Sitting of 8 March 1892

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION WATER BILL (by Order.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have to move the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not understand that there is anything in the nature of serious opposition to the Second Reading, and under the circumstances I think I can explain the character and objects of the Bill in a very few words. It is a proposal to obtain a supply of water for Birmingham and the district, from a district in Wales—the head waters of the Elan and
  266
  the Claerwen, two small rivers in Wales. The Bill is intended to provide for the wants not only of the people of the City of Birmingham, but also of populations of important towns, villages, and hamlets all along a route of 15 miles on either side of the aqueduct. The towns included in the provisions of the Bill are Wolverhampton and Worcester; and many other towns in Staffordshire, including West Bromwich, Wednesbury, and other places, hereafter may find it to their interest to avail themselves of the advantages of the Bill. The population concerned at the present time numbers 1,250,000. The necessity for some such provision is urgent—in fact, the proposals of the Corporation of Birmingham have been delayed to the last moment, owing, of course, to the magnitude of the task, and their desire not to incur fresh responsibilities before it was absolutely necessary to do so. The Corporation of Birmingham acquired the water supply in 1876, and the average daily demand at that time was 8,250,000 gallons; but already in 15 years that demand has more than doubled. The demand is now 17,000,000 gallons. The maximum supply at the present time is restricted to about 20,000,000 gallons daily. Consequently, it is evident that the maximum supply will be insufficient for the average demand in the course of the next few years; while even now it is insufficient for any extraordinary demand, and in times of drought, such as we had in 1887, when the people of Birmingham were very nearly put upon "short commons" in regard to water supply. It is calculated that the works will take ten years to complete, so that it is probable that before the completion of this undertaking the town and district will be in considerable difficulties with regard to water. In the endeavour to supply the deficiency the Corporation, in the first instance, sought for a local source; naturally doing so to avoid gigantic expenditure. At the present time the supply is derived chiefly from the River Bourne, and from deep wells sunk in the sandstone. The supply from the river is, of course, limited, and, in addition to that, the increase of population on the banks increases the difficulty of obtaining the water of that

  267
  purity which is now demanded on sanitary considerations. As regards the supply from the sandstone formation, this is always somewhat doubtful. It is intermittent, and it occasionally fails suddenly, and there is reason to believe that the sponge of the sandstone formation in our district is very nearly exhausted. At all events, it is highly improbable that any considerable additional supply could be obtained without going very much deeper, in which case experience has shown that the water obtained is so hard as to be unfitted for domestic purposes. Even if the sandstone resources were availed of to the largest possible extent for the consumption of Birmingham and the district, even then the supply would only last this growing population for a few years, and at the end of that time we should still have to go to a distance for a supply, and all the previous expenditure on works would be thrown away. So it becomes necessary for the Corporation of Birmingham to seek a supply from a distance, and in doing this they are confined within a very limited area by certain physical conditions. Birmingham is, I believe, the highest of the large towns of the United Kingdom. The average height of the town is something between 400 and 500 feet above sea level, and consequently it is necessary that, for a supply of water to be used by gravitation in the town and district, it should be brought into the Birmingham reservoirs at a height of 600 feet above the sea level, and that an incline from the source of supply of 150 or 200 feet should be allowed—that is, that the source of supply should be 800 feet above sea level. With these considerations it was easy to hit on a spot which satisfied these conditions, while it would be difficult to find any other place equally suitable. The lands proposed to be taken are, in fact, the top of the watershed of the head waters of the Wye, and being at this level they can supply Birmingham, while the rest of the watershed would be quite incapable of supplying Birmingham, although it could supply many other large towns. The particular position selected was recommended twenty years ago by Mr. Rawlinson—afterwards Sir Robert Rawlinson—who
  268
  reported on the subject to the Corporation of Birmingham at that time, and his selection has since been confirmed by Mr. Mansard and Mr. Grey, engineers to the city. The Bill provides for the supply of the water in a large conduit, which will ultimately contain five great pipes, though first of all two will be provided, others being added from time to time as more water is required. It is proposed to take the whole of the watershed at this elevation, which I believe covers an area of 70 square miles, in order to secure absolute control over the purity and quality of the water; but it is not intended to interfere more than is necessary for the purpose with the present use of the land, or the rights of any persons having any interest in the land. The Bill contemplates an ultimate expenditure of £6,000,000 sterling, but in the first instance the preliminary expenditure will be about £3,000,000, and it is hoped to provide this partly out of the profits of the present undertaking, and partly by an increase in the Water Rate which will be found necessary, although that increase will not be equal to the decrease which has taken place in the Water Rate since the Corporation obtained the property. Now, I should suppose that a Bill of this kind, involving the supply of a necessity of life to a great population, would be purely one for submission to a Committee, that the details may be carefully examined. But some opposition has been announced, and I find it expressed in a Motion for the rejection of the Bill standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. Ellis). I do not know what are the motives for the hon. Member's opposition; but I can see perfectly that it is natural that when one district in the Kingdom proposes to appropriate an important source of water supply, other districts of the Kingdom, which either are now, or may be at any time, in want of water, should be anxious lest their possible requirements may be in any way improperly anticipated by a Corporation such as now puts this Bill before the House. That, I believe, was the case of the London County Council acting on behalf of the inhabitants of London; and I was very glad with my colleagues, and on behalf

  269
  of the Corporation of Birmingham, to have an interview with the representatives of London, and to explain to them the circumstances under which this proposal is promoted. We were able to show to our London friends that, in consequence of the peculiar position of Birmingham, we were taking only the crown of the watershed—that is to say, the 70 square miles I have mentioned. But the whole of the watershed extends over 700 square miles, so that if we take that which we propose there will still be 630 square miles for the purposes of any other population which hereafter may find itself in want of water. I am happy to think we have satisfied our London friends, and they, I believe, assume a benevolent attitude towards the Bill on the present occasion. I do not know whether the hon Member for Merionethshire is actuated by a similar anxiety. I have seen in The Times of this morning a statement that hon. Members from Wales are promoting opposition, rather with the view of getting some Instruction sent to the Committee such as that of which notice has been given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). I would ask the hon. Member if this is true? Does he oppose the Second Reading of the Bill only with an ulterior purpose? If so, I would rather discuss with him these ulterior points than trouble the House with general remarks now.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: As the right hon. Gentleman appeals to me, I may say that the Instruction does not cover all our objections to the Bill, though it goes partly in our direction.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I suppose the general principle is still involved. If it were only a question of details of an Instruction, I would endeavour to give the hon. Member assurances that I think would satisfy him. There has been a general principle stated in the Press, though I hope it is not adopted by the hon. Member, which finds expression in the phrase, "Welsh water for Wales." I must say in the whole course of my experience I never have observed such an extraordinary
  270
  and curious development of and national feeling as is involved in this expression.
  MR. T. ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman may relieve his mind on that point. That has only been advanced by some Conservative parson in some part of Montgomeryshire.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am extremely glad that the hon. Gentleman does not support the view, for I should not be prepared to agree that this is Welsh water. It does not spring from Wales. It comes from Heaven and goes to the sea, and no more belongs to Welshmen than anybody else who stands in need of it. Well, then, this catchword, this extraordinary suggestion, may be put aside altogether. Then comes what is possibly a more serious objection—that Wales, like Birmingham, may be in need of water for itself. I have seen it stated that Glamorganshire has a rapidly, growing population already in need of water, and that the scheme of the Birmingham Corporation might possibly interfere with its right. If that is the objection, I have to say that personally I have been informed on good authority that any want that may be experienced in Glamorganshire or South Wales is not want of water, for they have too much, but want of adequate works for the storage. In the second place it may be said of Glamorganshire, as of London and other parts of the Kingdom, that even after we have taken everything that is required for the Midland district there still remains an enormous watershed entirely at their disposal which will provide for all possible wants for 50 years to come of 20,000,000 people. We appropriate the streams of the Elan and Claerwen tributaries of the Wye, but leave to Wales the Taff, the Usk, and all the lower tributaries of the Wye; and, as a fact, the source from whence we propose to draw our supply could not be availed of for South Wales without enormous expense and most difficult engineering works. I hope that after my explanation the opposition at this stage will not be pressed. I have already alluded to the Instruction proposed to be moved by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He is very anxious, in the first place, to secure

  271
  the access of tourists to this almost inaccessible district which no tourist visits at the present time. ("Oh, oh!") Yes, that is so. We know a good deal about the district. Our representatives have been there for many months past, and I believe such a thing as a tourist has never been seen. However, I do not lay stress on that—I merely state the fact that tourists do not go there, though doubtless when we have constructed our beautiful lakes visitors will go to see the works. Then my right hon. Friend is anxious for the commoners, whose rights are to be taken as well as manorial rights. I may say broadly that the Corporation of Birmingham do not desire to interfere in the slightest degree with any rights that can be shown to exist on the part of commoners or others, except so far as to secure the purity of the water supply. The only restrictions are such restrictions as may concern the purity of the water; and it is a matter of the very greatest importance, that if we spend £6,000,000 there should be no doubt about our being able to obtain a supply of water that will not be polluted from any source whatever. There are two reasons why rights of common may interfere. I do not say that they do interfere, but they may. One is in regard to the cutting of turbary. I am told that, under certain circumstances, the cutting of turbary is carried on in such a way that it may injure the purity of the water. Another way in which the rights of common may interfere is, I believe, in connection with sheep-washing, in which process arsenic is sometimes used. I do not say that the people of Birmingham are not a particularly healthy people; but what I do say is that, as a general rule, they do not like arsenic in their water. The population of the district concerned is a very small one; it is visited by few tourists, and by no stretch of imagination could it be supposed that mines are likely to be discovered in the neighbourhood. Again, there might be a great disadvantage in a general provision which gave everybody an unrestricted right upon those lands, as it is conceivable that it might be the source of much damage to the water supply. I will ask my hon.
  272
  Friends to have faith in Local Government principles; that we are not dealing here with private interests; that they will recollect the sole object of the Corporation of Birmingham is to secure a water supply, and that that Corporation is so democratic as not to want to interfere with the pleasures or the rights of any individual.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
  MR. THOMAS E. ELLIS: It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that this is a Private Bill, but it contains provisions which are calculated to make it a Public Bill, and a Bill of really national importance. I think it is right that the House should know upon what terms, and by the extinction of what rights, Birmingham proposes to take this land and to obtain powers from Parliament to do so. The right hon. Gentleman said that in Committee the details of the plan would be subjected to criticism, and that the objections would be subjected to the judgment of the Committee. It seems to me, from the principles underlying the demands of Birmingham, that those demands and all connected with them should be subjected to the judgment of this House. I do not so much refer to the magnitude of the project, or that the fact of Birmingham asking to spend £6,000,000 is a matter which deserves the attention of this House. I refer to the matter more in consequence of the sweeping powers asked for in the Bill, and also because of the character and variety of the public rights with which this. Bill proposes to interfere. The right hon. Gentleman made two or three references with regard to the matter of water supply for great centres. The question of population is one of enormous importance. Birmingham is not the only place that is looking to Wales for a water supply. London itself recognised the importance of it when Birmingham gave notice to ask for these powers, and Birmingham knows, and London knows, and South Wales knows, that there is only a very limited number of available watersheds for an enormously increasing population. The right hon. Gentleman named certain

  273
  South Wales rivers, yet I venture to say that when the local conditions and the source of the water are examined, the House will find that the number of available water supplies is strictly limited, But in order to give some idea of its importance, not alone to London, but to South Wales, I need only refer to the figures of the last Census, showing that whereas Warwickshire increased within the ten years 9·2 per cent. Glamorganshire increased 34·4 within the same period, and Monmouthshire 19·5. What is the state of the water supply in Merthyr, Swansea, and in the rapidly rising town of Barry? Every dry summer the Rhondda is within measurable distance of a water famine. Take the water supply from those gathering grounds, the Elan and the Glaerwen, and then assuredly other districts of South Wales will soon ask for water from some of those rivers upon the same terms. How far, then, I ask the House, is the policy of tapping those hills to be carried? The right hon. Gentleman passed over, with his usual adroitness, the question of common land, and the public rights interfered with by this scheme. Take the comparatively small matter of 82 families, of 300 persons, who will be actually dispossessed and cleared off their ground.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member is under a mistake. Their rights will be bought up. The only land the Corporation will take possession of is where it is necessary for the creation of a reservoir; and as regards the other land, the Corporation will be very glad to have tenants.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I am only going by the notice of the Corporation, in which they say that 82 families will be dispossessed, will be actually displaced from their land; and, in addition to that, I notice that they propose to take a church, two chapels, a school, and one or two burial grounds. We may fairly trust those who believe so much in Local Government that these displacements will take place with the greatest possible care and with every consideration; but does the House realise that among the powers to be taken are practically the acquiring of 65,000 acres of land for the purposes of the Bill, of which one-half,
  274
  or about 32,000 acres, are common land? I venture to say that since the Act of 1876, regulating most carefully the enclosure of commons, no such power to enclose commons was ever asked for by anybody in this House. This Bill is therefore a gigantic Enclosure Bill, which Birmingham asks for. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to trust in Local Government and give up our rights for ever, which rights are to be distinctly and specifically taken away, and this I say is too much for the Corporation of Birmingham to ask. I find that 10,000 acres of common will be enclosed in one county, and that in another 20,000 acres will be enclosed. In one common there are 116 occupiers, and in the other 172, so that these powers concern 300 farmers with comparatively small farms. They have the right of common pasture upon these mountains, and with it they can live with comparative thrift and in comfort; but without it life would be impossible. I say that we should not trust in a vague way to the promoters of the Bill, but that the rights and privileges of these common pastures should be specifically protected. If hon. Members look at the Act of 1876 they will see that the rights and privileges of these commons are very carefully protected, and that the most strict reservation is made as to them. In regard to these rights Birmingham asks that we should appear in Committee and maintain them, and so safeguard the rights of the owners and occupiers. As a matter of fact, it is practically impossible for these small farmers to appear before a Committee of this House and obtain a fair hearing. With regard to the argument that the farmers are to have employment by the granting of this Bill, I do not see how it can be reasonably asked that we are to give up our rights to 32,000 acres for such a vague promise as that is, especially as we know that in many cases thousands and thousands of acres of common land have been taken away upon the same pretext. I do not see why the immemorial rights of the people should be given up upon such a promise. As to the right of access, it is a comedy to say that this district has no tourists; and I should

