, and also in the oil world. I can assure him that it is a matter of very great regret to me that there seems to be some difference of opinion, which I hope, in the course of this debate, we shall be able to elucidate.
So far as I am aware, the present state of affairs causes much damage to harbours, dock works, shipping, the seaside resorts, and also to fish and bird life. Added to this there is great risk from fire. We have had in Belfast already an outbreak of fire at one of our wooden wharves which is almost directly attributable to the discharge of oil fuel. The subject of the means to be taken to protect the interests of dock authorities, and also to prevent the indiscriminate discharge in harbours of fuel oil, or water mixed with oil, from the tanks of vessels lying the rein, or from shore installations, has been very carefully considered in Belfast, and as a result of representations made to the Board of Trade, and of a conference between that body and representatives of the dock and harbour authorities and associations, and various oil companies, I understand that an agreement was reached as to the best means of dealing with the whole question, having regard to the extent to which the several bodies interested are affected. The agreement that was reached is embodied in the Bill which is now before your Lordships.
LORD BEARSTED: My contention is that it is not.
THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY: I am sure the Government will be able to explain, if there is any divergence, where

955
the divergence is. I understand that harbour authorities are now practically powerless to deal with offenders. This Bill gives them the power to deal with this class of offence. It will certainly strengthen their hands, and it secures protection for the various properties that are affected. So far as I am able to judge it places no unreasonable obstacle in the way of this very convenient fuel, and I do not think the noble Lord takes up that point. It applies to territorial waters, and excludes accidents from its scope. It demands daylight clearing, and establishes precautions in order to reduce pollution of the sea to the minimum. I am not aware whether it is possible, by Amendment, to carry out the noble Lord's wishes, but those whom I represent are very anxious that the Bill should be passed into law.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I desire to support the Second Reading of this measure. I agree that it is not going to be as effective as it might be, but it is a step in the right direction. Anyone who lives near the south coast knows what a nuisance this heavy oil is. To a large extent it has spoilt the fishing around the Solent and Southampton Water, done great harm to the yachting interest, and at Southsea and Bournemouth the shores have become covered with oil. Local authorities all round that coast have had numerous complaints from the public of the oil which has drifted on shore and made it impossible for the shore to be used. It may be a sentimental reason, but it also does much damage to bird life. I can quote an instance which came under my own observation—the case of the swans which breed in the Beaulieu river. Last year I saw over forty dead swans killed by this heavy oil. I tried to save the life of some of them, but I failed to save a single bird which had become polluted with this heavy oil. As I say, that is a sentimental point which may not have the same weight as great shipping interests, but I maintain that the beauty of our shores, and the bird life around our shores, should receive some consideration.
Under this moderate Bill there is a regulation by which the operation of discharge must take place in the daytime. It is a most valuable provision, for a good deal of the pollution at Southampton Water is the result of pumping out at night time. It is almost impossible then to detect the
956
offender. What Lord Bearsted said about the discharge beyond the three-mile limit is true, and I agree that the Bill is ineffective in that respect. I hope we may, by international agreement, get oil discharged, when a ship arrives at its destination, into specially made barges, which is, I believe, to be the practice in New York harbour. The Bill does not prevent that in any way. It restrains it within the three-mile limit, and that is a step in the right direction.
From my own personal experience I know that the oil has had a very deleterious effect on fishing. Where the tide rises and falls this oil, to a large extent, goes on the shore at low water or half tide. As the tide rises the oil clings to the grass and weeds which form the food of small fish which feed on the shore. These fish are killed. Only last week I saw a large number of small fish of the mullet and whitebait kind which had been killed by this oil. From the point of view of food production I think we should pass this Bill. I would add that the whole of the yachting community, with which I am acquainted, are put to very considerable expense because of the pollution of racing yachts, and it is a great, detriment to that industry that this discharge should be allowed to continue.
LORD SOUTHBOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to associate myself to a great extent with what has fallen from my noble friend. My objection to the Bill is that it deals with the subject in a wholly unscientific manner. The Bill creates a new penalty, a new penal clause, and under that clause the skipper or owner responsible may be fined £100. There is not a word in the Bill as to the prevention of what is fast becoming an exceedingly dangerous and crying evil. It is not only the destruction of the amenities of watering places. There is the destruction of bird life, of the fisheries around the coast; and there are loud complaints from people who bathe and who enjoy the rights of foreshore. I should have thought that the Government, in endeavouring to tackle this question, would have taken the high line of considering what were the wide public interests involved, and would not have been content with legislating upon the results of conferences between parties who have a direct interest in the matter.