  275
  say that there should be in the Bill a distinct and definite provision securing to the public the right of access to the districts from which the water was to be drawn. I could wish that regulations should be made either by the County Council or the Corporation with regard to keeping all the source of that supply pure and uncontaminated; but, over and above these regulations it seems they should continue the same right of access to these districts as hitherto. And then I hope the promoters of the Bill will accept in this Bill, if it passes the Second Reading, that Scenery Clause, which is Clause 13 of the Manchester Water (Thirlmere) Act of 1879. The powers in this Bill will include two or three of the best fishing rivers in South Wales, and it is proposed to take away the rights of fishing in these tributaries of the Wye, and one or two of the mountain tarns and lakes. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no common right of fishing in these rivers and tributaries; but one thing is certain, and that is, that there is an immemorial custom on the subject. I venture to think that if any other town, such as Liverpool or Manchester, six years ago had asked for such privileges as this Bill, for extinguishing at a stroke all the rights and privileges of the people, the right hon. Gentleman would have been the very first in this House and out of it to lead the Opposition against the attack of public property.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is mistaken I think, because I supported the Liverpool and Manchester Bill.
  MR. T. ELLIS: The Liverpool and Manchester Bill were comparatively small Bills, so far as the amount of land taken. The Liverpool scheme simply takes one valley and the hills around it, and the amount of commonland is small, and will not compare for a moment with the amount which Birmingham proposes to take by this Bill. And since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to Liverpool, I may say that there is great dissatisfaction on the part of the tenants there with the Liverpool Corporation. They find them hard landmasters;
  276
  and there is considerable complaint that the rights of fishing have been monopolised by the Corporation of Liverpool. Over and above the ordinary regulations for the due preservation of public privileges, the inhabitants of the district of the Upper Wye should have continued to them this immemorial privilege of fishing. The only other point that I should like to call the attention of the House to in this Bill is that, although one reservoir would be quite enough, and possibly one-third or one-fourth of the land which it is proposed to enclose would be quite enough, for the purpose of supplying Birmingham, yet Birmingham by this Bill asks powers to supply every district within fifteen miles of the aqueduct. Birmingham seeks to become a sort of universal water provider over all these districts from Brecon to Birmingham; so that this Bill is not intended to meet the needs of Birmingham for water, but is intended to be a great commercial money-making undertaking.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be its duty to supply these districts. We do not seek for it; it is a duty imposed upon us, not by any desire of those who are interested in the promotion of the Bill, but the districts through which the water comes very naturally want to have a supply of water provided for them, and accordingly they have imposed upon us this condition: that they shall be supplied with water at a small rate of interest on the cost.
  MR. T. ELLIS: We have nothing to do with the amount of imposition which poor, oppressed Birmingham has been made to endure. The idea that Birmingham will be imposed upon by these districts is too much for this House. It is perfectly clear that Birmingham, by this Bill, seeks to supply water to all the other districts; and I am quite sure that once they have got this power Birmingham will not be imposed upon by Wolverhampton or any other town; but will be able to impose its own price upon any other town seeking water. In addition to the rights of common, of scenery, free fishing, and of turbary, I wish to point out, in the case of Radnorshire and Brecknockshire, that they urgently need to be re-afforested. The Woods

  277
  and Forests Department has grossly neglected its duty in this matter. It has simply allowed the woods and forests in Radnorshire and Brecknockshire to be given away for an old song; it has allowed them to be cleared off, and has scarcely planted a single tree in the counties of Wales. There is no district where re-afforesting could be tried with more advantage than on this land which it is proposed to take away. True, it is not of much value at present, but it has a prospective value, and I say that these County Councils have a distinct interest in the ownership of the actual surface of the land over which they rule. The right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech referred to this ridiculous statement which has been considerably circulated by silly paragraphists in English newspapers with regard to Welsh water for Wales. It is quite true that you do not protect Welsh coal or Welsh iron for consumption. At the same time, when Welsh coal or Welsh iron is taken away from Wales it is taken at a fair valuation. We do not object to Birmingham getting its water supply in Wales. We can afford enough water to drown Birmingham; but, at any rate, if you intend to give the analogy of coal and iron, then you should make some compensation for these valuable public and immemorial rights which you are taking away. I hope the promoters of the Bill, if it be read a second time, will not only accept the Instruction which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has moved, but will also enlarge that Instruction by including the immemorial privilege of free fishing in these waters, and, further, that they will make some substantial compensation to the two County Councils most especially concerned—namely, those of Brecknockshire and Radnorshire. I venture to make these remarks, not in any spirit of opposition to Birmingham getting a pure supply of water from the Welsh hills, but in the hope that the House will see that the rights and privileges of the commoners and the public rights shall be duly safeguarded and respected. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEY: It is the duty of a prudent Legislature to look forward. No doubt Birmingham is doing what is right in looking about for a proper and adequate water supply. I do not wash to say that Wales should have a monopoly of the Welsh water; but I am here to say that the waters of the Wye are, in the first place, to be made applicable for the population in the valley of the Wye. The Wye flows through the centre of the City of Hereford, which I have the honour to represent. Hereford stands on both banks of the river, and the City of Hereford has acted very nobly by the River Wye. It has entered into a costly undertaking and provided the most elaborate system of drainage works in order that it may pass the River Wye with the greatest possible purity to the in habitants below. The Wye has no connection at all with Glamorganshire. There is this great difference between Hereford and Birmingham: that Birmingham is a rich place, and, unfortunately, Hereford is a poor place. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the water in Wales is not Welsh water, but the water Heaven sent. Well, I say that Heaven sent the water of the Wye to Hereford, and not to Birmingham. The Wye is not an ideal source for a water supply, because Rhayader, Newbridge, Builth, and Hay discharge their sewage into it. But the river is scoured by the streams that flow into it, and especially by the strong winter floods; and I never heard any complaints at Hereford that any epidemic disease had arisen from drinking the water. But it may be very different when Birmingham has taken the purest water of the Wye, and taken a large portion of the two rivers which are the great cause of the winter floods and supply the scouring, which makes it at present so useful to Hereford. Sheep washing is not to be permitted, and mining operations are to be brought to an end. It is proposed that of a tract of

  279
  70 square miles Birmingham shall become the owner. This demand embodied in this Bill is larger far than any that has ever been advanced in the history of the world. I do not want to dwell on the agricultural aspect of the question, but I may say that sheep farmers are looking with the greatest anxiety upon this Bill. They graze their sheep on the mountains, and, if these mountains are denuded of sheep, great distress will certainly be occasioned. There is another point. At the present time, when a man leaves his farm, it is the custom for the incoming tenant to buy all the sheep; and those tenants who hold under Welsh landlords, and who have an interest in maintaining this custom, are naturally alarmed at the prospective establishment of a condition of things which will make the Municipality of Birmingham the proprietors of this part of the country and the landlord of those men. Now, with regard to Hereford, the citizens there find that their water supply is, in the summer, hardly sufficient to meet their own wants, and, although the Bill proposes to give them 22,500 gallons of compensation water per day, I think that hardly meets the case. There is no doubt that great interference with the mineral industries might take place. I do not dwell upon the effect of this scheme upon the works on the south side of the Claerwen, because those works are my own property. But from this mineral estate I would like to mention that the water, after being used, flows, in a more or less impure condition, into the Claerwen. It is proposed by Birmingham to make no provision for these mineral rights, and to turn this water, which I have said is more or less foul, into a pipe, and conduct it into either the River Claerwen or the compensation reservoir. It will be observed that while they take the greatest possible care to secure the purity of the water they are going to supply to their own citizens, the Corporation of Birmingham actually propose to run into the water, which forms the domestic supply of Hereford, the water coming from this mine. This inflow affects not only Hereford, but all places within the valley of the Wye,
  280
  which is a South of Hereford fishing river. There are fisheries which supply a considerable amount of salmon to the London market. By the sport of fishing, and by the natural beauty of the spot, many people are every year attracted to the Wye, which has led to a large amount of building on both sides of the river, and consequently added considerably to the rateable value of the neighbourhood. The Corporation of Birmingham propose to place across the River Wye a dam 120 feet high, which will prevent salmon getting to the spawning ground. I should like to point out to the House the very great danger of these enormous weirs. If they were to break down they would, in all probability, cause great injury in three counties—Brecon, Hereford, and Monmouth—and there is nothing to throw the responsibility of that danger upon the shoulders of the Municipality of Birmingham. I hope the House will consider the enormous gravity of this question, which affects every town and every interest in the valley of the River Wye. Among the opponents of this Bill were the London County Council and the Corporation of the City. What can they have to do with the matter, and what is their object? It is only this—that they are looking forward to getting their water in the future from this very neighbourhood in Wales. A clause is to be inserted into the Bill providing that no compensation is to be given to persons in the valley of the Wye, to whom by nature this water belongs, that shall be injurious to the interests of London; and a second clause, giving the County of London power to cross the aqueducts of Birmingham at any point they think fit. No doubt Birmingham is well advised in getting its water from the best and cheapest source; but if the aqueducts of Birmingham touch those of London at any point, it is quite clear that for their supply they are both going to the same neighbourhood. In the circumstances, I think that those who disapprove of this Bill are well within their rights in coming to this House and asking for protection. This Bill is opposed by five counties—Radnor, Brecknock, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Montgomery-

  281
  shire. It is opposed by the Corporation of Hereford, and by every town and by every interest on the Wye. We do not object to Birmingham going for water wherever they like. What we complain of is that this Bill has been promoted solely in the interests of Birmingham, and to the exclusion of the interests of our neighbourhood. Birmingham ought, in the first place, to have consulted every person and every interest locally affected before bringing this Bill to a Second Reading. And the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham ought to have been able to say to this House, "We have consulted every interest which will be affected, and have come to ask for this water with the goodwill and the approval of all."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, I may have on another occasion to move the Instruction of which I have given notice, and I now rise briefly to explain my position in relation to this Bill. In the first place, I have no intention of opposing the Second Reading, for I have no hostility to the proposal, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham has made out a good case for the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee. But, Sir, I wish to insure that when the Bill goes before that Committee there should be given to all those interests really affected ample power and opportunity of being heard. The Bill as it stands is one of enormous importance, and affects an enormous number of small farmers in the district. I understand there are no fewer than 400 farmers who have rights of common and rights of cutting turf over the 32,000 acres of land which this Bill proposes to take, and I am told that these rights are essential to the very existence of these small farmers. At a time when legislation is pending, having for its object the creation of small holdings, it would be unwise on the part of the House to take a course which would lead to the virtual extinction of 400 farmers. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham said he had no intention of taking away any rights, and that all that was intended was to prevent those common rights being used in such a way as to vitiate
  282
  the water. But my right hon. Friend proposes to expropriate those common rights and the rights of the lords of the manor, and he asks us to have confidence in Birmingham and in the general goodness of local government. I have the utmost confidence in local government, but I have not the same confidence in Local Corporations when I come to deal with them from an external point of view. Corporations, as we all know, have neither got souls to be saved nor bodies to be kicked, and I do not think it would be an altogether ideal position for the Corporation of Birmingham to occupy to be landlord to something like 400 small tenants in Wales. That is a relation that ought not to be established without very serious consideration; but, Sir, I do not ask the House to decide upon that question now. I only want to secure that these small farmers shall have ample opportunity of being heard before the Committee. There is great doubt whether they have any locus standi. They are not, strictly at law, commoners. They are merely tenants of the landlords, who themselves are commoners. They are tenants from year to year, who are not entitled to compensation in respect of common rights and what I desire to secure is that they will be heard, and that their rights will be respected. I desire that the Committee should have power to summon these people before them and to pay their expenses. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham that he is prepared to concede my Instruction if the Welsh Members will not vote against the Bill. I would recommend that course to my hon. Friends from Wales, who, I venture to think, will be wise in withdrawing their opposition upon this understanding.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I wish to ask the indulgence of the House in order that I may make a few remarks from a point of view entirely different from those who have already spoken. And first of all, Sir, I wish to acknowledge, on behalf of the London County Council and the Members representing the Metropolitan district and the Home counties, our obligation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham

  283
  for his courtesy in postponing for a few days the Second Reading of this Bill in order that we might have time to consult the Birmingham Members with reference to the Bill. We regret that it has been introduced at the present moment. The supply of water to the community is a national question; the areas of supply are becoming so enlarged that it is of the utmost importance, from a national point of view, that the water supply should be made available in the most economical manner for all the great and growing cities of the country. We have already made some mistakes with reference to water supplies. In the case of Liverpool, for instance, it would have been very much better if Liverpool had sought her supply of water rather from the Westmoreland and Cumberland lakes, and have let the Welsh area supply the centre and west of England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham says that this scheme takes only 70 square miles, and that there will remain 670 not appropriated. But those 670 square miles are not of such a good quality as the 70 square miles sought for in this Bill, and from that point of view there can be no comparison of the two areas. Last year a very able Committee sat upon the question of water supply, and made an unanimous Report to the House, in one paragraph of which they expressed this opinion and advice—
  "In view of the possibility of its being ultimately established that the present sources of supply cannot be extended, and that additional sources are required, and in view also of the fact that the possible fresh areas of supply are limited, and are already being drained for other large communities, your Committee think that Parliament may well consider, before granting any powers for further encroachment upon those areas, how far provision ought fairly to be made for the possible requirements alike of the Metropolis and of the other large populations upon the lines of supply."
  That was a very important recommendation, and, I venture to say, a very wise recommendation. In consequence of that recommendation partly, and partly also in consequence of the recommendation of the London County Council, Her Majesty's Government have found themselves bound to appoint a Royal Com-
  284
  mission to inquire into this subject. In these circumstances, we certainly do regret that this Bill has not been delayed until that Royal Commission has had an opportunity of inquiring into the subject and reporting. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has said that this matter is so urgent for Birmingham that it is impossible to wait. We have some doubts upon this subject even now, and I observe in the report of the speech of the Chairman of the Birmingham Water Committee (Sir T. Martineau) he did not express himself so strongly on that point. He referred to the waters of the Bourne, from which Birmingham now derives its supply, and said he could not conscientiously say this supply would be sufficient to last for a longer period than 20 years. Well, 20 years is a very considerable time. If it will take 20 years for this supply to be utilised, that would give ample opportunity for inquiry on the part of Her Majesty's Government. May I ask, why should there be this great haste? When the London County Council representatives had a meeting with the representatives of Birmingham, we told them that we were informed that they were hurrying forward in order to forestall London. We were assured that this was not the case. Of course we accepted that assurance, but an hour or two ago I received the official report of a speech of the Chairman of the Birmingham Water Committee, and I was greatly surprised to find the following passage. His words are these—
  "There is a most important reason for not dallying with this matter, and that is what is being done by London. No doubt London is in the initiatory stage; no doubt a great deal will have to be done before any Bill can be got into shape for a supply from a distance, or even a nearer source, for London. In some shape or another it will have to be settled which of the Governing Bodies of London, in case the companies are bought out or superseded, is to have the control of the water supply. Therefore, we have a little time before they begin to be our rivals, but I think we must bear this in mind: our rivals they will be sooner or later, and we have just now an opportunity of running before them, and getting hold, if we can, of these valuable rivers for the supply of Birmingham."
  It is sometimes said it is very hard, if Birmingham wishes for this supply, that anyone should object

  285
  because London has not made up its mind. But the fact is, London is not allowed to make up its mind. There is no public body which is allowed to speak for London. I tried last Session and this Session to obtain from this House those powers for London which every other great city possesses, but those powers were not allowed. The fact is, that at the present moment London has its hands tied behind its back, and whilst we are unable to do anything towards obtaining a sufficient water supply for London, other cities come forward one after another and are appropriating the most useful districts. We do not wish to interfere with this Bill if it is really necessary for the interests of Birmingham. We sympathise with the wishes of Birmingham in this matter, we acknowledge the courtesy we have received from them, and they have met us on some matters connected with this Bill. Therefore, in these circumstances, we do not feel we should be justified in opposing the Second Reading of the Bill. We submit that the passage I have read to you is a strong reason why this House should no longer keep from the people of London power to protect themselves and get a sufficient water supply. But we do not feel it would be right for us to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. What we do ask is that the Committee, which will, no doubt, inquire carefully into the claims of the Bill, should not pass the Bill, unless they are satisfied that the claims of Birmingham are as urgent as we are assured they are, and that they cannot be supplied from a district nearer and more appropriate than that now proposed. That is the position we take up. If it is really a fact that this supply is urgently necessary, we, on the part of London, will not stand in the way of Birmingham in this matter. But we hope, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of last year, further areas will not be appropriated unless it is felt that the needs are urgent and that there is no nearer source of supply.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: It has been said in the course of this Debate that London is quite satisfied with the arrangement
  286
  which is being come to; but it appears from the speech of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down that London is nothing of the sort—that we are very far from being satisfied with the arrangement, because London has not the power to deal with her water supply which is given to other communities, and that, consequently, Birmingham is stealing a march on London. It is said that Birmingham has a supply which will not be utilized for the next 20 years; and, as a matter of fact, Birmingham has the advantage of London in that respect. What does Birmingham propose to do? Birmingham proposes to take the head waters of the Wye, and of the two rivers the Claerwen and Elan, which supply water to the Wye. At a stretch including the best point where the waters are the purest, they propose to take what I may call the cream of the water for themselves. Then how do they leave-London? They leave London to take its supply from the lower and more polluted area, whilst the people of Birmingham take theirs from the highest position, because their opening is situated higher up than is that for London. What will be the result? In the opinion of those best able to judge, it would be best for London to go to the nearest and purest water; but, if Birmingham is before London, London will have to make much more expensive works and take water from a lower area, because Birmingham has got it from a higher area, and we shall have greater expense, because water from a lower level will be brought to London at a greater cost than water from the higher level of the actual reach. The needs of Birmingham are 17,000,000 gallons a day. What does London require? The 600,000 inhabitants of Birmingham require 17,000,000 gallons per day, but the 6,000,000 inhabitants of London, in the areas served by the Water Companies, require 200,000,000 gallons per day, and that will probably increase to 250,000,000 or 300,000,000 gallons per day before 20 years have elapsed. The claims of London are far ahead of the claims of Birmingham. What can be the reason in the mind of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham for his attitude in this matter? It is that,

  287
  under the influence of that beneficent measure we are going to pass, the Small Holdings Act, Birmingham will be relieved from a great portion of the surplus population, and, therefore, there will not be such a great con sumption of water. The main facts of the case are that, because the London County Council has not such powers regarding water supply as such a powerful body ought to possess, therefore it is to allow Birmingham to steal a march. That is a position of affairs we ought to oppose.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: What I said was that we were told London had not made up its mind, but the fact is London has not made up its mind because the London County Council have no power in the matter.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: There are 60 Members in this House representing London, and I hope they will show that London has made up its mind by fighting against this Bill to the last.
  MR. BIDDULPH: As representing a constituency close to the River Wye, I may say at the present moment there is not one drop of its water to spare. The Wye is a rapidly-flowing river, and it is of the utmost importance that the rights of the inhabitants through whose district it flows should be preserved. I am quite certain if this Bill is passed, unless some stringent protective measures are used, a great amount of water will be alienated, and irreparable injury will be done to the district through which the Wye passes.
  MR. WALSH: I should like to have some assurance from those who represent the promoters of this Bill that some compensation will be given for any damage done, and for the extra force of police required to protect the strangers attracted to the locality, and which with the extra cost for the maintenance of roads will be a heavy burden on the locality.
  SIR HENRY JAMES: I think the feeling of this House is that it would be a strong measure to reject this Bill with all its great defects. At the same time there seems to be a wish to preserve the enjoyment of the rights that the public
  288
  have long been in possession of. Speaking from some interest in the locality, I give notice of this new Instruction, which I will move on Thursday or Friday next—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom this Bill is referred that provisions be inserted in the Bill to preserve the substantial use and enjoyment to the public of the waters of the Wye and the other waters affected by the Bill to the same extent, and in like manner, as if this Bill were not passed; or a full equivalent for such use or enjoyment."
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: There has been some consultation on this matter between Birmingham and London, and the Second Reading was put off for the consideration of certain concessions. Those were made on the clear understanding that the Bill should not be opposed on the Second Reading, but should be allowed to go to a Committee. I cannot help thinking that, after these two Committees have met and agreed to a common course, it would be a breach of faith if the Bill were not allowed to be dealt with at the present time.
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: It appears to me that the Members for Birmingham and London regard Wales as a carcase which is to be divided between them according to their own wants and wishes. I altogether protest against any such view of the case. I have no objection whatever to such water as is not wanted in Wales being used in Birmingham or London, or anywhere else; but I say distinctly that not only the rights of Wales at the present time, but the wants of Wales hereafter and for all time, should be safeguarded in any Bill which this House passes for taking water away from Wales. There is no part of the United Kingdom which is increasing so rapidly in population as that part of Wales which is affected by the Birmingham and London schemes, and unless we take care to safeguard the rights of those whom we represent, there is no saying what may be our position hereafter. Why, Sir, the town I represent suffered from a water famine in 1887, and we are now going to a district, not very far from the one referred to in the Bill, to get our water supply. The

  289
  same thing will probably occur in other places. In 1801 the population of Glamorganshire was 71,535; in 1891 it was 687,147, or nearly ten times as great. The population of Cardiff in 1801 was 1,870, and now it is 128,849—that is, 70 times as great as in 1801. Is, then, our water to be taken away and portioned out between Birmingham and London? Certainly not. If the Bill goes to a Committee I hope an Instruction will be passed to the effect that the Committee shall reserve to Wales such water as she may require not only now, but for all future time. Birmingham has not exhausted its own resources; it has abundant resources close to itself. Thirty-live years ago I established a considerable mill at Birmingham, and sank a deep well, obtaining an abundant supply of pure water which has never failed. There is an abundant water supply under and around Birmingham, and if they would only sink artesian wells they could get as much water as they want without coming to "Wales for it. Therefore, to take the water from us is unjustifiable. The question of water is a national one, and before seeking water from a distance the authorities should satisfy themselves that there is no water in their own immediate neighbourhood. I believe there is abundant water in the chalk strata round Loudon for all time, and there is no necessity to undertake these expensive works to supply either Birmingham or London. If this Bill does go to Committee, I hope power will be reserved in it which shall insure to the inhabitants of Wales such water as they may require for all time.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY,): The hon. Baronet who has just spoken is a very old Member of the House, and has attended on many Committees, but he appears to forget that the very questions he has raised now are such as could be submitted to and examined by a Committee. I have listened to the Debate with attention, and I venture to say I have hardly heard a single point raised which it is not the common duty of a Committee to attend to. Not only is it the duty of the Committee to look to such questions, but by the passing of the Local
  290
  Government Act, County Councils were created, and those Councils representing the counties affected by the Bill are the bodies best qualified to bring these matters before a Committee and to defend their rights. These County Councils have a right to appear before the Committee and to argue out the question of the water proposed to be taken. The rights of London and of every county interested in the measure will be examined and preserved by the Committee. There seems to be a sort of jealousy between the London County Council and the Birmingham Corporation, and the attitude of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. Ellis) with regard to the latter is very extraordinary—he seemed to be jealous of Birmingham having power to get a pure water supply. I have sometimes seen a cat approaching a dog, with back and tail arched, spitting—
  MR. T. ELLIS: I do not like to disturb the right hon. Gentleman, but I would like to ask him to point to any sentence or word in which I showed any jealousy of Birmingham having the power to secure a proper water supply, so long as they obtain it in full consideration for the localities and people interested. In the beginning and end of my speech I expressed my wish that Birmingham, like every other community, should have the best possible water supply, and I think, in this matter, I am supported by the whole sense of the House.
  MR. COURTNEY: I am sorry I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, but there was an impression on my mind that there was a jealousy towards Birmingham. As I have said before, every question raised here can be examined by the Committee. There is only one question, and that ought to be agreed upon between the promoters of the Bill and its opponents—that is the question of the existing rights of riparian and agricultural owners. It will be impossible for the Committee to create rights that are not already existent. If all Birmingham wants is to get a pure water supply, there will be no difficulty in drawing a clause which will protect the rights now existing so long as they do not interfere with the right of vesting the land. I think all

  291
  these matters can be arranged if we approach each other in a business-like spirit before the Committee.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: It is well that the London Members should understand where they are. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is impossible to defend rights which do not exist. Is that to be interpreted to mean that the London County Council will have no locus standi before a Committee on this question?
  MR. COURTNEY: I said it would be impossible to create rights which do 'not exist. There is no doubt of the right of the London County Council to go before the Committee if it desire to do so.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Then I understand that the intention in this Bill is definitely to exclude London from a certain area in Wales which has the purest water, the water which would be most valuable to London if we have to draw our supply from there. I was not a member of the committee which met the gentlemen from Birmingham, but I was a member of the conference which appointed that committee, and I most distinctly repudiate the idea of the London Members attending that conference being bound to any particular course with regard to this Bill. I hoped that the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir H. James) would have moved some Instruction which would prove some possible protection to the rights of London. There is nothing of the sort before the House, and as I understand the whole meaning of this Bill is to definitely exclude London from this valuable area of pure water, I, for one, as a London Member looking to the future needs and growth of London, will not be a party to the passing through this House of such a measure.
  MR. J. STUART: Those of us who attended the Conference which has been referred to were under the impression that the necessity for Birmingham to get water was extreme, but since entering the House we have seen a pamphlet, recently published in Birmingham, containing the speech of Alderman Sir T. Martineau, who is connected with the waterworks of that city. I have looked through
  292
  that pamphlet as well as time would allow, and I am bound to say that I do not find that the arguments advanced in it tally with those which I understand were advanced on behalf of Birmingham at the Conference. The pamphlet is the one which has been referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock); it is the speech by Alderman Sir T. Martineau, Member of the Water Committee, on the presentation of the Report of that Committee to the Corporation. What I understood was that the urgency for Birmingham was in no way influenced by the action of the London County Council, and the same idea was entertained by the Members of the Water Committee of that Council, which passed a Resolution to this effect on the 1st March—
  "The Council trusts that Parliament will not pass the Birmingham Corporation Water Bill before the water consumers of the Metropolitan area have had an opportunity of putting their whole case before the Royal Commission, except on the clearest possible evidence that the urgency of the matter in the case of Birmingham is so great that it must be pushed forward immediately without regard to the requirements of the population of the Metropolis; the Council hopes that the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, and that an Instruction will be given to the Committee in this sense."
  That Resolution was so cautiously worded because we understood that the needs of Birmingham were so exceedingly pressing, and knowing the immense difficulties of towns in getting a water supply and the urgency of the case we felt that it would be undesirable for us to stand in any dog-in-the-manger way between Birmingham and its water supply so long as their urgency was not the result of our action and necessity. But I find in this pamphlet very feeble arguments in support of the urgency of the case. I see 20 years mentioned as the period for which a certain scheme will provide the necessary water for Birmingham. And then it is added that there is another reason, and a most imperative one, for not dallying with the matter, but deciding at once if they were to go to Wales for water. That is the position of London. And the writer goes on to state that London is becoming awake to the necessity of its water supply,

  293
  and that there is no water authority in London. London, it is urged, is aiming at a water supply, and, though in the initiatory stage, will shortly have a water authority—probably the. County Council—and then it will become the rival of Birmingham. Therefore, says Sir Thomas Martineau, we have a little time before they begin to be our rivals.
  "We must bear in mind that our rivals they will be sooner or later, and just now we have an opportunity of going before them and getting hold of these valuable rivers for the supply of Birmingham, the inhabitants of which have just as good a claim to them as have the inhabitants of London."
  I admit that Birmingham has as good a claim as London; but, on the other hand, I urge that London has as good a claim as Birmingham. So far as I can gather, the urgency of Birmingham is based to a large extent on the fact that London is now moving in the matter, and their urgency is a desire to get there before London and keep London out. I think, under these circumstances, that the London Members have a right to ask this House to put them on an equality with Birmingham, and to say that the two matters shall go pari passu. London's case for water is very urgent, and all we say is that this urgency on the part of Birmingham looks like an endeavour to get in before London, as stated in the pamphlet from which I have just read. It is not urgency caused by need of water; it merely means that Birmingham is not willing to co-operate with London in this matter. We are prepared to co-operate with Birmingham, and I say it is not right or proper that Birmingham, to use the words of the pamphlet, should have the right of running in before us. I contend that the case of urgency in the proper use of the word has not been made out, and I hope that the House will not pass this Bill.
  MR. KENRICK: Since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham spoke a number of Members have entered the House, and not having heard his arguments are basing their judgment on imperfect information. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for London University should have laid such stress on one phrase
  294
  used by Sir Thomas Martineau in the course of a long speech delivered to the City Council of Birmingham. Some allowance must be made for a rhetorical flourish intended possibly to relieve the monotony of a long business speech.
  MR. LAWSON: It is the whole pamphlet.
  MR. KENRICK: I quite admit that Birmingham and London are competitors, but Birmingham takes its water supply from a higher area than London, and can take its supply without in any way injuring London, whereas if London were first on the ground it would take the whole of the supply, because of the difference in the level of the City of London. Therefore it was most important for Birmingham to get its supply before London. With regard to the urgency of the matter, it is well known that in the cases of Liverpool and Manchester the provision of the supply has taken ten years. That was so in the case of Liverpool, and probably will be so in the case of Manchester, and it is absolutely necessary that the Corporation of Birmingham should look beforehand in a matter of this kind. References have been made to the possibilities of the water supply during the next 20 years, but it has been pointed out over and over again that one portion of the supply is impure, inasmuch as it passes through an agricultural district. Then the hon. Member for Swansea made suggestions about sinking wells We have sunk five wells, and three of them are practically failures, and I believe the general experience on this particular method of water finding is that it is precarious and uncertain. The experience of the people of Liverpool, who have tried this system, is that they have had to go so deep and have obtained water of such hardness that for domestic and manufacturing purposes it was practically useless. The London Members have misunderstood our case. The hon. Member for Shoreditch, after a hasty perusal of this pamphlet, asks the House to throw out this Bill, but the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means says that all these questions of detail which have been raised can be discussed in Committee in a way in which they cannot be discussed before this House; and I hope, looking at the