You have before you the narrow seas surrounding this country. There is no

957
doubt that on the surface of those waters, out side what are know n as territorial waters, oil is found. There is equally no doubt that inside territorial water, oil is found, if you stand upon the shore at some pace on the north side of the Isle of Wight, or at Margate or at Ramsgate, you find evidences of oil upon the sands and upon the water, but you have no idea where that oil conies from. It may come from beyond territorial limits; it may come from Calais, from some ship which has pumped herself out in a foreign port. It is impossible to tell. I venture to think that the proper course in dealing with this matter is scientifically to consider whether there is not a way of removing oil and preventing oil from traversing the surface of the sea, whether it be within or without territorial waters.
It is a curious thing that before the war there was very little evidence of oil on the surface or the water. It is assumed by many that, in consequence of the wholesale destruction of ships, torpedo boats, destroyers, and so on, carrying oil tanks, and ships submarined or sunk in other ways, large quantities of oil were released front the sunken vessels now lying at the bottom of the sea. I do not think that anybody knows whether that oil is still escaping from the tanks of those vessels—whether it is all absorbed, or whether we are likely to see more of it as time goes on. Then again, it is quite impossible, standing at a place such as I have mentioned on the north coast of the Isle of Wight and seeing symptoms of oil upon the sand, to determine whether that oil comes from a liner lying at Southampton or front one of His Majesty's ships moored at Spithead. There is nothing about His Majesty's ships in the Bill. They are great oil users, and very properly so. It is an interesting question whether they, with their experience through a great war in which they played so conspicuous a part as oil-bearing ships, can really contribute anything to the solution of this question, or whether they are merely great offenders. At any rate, there is nothing about them in the Bill.
I do not want to weary your Lordships, but I should very much like to endeavour to incite some noble and learned Lord to look at the penalty clauses of this Bill. I know very little about such matters myself, but I believe that noble and learned Lords are always very suspicious of prosecutions the result of which must be determined by
958
ascertaining whether a ship was or was not within the three-mile limit. It is a form of prosecution front which in past clays everybody recoiled. About twenty years or so ago, a great fuss was made as to the rights of fishermen, foreign and otherwise, fishing in territorial waters, and supplying liquor on the high seas, and in those cases many export efforts were made to come to some agreement with the riparian powers upon the narrow seas for the purpose of determining upon a common policy.
Those efforts were successful, but in that case it was necessary for the prosecution to show that the ship charged with being within territorial waters was actually at a spot within that limit, and to do that the Government of the day had to appoint police to police the North Sea and the Channel, and the whole thing was done by an elaborate system of gunboat patrol. Even then, so far as my recollection goes, it was next door to impossible to ensure conviction, even when the skipper of the gunboat bad seen a ship fishing in some particular position, because he was unable, perhaps in consequence of the weather, or visibility, or what not, to take up a line from head to head. In this case no provision is made at all, and there is nothing to show who is to prosecute, where the prosecution is to be instituted, or whether the port authority has to send someone out to see whether in fact a man is putting the oil inside territorial waters or outside territorial waters. That is all left in a haphazard way, to be discovered after this Bill becomes an Act, and when prosecutions are instituted.
All that means, to my mind, that the Bill is unscientific in thought, badly drawn up and badly handled. The thing to do, if I may say so with great respect, is to go into this question from the public point of view, and not from the business man's point of view. It is becoming a public question as fast as ever it cart, and if you go into it front the public point of view you will find that full protection could be given to the shipowner and the dock authority. I do not believe, so far as the great oil people are concerned, that they require any protection at all. I should be delighted if the Government could see its way to make an investigation of this question for the purpose of making certain that everything possible had been done to clear oil front the narrow seas altogether, and not to go on with a process, under

959
a £100 penalty, of making the port authorities or shipowners or tankers take he oil and put it outside the three-mile limit. That does nothing at all. You take it down the Thames to a certain point, you wake up in the morning, and, according to time or tide, you find it either on Margate sands or at Southend.
I do not think the Bill is well conceived. I remember well the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack making one of those entertaining after-dinner speeches for which he is famous, and saying, according to my recollection, that the Government made a great mistake if it proceeded to fill the Statute Book with Bills which were of little utility, and that popularity was not gained by dealing with public questions by inadequate legislation. I remember that he concluded his remarks by expressing his satisfaction that since his tenure of office on the Woolsack he had had an opportunity of repealing a certain number of the Bills winch had been introduced by his colleagues in the Government. I venture to say with confidence that the noble and learned Viscount will have to keep a watch upon this Bill, because it will neither add lustre to the Statute Book nor do credit to the Government.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I desire to associate myself entirely with the words which fell from Lord Bearsted, and also from my noble friend, Lord Southborough. I noticed that Lord Somer—leyton, in moving the Second Reading, spoke very strongly of the effect of tins oil floating on the sea upon residents in watering places, upon bathers, and also upon birds and fish. In the first part of his speech he said—
"It has even been a source of danger to harbours and docks."
The truth of it is that this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Southborough said, has become a public question. Lord Bearsted offered a solution of this problem by saying that the bilge water containing oil could be pumped out at the ports, supposing there were facilities provided in the way of tanks built by the authorities there. That would get rid of the trouble.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that at all events it would be a very good example to set to other nations, if we were to start dealing with the oil now poured out on the sea by dealing with it in the harbours. I listened to Lord 960
Londonderry's speech with interest. He is quite right from his point of view, but what about the public who take their holidays round the coasts of England, I reland and Scotland? I know of cases where ladies and gentlemen have come out of the sea perfectly filthy. Now we have heard from Lord Montagu of Beaulieu that in the case of the swans on the Beaulieu river even he could not save them, with all the trouble that he took. I think, to use a vulgar expression, that it is perfectly beastly to see these birds and fish, and especially the birds, killed with this horrible stuff, and my opinion is that we should set an example to other nations and deal with this oily nastiness in our harbours. It will cost money, but it will make a beginning. Of course, we cannot prevent Dutch or German vessels from pouring out oil outside the three-mile limit. They may even creep inside that limit, and if we go bathing we shall probably get filthy, but it is horrible to have this stuff poured on our coasts. I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I shall oppose it if Lord Bearsted goes to a Division. I want to hear what the Government have to say about this question.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I think your Lordships cannot but be struck with the general unanimity that there has been on the part of all the speakers with regard to this Bill, that a very serious evil exists. I think we are all anxious if possible, to get a remedy for that evil. This is the first attempt to deal with it, and I think it goes very much on the lines of other legislation that we have had. We always begin with a small Bill, and as we find that we can carry stronger measures, and that they are required, then stronger measures are adopted. If we pass this Bill, there is nothing whatever to prevent the adoption of the recommendations which have been made by Lord Bearsted, who, of course, is one of the greatest authorities on a question of this kind, and who has a world-wide reputation with regard to oil matters. But if you passed his Amendment it would mean that this question would not be dealt with for a very long time. It takes time before you can get a Committee to deal with a question of this kind, and when it reports there is further delay before legislation can be passed, and we want this evil dealt with at once.
It is a very pressing matter, in my judgment, and I hope your Lordships will give

961
a Second Reading to the Bill. If it is found that Amendments can be inserted to carry out sonic of the intentions of noble Lords who have made recommendations, I feel sure that your Lordships will be only too glad to listen to them and, if possible, carry out such as are thought necessary. We must not overlook the fact that although the noble Lord who moved the Amendment stated that the. Bill would do so much harm to the Port of London, we had the strongest speech in favour of the Bill from the Chairman of the Port of London Authority during the last debate. I can bear out what the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, said, and I can say the same with regard to the Tyne. I have had the strongest pressure from the Tyne authority to support the Bill, because they recognise that, while it will not effect all the changes that we require, it is a beginning, and they are quite prepared to deal with any further suggestion that may be found practicable and of advantage to the community. This is not only a public question, it is a national question, cannot see how we can get rid of all these evils unless there is some international arrangement, and I cannot see why such an international agreement should not be brought about. Of course, it will take time to bring it about, but meanwhile we shall have the benefit of this Bill, to which I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I think it is necessary to say a few words with regard to the general objects of the. Bill before dealing with the points raised to-day. I would venture to remind your Lordships that this nuisance at the seaside resorts, alluded to by several speakers, is a great deal larger than is known to the public, for this reason, that the residents in seaside resorts which are troubled by this oil, and so made unpleasant, are for that reason absolutely the last people who dare mention the fact in public. It is obvious that visitors would be lost to them if they took that course.