  295
  importance of the matter to a large population who have practically exceeded their source of water supply, that the House will accept this Bill.
  MR. LAWSON: I submit that this question cannot be adequately discussed in Committee. It is quite true that the London County Council has a locus standi before any Committee, but the Committee, on considering this Bill, would not inquire into the needs of London, or the difficulties of London, but would consider the matter wholly and solely from the Birmingham point of view. If London could urge from that standpoint any valid argument against the Bill passing it would be considered, but otherwise it would not. It is for this House, in dealing with this matter, to take into consideration the recommendation which was made last year, that there should be an inquiry into the water supply of these great towns. The hon. Member (Mr. Kenrick) talks of the London Members having departed from the agreement which was arrived at at last year's Conference. I was a member of the Conference, and I can only say that we approached the Members for Birmingham in all good faith, and I do not think we were fairly treated by them. At that Conference we distinctly asked, "Is it a case of rivalry with London? Is it that you wish to steal a march on London that this Bill is brought forward?" We were told it was not a case of anything of the kind; it arose, we were told, purely out of the urgent needs of Birmingham, and now we have before us the speech of Sir Thomas Martineau. I am bound to say that when it was urged that London should wait and Birmingham should wait for the Report of the Royal Commission, the Members for Birmingham pointed out that it was a case of most urgent importance to the inhabitants of their town. I do not see that argument advanced in the speech which is now before us. The Government has just appointed a Commission, and I think that Birmingham, like London, should wait for the Report of that Commission. We are perfectly satisfied with that. We do not want to steal a march on Birmingham. We are prepared to take the good with the
  296
  bad with them. We are prepared to receive equal treatment with Birmingham, but our urgency is as great as theirs, and they will be showing greater respect to this House by waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission than by pushing on this measure, and I submit that that matter should be postponed until that inquiry has been completed.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Since I addressed the House in moving this Bill a totally new appearance has been placed upon the Debate. At the time I moved the Bill I thought that not only would it receive no opposition from the Members for London, but that it would receive their cordial support. It is clear that our interests are the same, and all great populations desirous of acquiring for themselves a satisfactory and sufficient supply of water must stand equal in any proposal of this kind. But my right hon. Friend has made a speech which has given rise to a great deal of misrepresentation. He said with perfect accuracy that when he was at the Conference of the Members for Birmingham and the Members for London, the Members for London represented to us that they would greatly prefer that this matter should stand over until they were prepared to give it their consideration, and that they would only withdraw their opposition if they were satisfied that the case of Birmingham was urgent. They also asked us whether we proceeded in this matter in any spirit of rivalry to London. Those two points are absolutely separate and distinct. If there were no London in existence our urgency would be just the same. The case of Birmingham is the case as I stated it in opening this question. The present average demand for water in Birmingham is 17,000,000 gallons; the maximum supply is only 20,000,000. In a few years the average demand will be over the maximum supply and already the maximum demand is above the maximum supply. Surely that is a sufficient case of urgency. From some source or other Birmingham must get water, or she will be starving. With respect to the allegation of rivalry with London, I may say that I have not seen the

  297
  extracts which have been read, and I heard no suggestion of anything of the kind at the Conference to which reference has been made. We propose to take a water area which is 800 ft. above the level of the sea in order to supply Birmingham, which is 600 ft. But London, which is on a lower level, can take all its water from lower levels, and accordingly, if Birmingham were to take all this land, there would still be left ten times as much land of a lower level, with water just as good, with all the facilities just the same, and having this additional advantage: that it can be obtained more cheaply than London could obtain it from the piece of land which Birmingham proposes to take. If hon. Members had seen the map they would see that this land is not needed for London. The lands of Tor and Usk and the tributary streams are the lands to which London would go in the first place, and it would be only after exhausting the water of that district—which is sufficient for millions of persons—it is only then that it would need to go to a lower level. I think it will be clear to the House that there will be no intentional disturbance. But independent of all this, Birmingham must have more water; and this piece of land, which is not by any means of use to London, would be of great use to us.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As one of those who attended the Conference, I wish to say a few words upon the subject. I must confess that we went into that Conference—five-sixths of us—hostile to this Bill. We went into the Conference to ask two questions—first, was the question of the supply of water to Birmingham an urgent one, quite irrespective of the London water supply; and, secondly, would it interfere with London? and from what we heard we did not feel inclined to oppose the Bill. We asked the question specifically with regard to urgency, quite irrespective of London. I should not oppose the Bill, because I believe this Birmingham supply will not really interfere with the London supply; but, at the same time, it seems to me that the urgency cannot be such that one year would make any great difference to Birmingham, if we
  298
  did not meet their views. I regret that there should be a misunderstanding in regard to this question of urgency, though I am sure no hon. Member will think it a wilful misunderstanding. The feeling is that Birmingham has come to ask for a water supply, not alone for her own particular needs, but also because she is afraid that London would be beforehand with her. I, for one, should not support the Bill, but, under the circumstances, I would not oppose it.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham addresses himself entirely and exclusively to the views which the London Members put forward. I would desire, in a very few words, before the House comes to a decision, to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the demands which have been made by the Welsh Members, and very reasonable demands I think they are, and yet as to which we have not had any answer. I think it is clear now to the Chairman of Committees, whose back is "arched" in this matter, that it is London that is "arching its back" and "spitting at the mouth" against Birmingham. It is not for me to express any opinion as to the expediency or good taste of the Chairman of Committees—who has in that capacity to preside over this Assembly—describing a colleague in this House as "a cat approaching a dog, arched in the back, and spitting at the mouth." But we have a right to repel the accusation couched in such refined language. The Welsh Members have not attacked Birmingham, and the "attack" has only been conjured up in the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman by his strong desire to champion the Member for West Birmingham, who, without the ready aid of the Chairman of Committees, is well able to take care of himself. We do not object to London or Birmingham taking the water; but what we do say in regard to Birmingham is, that Birmingham proposes to become a great landlord, and is going to deprive a large number of people of important rights, which I need not detail. The point to which we should like some answer is a

  299
  very clear and definite one. If all they want is to take the water, they can acquire it by other means than by becoming landlords. It has been pointed out that this House has been very careful in regard to the rights of common land. I cannot for the life of me see why this House, by a Private Bill, should practically repeal the Act of 1876. In that Act there is to be a local inquiry, and public rights are guarded in the most precise way. There are turbary rights and right of access to particular views and public paths, and many other matters provided for. Do you wish to repeal the provisions of that Act? I think we ought to have some assurance by the promoters of the Bill before the House is asked to assent to the Second Reading; we ought to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that he is prepared to incorporate the provisions of the Act of 1876 in this Bill, so far as it deals with commons. Birmingham is going to inclose 30,000 acres of common. There have been a great many inclosures since the Act of 1876 was passed; but the House should know, if the Bill is passed, that this will be a greater inclosure of common than all the others put together. In regard to the Instruction of the right hon. Member for Bradford, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham held out a hope that if the House would accept the Second Reading he would be prepared to accept the Instruction. But that Instruction is either right or wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman should tell us, whether the Second Reading is agreed to or not, that he will accept the Instruction. There is another Instruction by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury of which he said nothing, and whispers are going through this part of the House that the right hon. Gentleman will not touch that at all. I ask what are the intentions of the promoters—first, are they prepared to accept the provisions of the Inclosure Act of 1876, and, next, will they be prepared to accept the Instructions on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Bradford and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury? If not, I hope the House will reject the
  300
  Second Reading, and so give London the opportunity of having a little longer to make up its mind.
  MR. BARTLEY: I must say that I disapprove of the feeling of rivalry between London and Birmingham in this matter. Surely Wales is big enough to provide for both places! Much has also been said about the large area proposed to be taken; something like 70 square miles. It may appear startling at first sight; but, after all, it is only about eight miles by eight, and the water supply of a great community such as Birmingham needs the resources of such an area as is referred to in the proposals. A great deal has been said about enclosure and about interference with public rights, but it must be recollected that you cannot take at large area for water without touching some rights, and I do not think that this is a difficulty that could not be easily overcome. London will reserve its own rights, and I am sure that when the time comes for dealing effectively with its water supply—and we all know that a great scheme for the supply of London is not far distant—it will be possible, at the same time, to find ample space and ample resources in the same district without affecting the claims of Birmingham. As to the Conference spoken of in the course of the Debate, I regret it was not held in a more practical manner. But, at the same time, I do not think the Bill will affect the interests of London, and I do not object to its going to a Second Reading.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I wish to say that I was not at the Conference referred to, nor do I think, had I been present, I should have arrived at the same conclusion as some of my hon Friends. I have listened to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and I think if ever there was a case made out for delay on this question it was made out by the right hon. Gentleman. He tried to demonstrate that this piece of land was valueless to London, and that if they wanted land they could get very much better elsewhere without the asking. The Chairman of the Committee that has charge of the Birmingham Bill for the new water supply, and the Gentleman

  301
  who has made himself best acquainted with the demands of Birmingham, and who has mastered the whole case, in his speech against the London Bill, says, "That is another reason, and a most imperative one." He considers it to be most imperative that the rivalry with regard to the London Bill should be considered. We are not responsible for it. The Chairman of the Committee makes it an imperative point, with regard to this case, that they should run and get in before London. We have not put in any petty Motion that we should desire to run and get in before Birmingham; but a Royal Commission has been appointed to inquire into the question of the London water supply, and I think we have a right to call upon the Government that appointed that Committee to give it an Instruction, and I hope they will give it a broad Instruction. I think they should not allow anything to come between the water supply of London until the Report of that Royal Commission has been before us, so that every consideration may be given not only to London, but to any other friendly neighbour that may require a water supply. We do not wish to oppose this Bill passing this afternoon, but we think that the House is bound to take into full consideration the arguments put forward by those best acquainted with the subject.
  MR. KELLY: I was present at the meeting which has been referred to, and I venture to think that if we had only then known that the words which have been read had been used by Sir Thomas Martineau, and that there was an intention on the part of Birmingham to seize upon this district to the exclusion of others, the great mass of the London Members present would have taken up a very different attitude from what they did. We relied absolutely upon the assurance in this matter that Birmingham was not in any way concerned to say that we should never get near this district for a future supply of water. Relying, at all events, upon that assurance, we took a course which we should not have taken under other circumstances. I do not admit that the water supply for Birmingham is a matter of great urgency, for I think
  302
  the House will probably consider it better to rely on the terms of the Bill, and not on any opinion expressed by any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on that subject. I wish to call attention to one single sentence in this Bill:—
  "Whereas the Corporation have reason to think that the existing source of the supply of water will, at no distant date, prove inadequate to meet the wants of Birmingham, &c."
  If ever there was a vague demand set forth that is one. It only tells us that it is possible that, at no distant date, the increasing wants of Birmingham will not be met. We think that this question should not be treated as one between London and Birmingham merely. We are not the only towns requiring a water supply from this source. Many others may have to draw their future supply from Wales, and probably Cardiff, which is one of the most growing towns in England, may also require to get its supply from this water-shed. We ask that this question should be treated as a National question; and I say that that never can be done, unless Birmingham gracefully stands aside and awaits the result of the Royal Commission.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I venture to point out that the House of Commons, in dealing with a Bill of this sort, is acting judicially, and not simply legislating. It has always been the custom of the House of Commons not to assume anything definite, in a judicial case of this sort, on ex parte statements made first from one side and then from the other, there being no means or machinery for testing the accuracy of the statements at all. What the House of Commons always does—and I hope will always do—is to refer investigations of this description to a Select Committee, larger or smaller, as the case may require. They hear the whole case on both sides. Having taken all the evidence, they afterwards submit their decision to the House. This afternoon statements have been made to the House absolutely contradictory on questions of fact. I have heard Members, who must have no acquaintance with Birmingham, say that this was not a case of urgency. I have heard some statements made here in reference to the supply of water for Birmingham which I know to be un-

  303
  founded. I have heard the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down state that Cardiff would demand this area for water supply.
  MR. KELLY: I made some remarks about the area from which it would draw its water supply.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Gentleman gave the case of the great town of Cardiff. I had the honour to sit on a Committee which held an investigation with regard to a supply of water for Cardiff, and that Committee decided that Cardiff should have a supply of water which will suffice for many years. I regard these as specimens of the statements made by hon. Gentlemen, I have no doubt in perfect good faith, on the authority of interested parties. The House cannot decide a question like this judicially unless you have the parties before you, and unless you hear the evidence of the witnesses on oath. The House of Commons cannot decide the question whether this proposed locality is demanded by London, or whether it will interfere with the further demands for the locality in Wales. All these are questions of the greatest importance, which the House cannot decide on a Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. On the Second Reading of a Bill you do not approve of the Preamble of the Bill, but you pass the principle of the Bill. It is for the Committee to which it is sent to decide whether the Preamble is proved or not, and if they decide that the Preamble of the Bill is not proved, they reject the Bill. I cannot see any reason why this case should not be heard before a Committee, and I do not see why hon. Members who object to an ordinary Committee should not call for a Hybrid Committee representing the interests of Wales, and all the other interests concerned. And I would really put it to the House whether this practice of discussing these Private Bills in the House, and of assuming responsibilities of this kind, is not likely to grow to a very great evil before many years. I think Sir Robert Peel, in 1844, pointed out that the House had not the ability to deal with questions of this kind, and that a Committee, where the evidence of the parties could be taken, was the proper tribunal for deciding them.
  304
  The House, I think, will adopt the most dignified and impartial course if it refer this very complicated, very difficult, and very intricate question to a Select Committee.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I so entirely agree with most of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that I would have refrained from saying anything, if it had not been for some observations which fell from the hon. Member for Finsbury and the hon. Member for Camberwell with regard to the Royal Commission. I think the hon. Member for Camberwell suggested that the Royal Commission that was appointed should inquire into the needs of Birmingham, and the needs of London, and the needs of towns on the way from Wales to Birmingham, and that it would be advisable not to proceed with the Bill at the present time. Now, I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension as to what is the scope of the inquiry which the Royal Commission is to make; and, certainly, if it inquired into all the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Camberwell, I should very much doubt whether the Report would be likely to get presented to Her Majesty within the next two or three years. But that is not to be the scope of the inquiry. The scope of the inquiry has been communicated to the London County Council; and such an inquiry as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Camberwell does not fall within the scope of the questions to be referred to the Royal Commission. But, now, with regard to the general question. The Second Reading of this Bill is opposed from two points of view. One is the point of view of Wales, and the other is the point of view of London. I think the arguments put forward with regard to Wales would clearly apply just as much in the case of London. London is seeking water from Wales, and Birmingham is seeking water from Wales; so that introduces the question whether Birmingham or London ought to take the water, or whether both ought to take it. That is not a question in which Welsh Members feel a very great interest. What they desire