With regard to the damage to trade, I would remind your Lordships that where fish food is damaged the fish are injured and the fishing industry naturally is very severely damaged. Although those who were afraid of this Bill were inclined to think that it would drive trade away from this country, I venture to think that the Bill would benefit trade in this country,
962
in the sense of protecting the fishing industry from great damage, and, further, that it would prevent the poorer classes in this country, who now take their holidays at seaside resorts, from being compelled to stay at home, or else go elsewhere than to the seaside. It. is, in all probability, a good measure for the seaside resorts in the south of England especially, and in the west of England. I have had a good many letters from seaside resorts asking that the Bill may be passed. With regard to the birds, it is unnecessary to say anything more, except that we have had a letter from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which fully confirms what has been said by my noble friend opposite, who, I was glad to hear, supports what I have heard on private authority—namely, that in the south of England a good many swans had been killed.
With regard to the three-mile limit, if I may say one word on that, foreign ships are in many cases, as far as our information goes, the worst offenders. I think that Lord Southborough is mistaken in thinking that we desire the three-mile limit because we intend to enforce it very rigorously. We take that lime it because we have no jurisdiction beyond it. I quite admit that it does not go far enough, and that it will not prevent oil coining to our coast, but it must be clear that if you prevent oil being poured into the water in large quantities within three miles all round our coast you will prevent to a certain extent the nuisance that is now being created. As to the ultimate issue I should like to remind Lord Southborough, who referred to the fishing troubles in the past—with the means taken to prevent which both he and I were connected—that we shall have on this occasion, as we had on that, the fishermen themselves to act as sentries, in ease any ships unload oil or oily water within the three-mile limit. They would probably give evidence on our side.
Lord Bearsted said it would cost an enormous sum to remove these ships from the Port of London into the open sea in order to discharge their oil there. I think my noble friend understands quite well that the object of this Bill is not to drive the ships beyond the three-mile limit for the discharge of their oil, but to penalise them if they discharge it within the three-mile limit, and the mere fact that it might cost £1,000 for a ship to go beyond the three-mile limit to discharge its oil will

963
do something for the purification of the Thames.
Lord Southborough said that this is a great scientific question, and cannot be settled in such a small way. It is necessary for some nation to take the first step, and we consider that Great Britain is in a position to show an example to other countries in this respect. We hope that, if Great Britain takes this step, other nations will later follow her example, and, finally, that an agreement may be entered into, but we do not intend to wait for it. To come to such an agreement, or to hold such an Inquiry as Lord Southborough suggested, would occupy a great deal of time. The penalties under the present law are quite inadequate. The ordinary limit to a penalty is £10, and, in very exceptional circumstances, £50. Those penalties are quite inadequate, in view of the scale on which oil is carried at the present time.
Lord Bearsted has said that he wants a Committee of Inquiry. We have already had a Committee of Inquiry, which was set up in January, 1921, and only to-day a short letter appeared in The Times, which I will quote, because it puts the case in a nutshell. It is from Mr. P. Maurice Hill, acting general manager of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. He says—
"With reference to the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, the Second Reading of which is being resumed in the House of Lords on Wednesday, I have been authorised by my executive committee to say that the Council of the Chamber of Shipping approved the principles of this Bill at a meeting on July 8, 1921, after agreement with representatives of the dock and harbour authorities and of the oil interests. It is hoped, therefore, that the Bill will be passed and become law, as it is, in the view of shipowners, a reasonable and necessary measure"
It has been said that no Committee was set up, and therefore I must go into that Question.
Representatives of the interests mainly, concerned—namely, the harbour authorities, the shipowners, and the oil companies—met at the Board of Trade in January, 1921, and they agreed that a Committee, consisting of representatives of the interests, should meet at the Board of Trade to follow the matter up. The following were the members of the Committee—and the names are good enough to show the strength of the body which considered this matter:—
964
Dock and Harbour Authorities Association: Sir Arthur W. Clarke, K.B.E. (Port of London Authority, an Elder Brother of Trinity House, and chairman of the rivers committee of the Port of London Authority); Mr. G. W. Service, of the Clyde Navigation Trust, who has taken the place of Sir W. Raeburn, M.P., and who is himself a Clyde Commissioner and shipowner; Mr. W. C. Thorne (Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, legal adviser to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and a member of the Federated Docks and Harbours of the United Kingdom).
Shipping: Sir W. J. Noble, ex-President of the Chamber of Shipping, and a big shipowner; Mr. L. C. Harris (Ellerman and Bucknall Steamship Company), and Mr. P. E. Curry (White Star Line). I am told that these two last-named gentlemen, who belong to the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, cover practically all shipowners. In addition to these the general manager of the Chamber of Shipping attended many of the later meetings.