  305
  to do is, at any rate, to safeguard Wales in the matter, whoever it may be that takes the water. I think they do not object, as far as I understand, to water being taken from Wales. I think that what protection Wales shall have is a matter essentially for a Committee to inquire into, perhaps a larger Committee than an ordinary Committee. If Birmingham has established its case to compel a water supply from Wales, or if Wales does not object to giving the water to Birmingham or to London, but only desires to have its interests safeguarded, this is essentially a question for evidence to be placed before a Committee, in order that Wales may get that protection which admittedly she ought to get. And if those interested in the matter in Wales cannot for any reason put their full case forward before an ordinary Private Bill Committee, then there is a very strong argument for the appointment of a larger Committee; but it certainly is a matter for a Committee, and I think hon. Members for Wales will admit that. Then comes the question raised on behalf of London. So far as I understand the case, I believe that it is not disputed at all that there is a plentiful supply of water from this source both for London and Birmingham. I do not think anyone has ventured to dispute that statement. Well, then, if that be so, why should we in London object to the people of Birmingham, who really require the water, not taking the water but putting their case before a Committee? The London County Council have a locus standi which will enable them to be represented before that Committee and can put their entire case before the Committee, and the Committee will consider the evidence given in support of the case they desire to put. So that London Members need not be afraid that the claims that London has upon this water will be neglected. What my hon. Friends, or some of them, say is—"Because, perhaps, we may want this water"—not that they actually propose now to go for this water—but "as it may turn out some day that we may go for this water, we object to Birmingham getting a
  306
  portion of the water until some time when London has formulated her proposition on the subject." If it be the case that the water supply is sufficient for both, then I think it is essentially a matter upon which to make representations to a Committee, in order to secure that London shall receive that protection which she will require against the time when she shall come forward to Parliament to receive its sanction for some scheme for her own supply. And, further, the very tribunal to which this Bill has to go may succeed in arriving at some compromise between London and Birmingham. Evidence may be put before the Committee; and it is often the case that in the course of passing through Committee the one side and the other arrive at some compromise on the subject. And, therefore, I think it is extremely probable that if evidence be allowed to go before a Committee, the Bill will come back to this House in a state satisfactory to Welsh Members, satisfactory to London Members, and in a state that will satisfy the Birmingham people. And if it does not—if the London Members or the Welsh Members should consider that the Bill has come back in a state in which it does not protect them or is not satisfactory to them—then it will be for the House of Commons at that stage to reject the Bill. For my part I should say, as a London Member, that if this Bill did come back in such a condition as to damage any claim London may have to the control of a full and free supply of water from this source, I, for one, should suggest that the Bill should not get a Third Reading. But I do not feel at liberty to object to the Second Reading of the Bill, the sole object of which is to allow a Committee to inquire into the subject.
  MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire,): I rise to ask a question. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down suggests that the Bill should be referred to a larger Committee than an ordinary Committee, which should have greater powers than a simple Select Committee. I wish to ask him if he will now propose that that Committee should be appointed?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is not for me to make any propositions on the subject

  307
  but I should think, if it is the general wish of the House that this Bill should go before a Hybrid Committee, the promoters Would be well advised if they agreed to that course being taken.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say, on behalf of the promoters, that if that is the wish of the House we shall have no objection whatever.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Instruction that is to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I endeavoured to come to an arrangement with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway if they would withdraw their opposition to the Second Reading. Since then, the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury has been sprung upon me, and I have not had time to consider it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 102.—(Div. List, No. 23.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to give notice that, following the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board, I shall move that this Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to give notice that I shall move the Instruction standing on the Paper in my name.

  SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MORTON: I desire, Sir, to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, on the ground that this House ought not to grant any further powers to this Railway Company until the complaints of people who are obliged to use this railway have been attended to. I have selected
  308
  this line because it is the one which is of the worst character with regard to the accommodation it affords to third-class passengers, and not because I have any particular feeling against the Company. I am glad to say, with regard to the railways running out of London to the North and to the West—and even the Great Eastern Railway Company—have done a great deal to improve the accommodation of the third-class passengers; and against these railways I do not desire, therefore, to make any complaints. But I do complain of the railways running on the Southern side of the River Thames, and I desire to ask the House to reject this Bill. I have been informed that it was the opinion of a former President of the Board of Trade that it would be right to oppose a Bill of this kind at this stage on the ground that there are grievances that should be met; but I have other reasons. I can understand, of course, it being said that opposition of this kind is a novel and even an inconvenient proceeding, but the public have no other remedy. We are informed that the Board of Trade can do nothing to improve matters; we are told that the law can do nothing, and, therefore, we have a right to appeal to the House to remedy the grievances to which I refer. The case of another Railway Company came before the Westminster County Court only a few days ago, and this is what took place.
  "His Honour: Why did you not decline to ride?
  "Defendant: Because I wanted to get home. I appear here on public grounds.
  "His Honour: The public must suffer from want of competition on this and other lines. The public have no remedy. We know no law which compels Railway Companies to have carriages of a certain kind."
  The same Judge was obliged to give a verdict against the defendants, but he very indignantly refused to allow the Railway Company any costs whatever, so that in the long run he punished them as well as he could. That case shows conclusively that the public have no remedy so far as the law is concerned against these great Railway Companies. I had intended to move the Instruction of which I have given notice; but, Sir, you have been good enough to inform me that probably it

  309
  would be out of Order. I am very sorry for it, because, undoubtedly, inquiry is needed in this case, and if it cannot be obtained in the way I propose, I trust some other method will be found in which we can investigate the grievance complained of. It is well to bear in mind that we have got a General Election coming very shortly, and we had a proof last Saturday of what the people of London think, at any rate, with regard to fair play. Both the right hon. Member for Midlothian and Lord Salisbury have reminded us that the people now generally have a vote, and I think that, with regard to Railway Companies and any other monopolies or privileges, the people of this country will insist upon having fair play. These grants of great powers to companies have not been made to put money into the pockets of speculators and promoters, but to be used for the benefit of the public. I admit that joint stock enterprise has done a great deal for the people of this country, and, so far as it is honest, I should wish to support it. The masses of this country travel, so far as they travel at all, third class, and I could read many letters which I have received complaining of their treatment. A gentleman living at Gravesend writes to say that while parties holding second-class tickets, if they happen to travel first class in first-class carriages, are allowed to pay the difference between second and first-class fare, those who hold third-class tickets, and happen to travel second or first class, are obliged to pay full second or first-class fare, and are not allowed any rebate on account of their third-class ticket. This is a grievance which ought to be removed by the Railway Companies without troubling this House at all. With regard to the accident near the Borough Market, the jury concluded, on the recommendation of the officer of the Board of Trade, that the accident was caused by using inferior and weak carriages between heavy and powerful carriages for third-class passengers. Only last week the South-Eastern Company, at great expense, brought over American carriages to this country; but they were first-class and not third-class carriages. I notice with regret that this Company
  310
  cannot find workmen in this country to build their carriages. But what I should like them to do is to treat their third-class passengers as the American Railway Companies treat their third-class passengers. As I cannot obtain the inquiry I wished to propose by my Instruction, I have a right to ask the Government for some expression of opinion on this matter, and to say whether they will do something to protect these third-class passengers. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to say whether, if his Department has any power to deal with a grievance of this sort, the Government will take some means to control these monopolies, upon which competition cannot now be brought to bear? The dividends and expenses of these Companies, especially on the south side of the river, are paid by the money received in third-class fares; and, so far as this particular railway is concerned, it seems to make large profits and to pay good dividends, and therefore there is no reason why they should not treat their third-class passengers, at least, with proper respect. Experience shows that the better treatment these Companies give to their third-class passengers the better their lines have paid, and I have no doubt that if this Company will treat their third-class passengers still better, they will find that, instead of being losers in any way, their profits would largely increase. For the purpose of getting an opinion from the Government on this matter, I beg formally to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time and committed.

  Address for "Copy of the Italian Law of Guarantees, communicated to the Foreign Office in 1871."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law relating to certain Officers in India." [East India Officers Bill [Lords.]

  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  The Select Committee on the Plumbers' Registration Bill was nominated of,—Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Samuel Evans, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Knowles, Mr. Lafone, Mr. John Maden, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Taylor.
  Ordered, That they have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Knowles.)

QUESTIONS.

  ENNISKILLEN GAOL.
  MR. W. REDMOND (on behalf of Mr. JORDAN,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Prisons Board claim the area in front of the gaol in Enniskillen, extending from the gaol wall to the channel adjoining the county road leading south to Castlecoole; and, if so, is it the duty of the Board to keep it in proper repair and clean it; will they either do so, or hand it over to the Local Authority, the Town Commissioners, to put it into and keep it in proper condition; and, is this gaol being now used as a prison, or is it intended that the authorities will discontinue its use as such, and permit it to fall into further dilapidation; if not, will they instruct an engineer to inspect and report on the condition and appearance of the outside front wall, doors, &c, with a view to due repairs?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The General Prisons Board report that the area in front of Enniskillen Prison is their property, but that not having been occupied for prison purposes horse fairs have been customarily held there for many years, and to these fairs the unsatisfactory condition of this area is primarily due. The Board would be prepared to fence in the space, but they fear that the prohibition of the horse fair might cause public inconvenience,
  312
  unless the Town Commissioners can arrange for the holding of the fair elsewhere. If the Town Commissioners cannot make such an arrangement, the Board are of opinion that the Commissioners should undertake the cleansing of the place. The prison is still used as a minor one. Its walls were disfigured by some of the boys of the town in ball playing, but this practice was discontinued through the action of the police. It is the intention of the Board when suitable weather arrives to have the outside of the prison building further repaired.

  THE COUNTY COUNCILS ELECTIONS IN SCOTLAND.
  COLONEL MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government intend to alter the date of the County Councils Elections in Scotland from December to a date more favourable to communication with outlying districts?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): When the Local Government (Scotland) Bill was before Parliament, it was considered desirable that the triennial election of County Councils should be held as soon as practicable after 1st November—the date of completing the electoral roll. In order to give adequate time for making the necessary arrangements as to nominations and polling in counties so widely scattered as that represented by my hon. Friend, it was deemed necessary to postpone the day of election to the third Tuesday in December. So far, only one County Council has represented to the Secretary for Scotland in favour of a change; and presumably the general opinion is, that the date fixed is the most suitable one.

  THE INDIAN PATENT LAWS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the fact that although the Indian Patent Laws give a preferential treatment to inventors who have applied for patents in Great Britain, on the other hand an inventor resident in British India is relatively in a worse position as regards obtaining

  313
  a patent in Great Britain than the residents of some 20 foreign countries and colonies, for example, than a resident of the East Indian Colonies of the Netherlands; and whether early steps will be taken to put residents of British India in the same favourable position as regards patents as the residents of other countries or colonies?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): Representations have been made to the Secretary of State to the effect that patentees in British India are precluded from obtaining the advantages conferred by Sections 103 and 104 of the Act of 1883 as amended by the Act of 1885. An alteration of the Indian law is required before the necessary Order in Council can be issued in this country, and the Secretary of State has recently instructed the Government of India to deal with the subject when their Patent Act comes under amendment.

  CRIMEAN AND INDIAN MUTINY VETERANS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his promise to grant pensions each year to 100 of the Crimean and Indian Mutiny unpensioned soldiers in needy circumstances will be fulfilled before the expiry of the present financial year, seeing that only 39 had been granted at the time of his recent statement; and whether, if the 14 years' service restriction is maintained, he will grant 61 other pensions to sick and infirm soldiers whose service comes nearest to 14 years?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I hope, Sir, that my promise may be fulfilled before the end of the financial year. But if the restriction is maintained by the Treasury I should have some difficulty in doing so.

  PROUDFOOT ROCK.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the President of the Board, of Trade whether his attention has been called to the great need for a beacon on Proudfoot Rock, near Wick, and a fog signal on Noss Head, Wick; and
  314
  whether it is his intention to send an Inspector to that district to inquire into the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The Caithness Fishermen's Association have drawn my attention to the matter referred to by the hon. Member. I have informed them that the beacon is a local matter, upon which they should communicate with the Harbour Authority, and that the fog signal must, in the first place, be for the consideration of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses,, who have a light at Noss Head.

  SALMON NETS IN WICK BAY.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the sworn declarations sent by various fishermen to the Board of Trade and the Fishery Board for Scotland, regarding the great loss of nets and gear caused by the salmon fishers, and especially those in the harbour of Wick, from which it appears that, in addition to the destruction of property, the salmon nets inside the heads of Wick Bay also cause great obstruction and danger to the herring fishermen during the season; and whether the Harbour Trust has any power over the salmon fishers, as the area on which the nets are placed is within their jurisdiction?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I understand that complaints of the nature referred to have been made by the herring fishers. In reply to the second part of the question, I apprehend that the Harbour Trust has no power to interfere except for harbour purposes, including navigation.

  HOURS OF LABOUR IN THE COLONIES.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Return on hours of labour in the Colonies, moved for by the late Mr. Bradlaugh on 1st December, 1890, will be presented?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): All the Colonies consulted have now replied except Tasmania, and I propose to present the Papers without waiting further.

  CONDEMNED STORES AT HONG KONG.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a quantity of condemned beef and pork was sold on the 20th January last at Hong Kong instead of being sent home; whether, before being sold, it was treated as condemned stores are now treated at Deptford, so as to render it impossible that they should be afterwards sold to ships in the Mercantile Navy; and whether he will give orders that all stores of provisions condemned at stations abroad be sent home, or else that all such condemned stores shall be treated as condemned stores are now treated at Deptford before they are sold?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I do not think it is likely that anything of the kind suggested in the question has happened, as explicit directions were sent in December, 1889, to all Naval Depots abroad, including Hong Kong, that all condemned salt meat and suet was in future not to be offered for sale, but was to be destroyed, and, further, that any other articles of food that might be pronounced unfit for human consumption were to be similarly destroyed.