Oil: Sir Frederick Black (Anglo-Persian Oil Co.), Mr. J. P. Wakeham (Anglo-American Oil Co.), Mr. T. McLellan (Anglo Mexican Petroleum Co.).
Ministry of Transport: Mr. T. A. E. Muir.
Board of Trade: Mr. C. Hipwood, C.B. The two last-named gentlemen have had experience of the different work in their respective Ministries for thirty years.
I venture to say that this Committee was as good a Committee as you could have, and that to appoint another Committee now would be an absolute waste of time. The only witnesses they could call would be the witnesses who were before the Committee of 1921, which—I beg you to note—included representatives of the oil companies. A draft Bill was prepared by a sub-committee which served as a basis for discussion at the later meetings. In the end the main point of difference between the parties related to the provision of barges or other receptacles into which the oily water could be pumped. All parties agreed that these must be provided, and that the shipowners must pay a reasonable charge for the use of them. The shipowners and the oil companies thought that there should be a definite statutory obligation on the port authorities to provide the barges. The port authorities, on the other hand, while agreeing that barges would have to be provided, did not think

965
it right that it should be made a matter of statutory obligation.
Further negotiations took place on this crucial point between the shipowners' Parliamentary committee and the representatives of the dock authorities, and in the end the matter was settled by an exchange of letters in which the dock authorities undertook to give the matter their consideration with a view to seeing what assistance could be given to ship owners by way of providing receptacles. This was accepted by the shipowners as satisfactory, and the main point of difference between the parties was thus removed. The arrangement which satisfied the shipowners ought to be good enough for the oil companies. The oil companies' representatives on the Board of Trade Committee were furnished with copies of the correspondence in July, 1921.
I believe that Lord Bearsted's opposition to the Bill has been due to a misunderstanding, as he was not aware of the negotiations that had taken place about the provision of barges. He was under the impression that the Bill meant that ships would have to go down the river and outside the three-mile limit to get rid of their oily water. This, he thought, would cause great inconvenience and expense, and would be damaging to trade. I could read the letters which passed later on between the different authorities by which this business was satisfactorily arranged; if your Lordships so desire.
NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: This friendly settlement is the necessary complement to the Bill, as every one agrees that the only way of curing the evil is to induce the master of an oil steamer to regard it as part of his regular business to deposit his oil in barges provided for the purpose. Without this agreement the Bill cannot be properly understood. Efforts were made to have this agreement, or the substance of it, put into the Bill, so as to have the whole thing in one document, but the dock companies strongly objected to be put under a statutory obligation to provide barges for a nuisance brought to their waters by a certain class of shipowners owing to a new development in trade. There is a good deal to be said for their argument, and if the barges are, in fact, provided it does not matter much whether
966
the provision is made compulsorily or voluntarily. The oil companies are only interested in this matter in their capacity as shipowners, and if they decline to adhere to the arrangement made by their fellow shipowners I think that they ought at least to have given us the reasons why an arrangement which was good enough for the Chamber of Shipping is not good enough for them.
I do not think it is necessary for rue to allude further to the clauses of the Bill or to the Royal Navy, unless any noble Lord wishes to know why the Bill is not to be applicable to the Royal Navy. It is clear that the ships of tie Crown must be in a different position from, and cannot be open to inspection in the same way as, other ships. It is not necessary for me, I think, to go further into that. I would, however, mention that I believe this barge or receptacle question will be very much more easily settled than was thought. There are already in existence several ingenious devices for separating in the barges the oil from the water, one of which will, no doubt, be adopted. If the Bill is thrown out the nuisance will be continued and the workers' holidays throughout the country will be menaced and spoilt the waste continued, and the fishing endangered. If the Bill passes into law I venture to think that the nuisance will be abated and economy encouraged, and that we shall be able to enjoy our own seashores. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment which has been moved.
LORD BEARSTED: My Lords, perhaps you will permit me to say a few words in reply to what has fallen from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I am very glad to see that every single measure I have advocated for getting rid of this trouble has been considered and adopted. The noble Lord would have saved the House a great deal of time and those who have watched the progress of this Bill a great deal of anxiety if he had been able to assure us before that proper receptacles would be provided, because then our difficulties would have been met. I am quite satisfied with the assurance he has given and I, therefore, ask the leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, as there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn, except for Judicial business, till Tuesday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of May 31.]

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at live minutes before seven o'clock.