  THE DELIVERY OF MAILS IN KINSEALY.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is a fact that the morning mail is not delivered in Kinsealy, County of Dublin, till about 10.30 a.m., and the evening mail not till 10 p.m., although that place is but a few miles from the City of Dublin, and near a line of railway; whether there is any house or box for posting letters at Kinsealy; and whether he would consider the advisability of having the delivery at Kinsealy in future from Malahide, which is but two miles distant, and not from Raheny, which is four miles distant?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,) (who replied) said: The late delivery in the morning at Kinsealy
  316
  seems to be owing to the dilatoriness of the postman, and has been noticed. There is no letter box at Kinsealy at present. The question of placing a box there and of making the delivery from Malahide, as suggested, instead of from Raheny are being looked into.

  MAIL CAR SERVICE PROM CASTLETOWN BEREHAVEN TO LEHANMORE.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether tenders have been invited for a mail car service from Castletown Berehaven to Lehanmore; whether a would-be contractor has offered to give such service at the same or even less remuneration than is received at present by two rural messengers; and whether, in view of the fact that a mail car service will be a great convenience to that district at no extra expense to the State, he will at once sanction it before the fishing season commences?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER (who replied) said: If the hon. Gentleman will postpone this question till Thursday, my right hon. Friend hopes by then to be able to answer it.

  DREDGING IN DONAGHADEE HARBOUR.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that his predecessor promised that dredging operations should be undertaken in Donaghadee Harbour, County Down, and that in recent gales several vessels have been seriously damaged and one wrecked on the silt bank, which it is proposed to remove; and whether these dredging operations will now be immediately commenced?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I cannot find that any promise has been given that these works will be undertaken by the Treasury. Negotiations are still proceeding with the Belfast and County Down Railway Company, but I am unable to say when they will be concluded. If the vessels referred to are the schooners Belwoood and Kitty Clyde and the yacht Surprise, I am informed that the damage done to them was in no way connected with the condition of the harbour.

  THE RIFLE RANGE IN THE NEW FOREST.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that he has consented to postpone the local inquiry into the expediency of making a rifle range in the New Forest, he is prepared to meet the wishes of the locality not to hold it until the middle of April, in order that those opposed to the scheme may have full time to present the case, and that those charged with the decision may inspect the forest at a time of the year when they will be best able to realise the effect of making the said range?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: All arrangements, including the issue of public notices, have been made for commencing this inquiry on the 25th inst. It would consequently be highly inconvenient to postpone it; but it will be for Mr. Pelham, during the progress of the inquiry, to decide if any adjournment is necessary to enable the case to be completed.

  THE ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to take any action on the Reports of the Board of Visitors to the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, in which year after year it has been pointed out that the accommodation provided for the cadets is in many instances inadequate, that the ventilation of the class rooms is faulty and unsanitary, and that the bathing arrangements are such that only the strongest constitutions can stand the exposure?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: There is an item of £3,500 in the Army Estimates for additional accommodation for cadets. That portion of the Report which deals with hot baths has not been thought sufficiently urgent to be included.

  THE IMPERIAL BRITISH EAST AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, before the Foreign Office Vote is submitted to it, Copy of
  318
  the Report, or Reports, of Captain Lugard, which have been placed in the hands of Lord Salisbury by the British East Africa Company; copies of all Treaties which have been entered into by the British East Africa Company between African Kings, Chiefs, and others, together with maps of the area covered by each Treaty; whether he can state if Captain Lugard is receiving any pay at present as an officer in Her Majesty's Army; whether, when a treaty is made between the British East Africa Company and any Chief or King in Africa, described as "Form of Treaty No. 4," in which an African potentate cedes to the Company—
  "All his sovereign rights, and rights of government over all his territories, countries, peoples, and subjects,"
  any investigation is made by Her Majesty's Government before the authority thus acquired by the Company is recognised and approved of, into the right of the said potentate to deal in this fashion with his "country, territories, peoples, and subjects," into the area covered by the terms "country" and "territories," and into the circumstances under which such cession is made; whether, in view of the fact that, according to Captain Lugard, great pressure was used to force the King of Uganda to enter into a Treaty with the Company, and that His Majesty appears to have considered that this pressure justified him in revoking the Treaty thus obtained from him, the Treaty between the King and the British East Africa Company has been recognised, or it is intended to recognise it, by Her Majesty's Government; whether Her Majesty's Secretary of State will consider the advisability of sending out some official to inquire into the mode in which these Treaties have been obtained from African Potentates, and whether they have acted with the approval of their peoples or subjects, or have the right to deal thus with their peoples or subjects without their assent being obtained; and whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will consent to the appointment of a Committee of the House to inquire into all circumstances connected with the granting of Charters to Companies in Africa, the financial position of such Companies, the mode

  319
  in which their capital has been obtained, and their action in Africa since formation, particularly in respect to the natives of that Continent?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: If the British East Africa Company have no objection to the publication of the Reports of Captain Lugard, so far as they do not contain confidential matter, they will be laid upon the Table. Copies of the Treaties will also be laid, and a map showing generally the area comprised by them. Captain Lugard is not receiving any pay as an officer in Her Majesty's Army. So far as the circumstances admit, a careful investigation is made by Her Majesty's Government before the Treaties submitted to them are approved. The Treaty between the King of Uganda and the Company has been recognised. There is no reason to suppose that the Chiefs with whom the Treaties were negotiated were not competent to speak for their followers. Her Majesty's Government are not of opinion that any such Committee is necessary, and on account of the distance it would be difficult to obtain evidence for the investigation.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether there is any reason to suppose that these Chiefs were acting in accordance with the wishes of their subjects and people; and also whether any steps are being taken by the Foreign Office to ascertain from the Directors of the British East Africa Company whether they are prepared to allow these Reports to be furnished?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: In regard to the latter part of the question, I will undertake to communicate with the British East Africa Company and ask that question. In regard to the first question, I think the onus rather lies on the hon. Gentleman to show that the Chiefs were acting contrary to, and not in accordance with, the wishes of their people.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Were any steps taken to ascertain whether, as was stated in Captain Lugard's own Report, the King of Uganda was forced in any way to sign the Treaty which has been recognised by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: That is new matter not contained in the question which the hon. Member put on the Paper. I must ask him to kindly put the question on the Paper for Thursday.

  THE POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS COMMITTEE.
  MR. POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Government to propose the nomination by the Committee of Selection of "The Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee"; and whether his attention has been directed to the importance of making that proposal, should such be made, at an early date, in order that the Committee may be able to complete their duties without inconvenient delay?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART - WORTLEY,), who replied, said: The appointment of the Committee will be moved to-morrow, the question of Instructions standing over for the present.

  THE CLERGY DISCIPLINE BILL.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Bill relating to Clergy Discipline, which has been brought into the other House of Parliament by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the measure referred to in the Queen's Speech on the opening of Parliament, as a "proposal for improving the discipline of the Established Church in regard to moral offences;" and, if so, whether there is any precedent for the introduction of a Government measure by a member of the Episcopal Bench?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir; the measure brought forward in another place by the Archbishop of Canterbury is the measure referred to in the Queen's Speech, and I think there is a precedent for a Government measure, announced in the Queen's Speech, being in some of its stages not a Government measure.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by a Bill in some of its stages not being a Government measure? Will not this Bill be a Government measure in all its stages?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I meant was that the Bill is not in charge of a Member of the Government in the House of Lords; in this House it will be in charge of a Member of the Government.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the precedent for this course being taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; Mr. Walpole, a Member of this House, but not a Member of the Government, had charge of one of the University Bills introduced in 1876.

  THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE MINES INSPECTORS.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to the delay in the publication of the annual Reports of the Mines Inspectors, if he will explain why these Reports, which were last year all made before the end of March, were not in the hands of Members until June, five months after the period which they covered; and how any of the delay between March and June can have been due to the fact that colliery owners are not obliged to send in Returns until the end of January?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY (who replied) said: I think the hon. Member must be confusing the summaries of the statistical portion of the Mines Inspectors' Reports with the Reports themselves. As the Secretary of State informed the hon. Member, on the 26th February, the summaries comprise statistics which, according to Statute, are, in the case of coal mines, furnished by the owners on the 21st January, and in the case of metalliferous mines, on the 1st February. These summaries are now in the printer's hands, and will be laid before Parliament in the course of a few days. The Mines Inspectors' Reports, 14 in number, are sent to the Home Office in manuscript by each Inspector before the 1st March. These Reports make up a printed volume of at least 500 pages. The
  322
  correction of the proof sheets must be done by the Inspectors themselves, and this, together with the printing of the whole, including many maps and diagrams, necessarily occupies several weeks. The Secretary of State hopes, however, by an arrangement he has set on foot this year, to be able to secure an earlier presentation of the Reports than heretofore.

  THE "LEE-METFORD" RIFLE AND SMOKELESS POWDER.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether experiments have been made at Lydd by a Committee, to determine the extreme range and otherwise test the efficiency of the "Lee-Metford" rifle and ammunition; and, if so, whether he can, without prejudice to the public interest, lay the Report of the Committee upon the Table of the House; whether Sir Frederick Abel's "cordite" smokeless powder has proved satisfactory or otherwise; and whether the Military Authorities have determined to adopt that or any other smokeless powder?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The object of the experiments was to test the maximum range of the rifle with reference to the security of rifle ranges, and it was found to be about two miles. As regards "cordite," I gave a full explanation concerning it in my speech upon the Army Estimates yesterday.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: Has allowance been made for ricochet in the extreme range of the new rifle?
  MR. E. STANHOPEa: I am afraid I cannot answer that question definitely now, but the answer refers to the maximum range, which, I take it, would include ricochet.

  INDIA COUNCIL AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. SCHWANN: Will the First Lord of the Treasury inform me whether he still intends the India Council Amendment Bill to be the first Order on Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If we are not fortunate enough to conclude the Army Estimates to-day, I shall put them down first for Thursday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Objection taken by Mr. MacNeill, Member for South Donegal, that in the Committee of Supply, on Friday the 4th of this instant March, on the Vote for a Grant in Aid of the Cost of a Preliminary Survey for a Railway from the Coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza, Sir Lewis Pelly and Mr. Burdett-Coutts, being Directors and Shareholders, and Sir John Puleston, being a Shareholder in the East Africa Company, had voted with the Ayes, they having in his judgment a direct personal pecuniary interest in the said Grant.
  MR. MACNEILL: I wish, Sir, to take the first opportunity of calling the attention of the House to what I consider to be an infraction of the Privileges of this House, and to move a Resolution to the effect that the votes of the three hon. Gentlemen be disallowed in, respect of the Vote on Friday—of £20,000 for the survey of the Mombasa Railway—and of the British East Africa Company. Two of these hon. Gentlemen are Directors, and one a shareholder in that Company; they are the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts), the senior Member for Devonport (Sir J. Puleston), and the hon. Member for North Hackney (Sir Lewis Pelly). Mr. Burdett-Coutts and Sir Lewis Pelly are, I understand, shareholders and Directors of the Company, and Sir. J. Puleston is a shareholder to the extent of £500. My contention is, that these Gentlemen having a direct interest in the money to be voted should have refrained from voting on a matter in which they were personally interested. I wish to disclaim any idea of personal discourtesy to the hon. Members, or a personal attack on them, but I bring forward this matter in the interests of Members generally. I hope the House will understand I am only making a primâ
  324
  facie case; if certain things be true, as I believe them to be, it is not right that the names of these hon. Gentlemen should appear in the Division List.
  SIR LEWIS PELLY: The payment was not made to the Company.
  MR. MACNEILL: If the Company's name was not mentioned, there is no doubt the money will be paid to the Company.
  SIR LEWIS PELLY: Read the Resolution.
  MR. MACNEILL: I shall take my own course.
  "Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for defraying the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, as a Grant in Aid of the preliminary Survey of the Mombasa and Victoria Nyanza Railway."
  The hon. Gentleman's point is that the East Africa Chartered Company is not mentioned; then I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who negotiated the bargain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not promise any money to the Company, who were to undertake all the expenses, but the Government gave a pledge that they would ask the House of Commons to vote this sum at the earliest opportunity, in order to re-imburse the Company to that extent. I say this bargain is between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Company, some of the Directors of which are Members of this House. The proposal originally was that the Government should guarantee the cost of making the railway, but fortunately the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the view that it would be better to proceed with caution, and that a full and ample survey of the district through which the railway was to pass should be made before the guarantee was given. The Vote for this money was placed on the Paper late last year; but in consequence of a pledge that had been given by the Government that no contentious business should be taken after a certain date, the Vote was withdrawn. In the meantime, however, in order that the valuable, winter months might not be wasted, it was arranged between Her Majesty's Government and the South Africa Company that the survey should be at once

  325
  commenced. The Government appointed two Surveyors, and the Company undertook to pay them, and at the same time the Government undertook that they would bring this Vote before the House at the earliest possible opportunity, and with the aid of their mechanical majority would do their best to get this money paid out of the coffers of the country into the coffers of the Company. The three hon. Gentlemen to whom I have alluded might very well have abstained from voting on this matter. They had an enormous majority, but their votes were given because it was necessary to have an enormous majority to boom the country elections next day. However, I shall press the matter, to a Division, and, whatever may be the result, I know what the country will say. What, I ask, was the benefit of this Vote to the Company? How far does it affect the value of the shares? The paid-up capital of this Company is no less than £556,000, divided into 26,000 shares of £20 each. Now, if you divide the sum I have named amongst the shareholders, you will see that each shareholder will benefit to the extent of 15s. on every share that he holds. In this way, I take it, there is direct pecuniary interest on the part of the shareholders in this Vote of the House, and I contend that hon. Members should not have voted for the handing over of a present of £20,000 by the Government to this Company. I have exercised some industry in the search for precedents an this matter, and I will give three, for I think, in the interests of public men and the purity of public life, we ought to have some idea of the exact position. My first contention is, that none of these three gentlemen would have dared to appear on a Committee upstairs on a matter in which they were similarly interested. Standing Order No. 118 contains an emphatic declaration which Members of a Committee have to sign to the effect that they have no personal interest in the Bill which they are about to consider. The Gentlemen to whom I refer should have signed a declaration that they were Directors of the South Africa Company, having an enormous interest in the said Company,
  326
  and that they had been promised by the Government, if they would expend £20,000 on this survey, the Government would exert its influence over its mechanical majority to pay them back this money out of the pockets of the poor taxpayers. My next authority is a learned and distinguished gentleman (Sir Erskine May), who, in his book on Parliamentary Practice, says:—
  "In Parliament it is a well-defined rule that any Member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a matter shall not be allowed to vote, but the interest must be immediate and not of a general or remote character."
  I do not know whether any interest could be more immediate than that which the hon. Members have in the South Africa Company. I will mention a case which occurred in 1797. Mr. Pitt, brought before the House a Resolution to compensate some of the holders of the Loyalty Loan, which had lately very much decreased in value, and it turned out that no fewer than 14 Members of the House were affected by that vote. The next day, when the Resolution came before the Speaker, Mr. Sheridan said he had heard with astonishment that some gentlemen had given their votes that this money should be raised upon the public, which money was—a great part of it, at least—to go into their own pockets. He could not conceive anything more indecent or more indiscreet at a time when the House was unpopular—and deserved to be so—than for gentlemen to disgrace its proceedings by votes of that kind. From the Ministers the country expected nothing but deceit; but if these proceedings were carried on, the House would become more unpopular than the Ministers. I wonder what Sheridan would say if he were here now. This Parliament of which I have been speaking was the Parliament that Fox had to leave on account of misconduct. In that Parliament there was a Mr. Manning, the distinguished father of a more distinguished son. He was entitled to receive recuperative money under that loan, and he placed himself in the hands of the House. He said he wished to do nothing more nor less than his duty, and he desired to know whether it was consistent with the practice of the

  327
  House that a Member in his position should give a vote. Mr. Speaker Addington, in answer to that appeal, said—
  "I have always understood the rule and practice to be that no Member can vote on any question, subject to some qualifications, which involves in it an immediate interest. If any measure is submitted to this House, the substance of which is to confer an advantage or to diminish a loss, I am satisfied that it is not consistent with the procedure this House has adopted that any Member should give a vote by which he will gain or benefit if the matter for which he votes is carried into law."
  Mr. Manning at once said that he should decline to vote on the matter; but the Speaker appeared to be very desirous that the position should be thoroughly understood, and he again rose and expressed his opinion on the subject. Another case which I have discovered occurred in 1604, when a Member voted on a question in which he was directly interested, and his vote was disallowed. I will give the hon. Gentlemen one more chance. Do they expect to derive any benefit from that £20,000, and, if so, why do they take it out of the coffers of the country? I am sorry to detain the House, but I hope the matter will not have to be discussed for another century, and that a standing case will have been established. I have been unable to find any fuller reference than two and a half lines to the incident of 1604, but hon. Gentlemen will recollect that that was a reactionary Parliament—a Parliament of Jingoes. I think that this Parliament should not be behind the Parliaments of 1604 and 1797 in the vigilant care with which it watches its own proceedings; and I contend that, as a Member who has signed a Petition cannot present it, and as a Member who is interested in a Bill cannot support it by his vote, neither should gentlemen who are interested in a Company of this kind be allowed to vote money from the public coffers into those of their own Company. Is an unreformed Parliament to set us an example of good taste in these matters? There were gentlemen who took part in that Debate who disputed Mr. Speaker's ruling, or, rather, the advice Mr. Speaker gave to the House,
  328
  for he left the House to judge—and that, I suppose, Mr. Courtney, was what you meant—that the House would judge—when you gave me an answer the other night. There was a Mr. Ryder, some nonentity of the time, who expressed himself in favour of vested rights. I do not know who he was, but he managed to get into Parliament, and finds on the Records semihonourable mention. He argued that it was the invariable practice for Members to vote on matters in which they were interested, and he said that in all cases where taxes were laid on horses, carriages, dogs, &c, which taxes would fall more especially on some Members than on others, those Members did freely vote against the imposition of such taxes, though by strict application of the Rule against pecuniary interest their votes would be disallowed. But Mr. Speaker Addington said the hon. Member had misconceived the ruling; the cases put were merely those in which Members were incidentally interested with the rest of the country, and the ruling he had laid down, according to former decisions of the House, was meant for immediate and direct interest. Now, the supposed analogy to the case of Railway Bills cannot be supported. Individual Directors have voted on such Bills; but in such cases the schemes involved great outlay on the part of promoters, and the profit was uncertain, and in no case did the decision involve payment of money by the Government. The cases are in no way parallel. I do not wish in the slightest degree to overstate the facts, but I say in this case it appears the Government, before coming to the House, consulted with the Directors, and said, "Use this money for the purpose, and we will recoup you from money voted by Parliament." Now, I cannot think of anything in connection with voting Supplies more unconstitutional than for hon. Gentlemen, members of the Board, to take part in a vote on such a question. We hold the control of the Government by our control of public money. I think I have stated the matter temperately, and I put it simply as a matter of principle, and wish to know if the proceeding on Friday night is one that should be followed?
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the votes of Sir Lewis Pelly, Mr. Burdett-Coutts, and Sir John Puleston, given on Friday, the 4th of March, in favour of the Grant in Aid of the Cost of a Preliminary Survey for a Railway from the Coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza, be disallowed."—(Mr. MacNeill.)
  SIR J. PULESTON: I do not complain in any way of the manner in which the hon. Member has put the case, and I quite appreciate that he has taken his action entirely as a matter of public policy. I may say at once that if I had given the matter a moment's thought on Friday, I should have left the House without voting. I followed the Debate just as I would the proceedings on any public question, and, with Members on both sides, I supported the Resolution. The hon. Member has quoted some ancient precedents, but there are some later ones. The hon. Member has referred to one, but not to that of 1883, when a Water Bill was before the House, and on what Mr. Coope voted, though he was largely interested. Then later, when a London and North Western Railway Bill was before the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) both spoke and voted. These votes were never disallowed; and I think these precedents are pretty conclusive, though, as a matter of good taste, if I had thought upon the matter on Friday, I should have abstained from voting.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Was there a subsidy in either of these cases?
  SIR J. PULESTON: No, there was not; but, as I understand, the contention of the hon. Member is that something is done for the benefit of the Company concerned.
  MR. MACNEILL: I did not say that.
  SIR J. PULESTON: Or for the benefit of shareholders. In this Vote on Friday a railway is concerned; and, not only is this money to be spent in a survey, but it is supplemented by additional sums from the Company.
  330
  So that it is an outlay not directly to the interest of the Company. The large majority by which the Vote was agreed to bore testimony to the view of the Committee. Hon. Members may remember a remarkable scene at Exeter Hall in support of this proposal for a railway to Uganda, and it is well-known that one great object in this railway is to minimise the Slave Trade. For this and other reasons the proposal was affirmed by a large majority. No one can say that the object, the suppression of the Slave Trade, is sacrificed to the interest of shareholders. Whatever be my interest, direct or indirect, near or remote, in the Company with which I am, in a small way concerned, I still think I was perfectly justified in voting as I did.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I join with my hon. Friend in disclaiming any hostile feeling towards the hon. Member opposite in consequence of this Motion; but, at the same time, I hope he will not think I am disrespectful to him if I say that it would have been more satisfactory if some Member of of the House of long standing and great experience had asked the opinion of the House on this occasion. I cannot but attach significance to the empty state of the Front Bench opposite. I take the preliminary point whether the money does or does not go to the Company. As a matter of fact, the Company does not care in the least who constructs this railway—whether the Company does it, or another company, or the Government. This money—this £20,000—certainly does not go into the hands of the Company. The Company only execute a survey for the Government, the responsibility for which the Government undertakes. We are carrying British enterprise into this country, which is certainly not a rich one, and which is afflicted by one of the curses of humanity we hope and think we can abolish. I think we

  331
  might be credited with something more than merely commercial motives. We have worked hard—we have received no dividends. This question ought not to be left in any uncertainty in this House, and, therefore, I am grateful to the hon. Member for having brought it forward. The basis of the hon. Member's contention is that we had no right to vote because members of the Company have a personal and pecuniary interest in the matter. I am ready to accept that basis, and I say it is an issue that hangs every day over the head of nearly every Member in the House. We are constantly asked to vote upon Railway Bills promoted by companies in which hon. Members are shareholders. Yet such shareholders never think of walking out of the House when the Division is called. I confess it never occurred to me that I was doing anything contrary to custom or good taste in voting as I did. But I do not wish to throw myself on the indulgence of the House; it is desirable and necessary that we should come to some clear understanding upon a difficulty that will be constantly presented to Members of the House. I am perfectly willing to leave the matter in the hands of the House, repudiating at the same time any accusation of having acted in bad taste, for it never presented itself to my mind, nor, I think, to the minds of my hon. Friends, that there was any violation of good taste involved in following custom and precedent as we did.
  GENERAL SIR LEWIS PELLY: I have no doubt of the good feeling of the hon. Member in making this Motion, but I do not see in the slightest degree its application to myself in the light of the precedents quoted. This is a Grant in Aid by the House of Commons for the purpose of a survey, and the survey is carried out bonâ fide by the Government in obedience to Articles 3 and 4 of the General Act of the Brussels Conference, by which they undertake to carry a railway from the lakes to the coast. It
  332
  is true the East Africa Company advanced the money in the autumn, but they get no present advantage from this. The Government say, "We are going to make this survey, but we have not got men on the spot to accompany our surveying officers. Allow us to use your men to go up with our officers." They have this use, and the money is laid out. I consider I had nothing to do with the matter, further than that the company had to advance the money on account of Government. If the railway is carried out, it will be because the Government consider the survey favourable to the construction; and if the survey is not favourable, they will not carry it out. They will not ask us, and we do not care a straw whether the Government carry it out or not. If they come to us to carry out Article 4 of the Brussels Act, we will do it to the best of our ability, as the Article binds us to do. All we want is to see the railway pass through our territory, so that trade may be opened and slavery suppressed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It will be in accordance with the practice of the House if the three hon. Members now withdraw.
  The said hon. Members then withdrew.
  MR. MORTON: I do not intend, and I have no desire, to cast any personal reflection upon the three hon. Gentlemen. On Friday last I took the opportunity to call attention to this matter before the hon. Members voted.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.
  MOTION.

    SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
    RESOLUTION.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I feel that some apology is due to the House for the form in which

    333
    I am obliged to raise the question I am going to bring forward to-night. I feel myself that it would be much more convenient to raise this question in the form of a Bill, the clauses of which would set clearly before the House what my proposals are. But, unfortunately, the chances of the ballot have been against me. But although I have not been given the opportunity of introducing a Bill, I have been enabled to obtain this evening to bring forward the Resolution, which is really a summary of a Bill which has been before the House already in three different years. I felt that I was bound to bring this matter forward—in the first place, on account of the interest taken in the subject by those on whose behalf I speak; and, secondly, on account of the Unwarrantable and violent attacks which have been made on the Party to which I belong for the manner in which they have dealt with the Scottish fisheries question, and more particularly on account of the more recent attack with regard to the attitude we have adopted towards the proposals of the present Government during the last two years. These attacks have reached their culminating point in the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) during a recent proselytising pilgrimage with which he was good enough to afflict my country. That right hon. Gentleman, some two or three months ago, went down to Edinburgh, and, for his benefit, a so-called deputation of fishermen was brought together. But, curiously enough, that deputation was not brought from the shores of the Firth of Forth, not from East Lothian, not from Kincardineshire, or Aberdeenshire, but from a remote corner of the Moray Firth. Certainly I cannot congratulate those who had the management of that deputation upon their success. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to be in his place to-night. I have no doubt he is better employed at one
    334
    of those Barmecide feasts with which the Party to which he belongs delights to keep their spirits up, and at which, I suppose, they endeavour to imbibe a little Dutch courage with which to meet the coming Dissolution with some equanimity and fortitude. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman delivered on the occasion I have referred to was full of inaccuracies and full of misstatements, due to the ignorance or misrepresentation either of himself or of those who prepared the brief from which he spoke. The deputation represented to the right hon. Gentleman their view, and he, in replying, suggested to that deputation, in the following words, that it was to the conduct of the Liberal Members, and of the Party on this side, that their interests had not been properly attended to. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "Why do you find it necessary to come to a person who is a private Member, and a Representative of an inland constituency, in order to represent your views? That is a question which I can only put to you, and which I must leave you to answer."
    Now, the suggestion that the Liberal Members for the Moray Firth district did not attend to the fishery interests is one of the most unwarrantable suggestions ever made by a responsible Statesman. The constituency of Moray and Nairn was represented by the late Mr. Anderson, who gave great satisfaction to his fishermen constituents, and his place was afterwards taken by my hon. Friend who I now see entering the House (Mr. Seymour Keay), and who has paid considerable attention to fishery questions. Then we have my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duff), the father of the Scottish Members of the House of Commons, and it is well known that for 31 years he has constantly striven for the interests of the Scottish fishermen, a course also pursued by the hon. and learned Member for the Elgin burghs (Mr. Asher) ever since he has occupied that seat. These hon. Gentlemen whom I have mentioned have certainly done all in their power to forward the interest of the Scottish fisheries. The charge that we as a Party have neglected their interest is as baseless and as unfounded as the

    335
    suggestion that those hon. Gentlemen have done so. I will briefly run through the measures that the Liberal Government of 1880–85 passed in the interest of the Scottish fishermen, and then I will show what the present Government have done for the same purpose. The House shall decide which Party has done most for the interests with which I am now concerned. In 1881 a Committee was appointed called the "Herring Brand" Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff was Chairman. That Committee recommended that the surplus brand fees should be appropriated to the improvement of piers and harbour accommodation, and the extension of telegraphic communication to remote districts. It further advised that the functions of the Brand should be extended, so as to take cognisance of everything relating to the coast and deep-sea fisheries of Scotland, that the branding officers and Brand Commissioners should be made available for scientific investigations similar to those carried on in America, and that the Secretaries of Legation abroad should be requested to furnish the Fishery Board with an annual Report giving information upon those scientific investigations. These recommendations of the Committee were promptly carried into law. The Act of 1882 re-constituted the Scottish Fishery Board, and since then that Board has done much for Scottish fishermen. The next step was an inquiry in the interest of fishermen as well as seamen, the "Harbour Accommodation" Committee of 1883–4. One of the recommendations of that Committee was that Local Authorities of the United Kingdom should have power to give the rates as collateral security to the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the construction of harbours. That principle was given effect to by the Public Works Loans Act, 1885, in which burghs were empowered to give the local rates as collateral security to the Public Works Loans Commissioners for advances for harbour accommodation. An important principle was thus established, though not carried far enough. It is not sufficient to allow the matter to rest here; not
    336
    only burghs should have this power to give rates as collateral security, but counties, parts of counties, and even parishes, should have the same power. The next step taken was the appointment of the Trawling Commission, in the autumn of 1883, over which Lord Dalhousie presided. That Commission reported in March, 1885, and effect was given to the recommendations in the Report by the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act of 1885, which provides that when the Fishery Board are satisfied that any mode of fishing in any part of the sea within territorial waters off the Scottish coast is injurious to any kind of fishing, or for experimental purposes, the Board may make bye-laws restricting or prohibiting the same during such times as they think fit; that all steam fishing boats fishing off the Scottish coast should have their numbers on their funnels and quarters as well as on the bow; that the Fishery Board should have power to require returns from fishermen, fish-curers, and others, of all fish caught and cured by them; that sea fishery officers may award compensation in case of injury done by one sea-fishing boat to another, or the nets, lines, and gear thereof, where the amount of damage does not exceed £10; that the Fishery Board may decide as to the materials, construction, and hooping of barrels for cured herrings; that the powers of the Board of Trade under various Acts as to shell-fish fisheries in Scotland be transferred to the Scotch Board. All these suggestions of the Trawling Commission were given effect to by the Bill of 1885, passed by a Liberal Government. Even during the short term of office of the Party in 1886, the interests of Scottish fishermen were not lost sight of, for the Crofters Holdings Act of 1886, Section 32, empowers the Treasury to make advances to the Fishery Board to be lent to fishermen in the crofting counties for the purchase of boats and gear. And the "Sea Fishing Boat (Scotland) Act" of the same year regulated the property and joint ownership of fishing-boats, and provided for the registration of mortgage on boats, and that they might become valid for security for loans.

    337
    And now I come to what has been affected by the present Government during their term of office. They, too, have appointed various Committees of Inquiry, the form adopted in each case being the appointment of a Committee by the Secretary for Scotland (Lord Lothian). The first inquiry was into the mussel fisheries of Scotland. That Committee reported quickly, and I believe it went pretty closely into the matters referred to it. Their Report contained only the minimum of recommendations to meet the case, but nothing has been done towards passing a measure to give effect to those recommendations. I know I shall be told that the Government brought in a Bill, but that Bill did not give effect to the recommendations. Then a Committee was appointed to inquire into Crown Rights in Salmon Fishing at sea, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was Chairman. That Committee reported, and I do not think its recommendations were very outrageous or revolutionary in their character, but nothing has been done to give legislative effect to those recommendations. We have seen no Bill yet, there have been no legislative proposals from the Government. A further Committee to inquire into the Solway Fisheries was appointed last year, again presided over by my hon. Friend (Sir Herbert Maxwell), but as that Committee has not yet reported I do not think I can find very much fault there. Now, what legislation has the Government been responsible for? The first Act for which they may claim responsibility was not brought in by the Government, but by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Colonel Malcolm), "The Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889," with the short amending Act as to penalty passed in 1890. This Herring Fishery Act regulates the measures used in the Scottish herring industry, prohibits day fishing for herrings between 1st June and 1st October, and Sunday fishing, between Ardnamurchan and Mull of Galloway; prohibits beam and other trawling in territorial waters off Scotland; and gives power to the Fishery Board to prohibit trawling within a line drawn from Duncansby
    338
    Head to Rattray Point. Now I know that great credit is taken for this prohibition of trawling in the territorial waters, but whence arose its necessity? Power was given to the Scottish Fishery Board in 1885 to do this very same thing, and it was only because the Fishery Board did not act up to that power and did not fulfil their responsibilities that the Act of 1889 became necessary. The only other measure passed by the Government in this connection is the provision in the "West Highland Works Act" of last year, which authorises the Secretary for Scotland from time to time to make grants out of moneys voted by Parliament to the County Councils of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney, and Zetland, for the purpose of aiding in the construction and improvement of small harbours, piers, and boat-slips. Such is the record of either Party during the two long periods they have held office, and I do not fear to challenge the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and the Government to state their performances to the country against ours, and we will leave the Electorate to judge between us. I have not done with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, for later on in his Edinburgh speech he proceeds to make a still more extraordinary statement The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "Then there is the question of mussels. No doubt it is a matter of necessity to your trade that you should be able to have a ready and cheap access to the bait which you require, and the anomalies which at present exist are very striking. In some places mussels are to be obtained for nothing, and in other places you have to pay a very heavy and even exorbitant price for them. I suppose there is only one way of dealing with that, and that is to authorise either the Fishery Board or the Local Authorities to obtain possession of these beds, paying, perhaps, some fair compensation to the owners; and having obtained possession, to offer them to all who require them for bait at an equal and moderate price. Here again, however, legislation was proposed by the Government. Whose fault was it that the legislation was not gone on with? That Bill of the Government was opposed by Mr. Marjoribanks and by certain other Gladstonian Members, and the threat of discussion, and the time which would be occupied in a lengthened discussion over the matter prevented anything being done.

    339
    Now I give you a piece of practical advice. Do not hesitate to take half a loaf when you cannot get the whole."
    Now it is a noteworthy fact that one of the reasons why we raised objection to the Bill of the Government was, because it did not give the Local Authorities power to get possession of these mussel beds. The Government Bill made no such proposal at all, it simply gave the Fishery Board power to make general rules; the power insisted on by the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Bill, and this was one of the reasons why we opposed the Bill. Now, as to the question I and my friends raised, what are the facts? In 1889 the Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, reported, and I approached the Secretary for Scotland after the presentation of the Report, suggesting that the Government should bring in a Bill to give effect to our recommendations. The Secretary for Scotland said "No!" and that I had better bring in a Bill. I took that course. I brought in a Bill, but my Bill was refused a hearing even. The following year, 1890, I again brought in my Bill, with some slight changes, and a Bill was introduced by the Government, an emasculated form of my own Bill. That Bill was not pressed, and opposition was offered to my Bill. In 1891 a somewhat similar course was adopted. My own Bill was introduced, and the Government Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. It quickly passed that august Assembly, without amendment or discussion. It was brought here, and the Government proposed to take the Second Reading in the small hours of the morning, when it was impossible to have a discussion. I think, so far from treating that Bill with contumely or unfairness, we had too much forbearance. For what did we offer? If the Government would give my Bill a Second Reading, and let the two Bills go to a Select Committee, with instructions to produce a fairly sufficient measure from the two, we agreed to allow the Government Bill to be read a second time sub silentio. "Let us, we said, have a little give and take on this subject." But the Government met us with a non possumus and now
    340
    they have the audacity to say that I and my friends are responsible for this matter not being dealt with. The advice of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to the fishermen in Edinburgh not to hesitate to take half a loaf is very good advice, and I cordially approve it; but it is our duty to see that this half-loaf offered us is really bread, and not a stone painted in its similitude. I have done with this part of the subject—the rival merits of this side of the House and the other—and I now proceed to another portion of the subject. I do not think I need labour the point about necessity for legislation, because it is admitted in every line of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I have referred, and, indeed, credit is taken to himself for the desire to see such legislation passed. More than that, the actions of the Government show the same admission. We find that in the first Session of this Parliament a Salmon Fisheries Bill was introduced, but we heard no more of it. But it was introduced, and so the need of legislation was admitted. Again, we have had the appointment of the three Committees I have alluded to, and a Government does not appoint such Committees unless there is a prima facie case for legislation. Again, we have the fact that in 1890 and 1891 Bills were introduced by the Government; in short, I think the necessity for legislation may be taken as admitted on both sides. And now I turn to the Resolution of which I have given notice. I may take it, I think, that, so far as the first two clauses of the Resolution are concerned, on the matter of principle we are agreed, and the only question is as to extent. Now, the proposal of the Government was that the Scottish Fishery Board should consist of nine members—five appointed and four elected by four districts of the fishing communities in Scotland. Now, really, I do not see how it is possible to divide the whole coast of Scotland into so few as four fishery districts. In England the division is into 17 or 18 district committees, and it seems to me that to divide Scotland into four districts is a physical impossibility. In my Bill I put the number as six, but I

    341
    doubt whether those are sufficient. Try to divide the coast of Scotland into districts, and suppose we follow such lines as these: From the Tweed to the Tay, one division; from the Tay to the Moray Firth, one; for the northern counties of Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness, one; for Orkney and Shetland, one; for the Western Islands, one; for the west coast of Inverness and Argyll, one; from the Clyde to the Solway Firth, one. With extended areas such as these you get seven districts, and there would be the greatest difficulty in getting the members together and properly working the system. I know it will be objected that it would be undesirable to multiply the fishery districts, because the proposal is that each Fishery Committee shall appoint a member to the Fishery Board. I do not, for my own part, see a great deal of weight in the objection. It is the old objection, grounded on the fear of hon. Members opposite, and always raised by them when asked to give effect to the wishes of the chosen Representatives of the people. It seems to me, in regard to the Scottish Fishery Board, if the Government reserves the appointment of, say, the Chairman, a Sheriff to advise the Board on legal matters, and a good, sound, scientific expert, these three appointed members would be quite sufficient for your purpose, and that it would not matter whether it consisted of 10, 12, or 14 members. The interests are so varied you may fairly trust to the natural wear and tear, and the natural competition in the different districts, to prevent any combination of the members representing these different districts with a view of over-ruling the influence of the appointed members. My complaint is that, while we are at one upon the question of principle on these points, the extent to which the Government, up to the present, have shown themselves willing to carry that principle is altogether insufficient to meet the interests of the fishing industry. Now I come to the question of mussels, and on that question the agreement on principle disappears. We disagree, not only with regard to the extent to which we ought to go, but we
    342
    disagree with regard to the very principles upon which legislation ought to be founded. I do not think there are many Members—certainly not many from England—who altogether realise the importance of the mussel to the Scottish fisheries. For I suppose that every Scottish fisherman for one-half the year uses mussels as the bait with which to catch the fish to which he looks for his livelihood. I think I cannot give a more remarkable instance of the importance of the mussels to the Scottish fisheries than to refer to the evidence given before the Committee in the year 1888 by one of the fishery officers. It appears from that evidence that, on an average of 38 boats fishing from Eyemouth in the three years 1885, 1886, and 1887, those 38 boats used in those years no less than 4,022 tons of mussels, equivalent to 250,000,000 mussels, and costing £7,664; that they caught 4,665 tons of fish, bringing them in the sum of £58,940. The average amount of mussels used per boat per annum was no less than 36½ tons, and the average annual cost was £70 per boat, representing about six or seven men. As a matter of fact, the result of these figures shows that it took nearly a ton of mussels to catch a ton of fish. There is no doubt about the correctness of those figures; and those figures, to a larger or smaller extent, apply to the whole of Scotland, and I am quite sure that every Member upon both sides of the House who is acquainted with the Scottish fisheries will bear me out in my statement. Now, what are the conditions of the Scottish mussel fisheries? In the Report presented to Parliament last year it appeared that the production of mussels from the Scottish scalps had, in the four years 1883–6, been 51,821 tons of mussels, and that in the four years 1887–90 they produced only 44,795 tons, and that the falling off in the latter years has been very remarkable. This decrease has been very marked and very serious. Under favourable circumstances the cost of mussels is about from 8d. or 9d. to 1s. a basket, or from 18s. to 25s. a ton. But the Scottish supply is absolutely inadequate, and consequently the mussels have to be

    343
    brought from England, from Ireland, from Holland, in order to supply the Scottish fisheries. It can easily be understood that the cost of carriage is exceedingly great. Instead of costing from 18s. to 25s. a ton, they cost when imported from 35s. to 50s. a ton. Now, this, I hold, is a very serious state of things. You talk about supplying the wants of the Scottish people. Why do you not do so? I should like to see a little evidence of it in this respect. The Scottish mussel scalps are quite capable of supplying the wants of the Scottish people. At present these scalps are primâ facie the private property of the Crown, and can only be held by a subject by charter or by baronial grant conveying them in express terms. Under this state of the law all sorts of shadowy claims to mussel scalps have arisen, and many of these claimants have neither used the mussel scalps for their own benefit nor developed them for the benefit of the fisheries. I say that the Fishery Board should make an accurate list, or have an accurate list made, of all the mussel scalps along the Scottish coast; that every private title ought to be examined, and that where the title cannot be shown by private individuals, the right should be considered to vest still in the Crown, and that the Crown should deal with its property for the benefit of the people. The proposal I make is that all persons claiming mussel scalps should be required within a certain time to lodge statements of claim with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, Failing that, the mussels scalps should vest in the Crown. I do not think that that is a very outrageous or a very revolutionary proposal. It has the support of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) and the hon. and gallant Member for Argyllshire (Colonel Malcolm); and it has another supporter, somewhat unusual to me—it has the support of even the Scotsman newspaper. This is what the Scotsman says on the 5th July, 1890:—
    "In our opinion it would have been an improvement if the Government Bill had proceeded, in accordance with the suggestion of the Committee, which has been quoted above, to deal with the question of title. Mr. Marjoribanks's Bill contains clauses upon this matter,
    344
    which appear very practicable and useful. With the object of enabling the Fishery Board to make a list of mussel beds, and to arrange for letting these to the fishermen, proprietors are to intimate their titles to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and, failing such intimation, the right of property is to be held in the Crown. No one can take exception to this, which appears to be a most reasonable and proper scheme; and proprietors will, we think, be very grateful if the burden of protecting the bait beds, which in general is a most difficult one to discharge, is by this means, and for the public good, removed from their shoulders."
    I come now to the point as to the working of these scalps, which power I would give to the District Fishery Committees in Scotland. This was a point my Bill dealt with in the last three Sessions, but was left untouched by the Government Bills, though the rumour is that the shadow of coming events is likely to have caused a change in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that we may soon hear an admission of the justice of these demands. In regard to the question of sea police, it is a most important one, as there have been constant disputes amongst the different classes of fishermen who work the coasts, and the Report of the Fishery Board of last year clearly brings out the fact in these words—
    "The Board must again express regret that the arrangements for the general superintendence of the fisheries, and more especially for protecting the waters closed against beam trawling, are so inadeqate…… Prior to the establishment of the present Board the duties imposed upon the cruisers chiefly consisted in carrying out the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Convention, preventing foreigners fishing in the territorial waters, maintaining order, and adjusting disputes amongst the fishermen and enforcing the provisions of the Fishery Acts relating to the lettering, numbering, and registering of fishing boats and signal lights. Under the present Board, however, their duties have become much more numerous and important. It is to these cruisers that the Board have now to look for the protection of the rights of line and net fishermen against the operation of trawlers and the due enforcement of the Statutes which have been passed in the general interests of the fisheries against trawling in certain areas."
    The Report asks that—
    "In addition to the Jackal, an efficient gunboat should be placed at their disposal all the year round; that the Board's cruiser Vigilant should be replaced by a suitable steam vessel, and that each of these vessels should be

    345
    furnished with a steam launch for special service."
    Now, it seems to me that these requests are exceedingly modest and moderate. I do not think they go far enough. It is evident that the more you endeavour to regulate the fisheries by means of legislation the greater force you will require to enforce those regulations; and if all the recommendations are accepted something will yet remain to be done in order to secure an adequate police arrangement along our coast. I hope, in regard to this portion of the question, the Government will give some satisfactory reply. I turn to the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Andrews, which proposes that power should be given to District Fishery Committees to issue licences to fishermen to fish for salmon on suitable parts of the coast of Scotland. If the Government choose to accept the Amendment, I have not a word to say against it. I admit it raises an important question, but it deals with the merest fringe of it. The right to catch salmon in Scotland is on exactly the same basis, and vests in the same manner and on the same terms, as the right to mussel scalps; and in my humble judgment the same principle should apply to the unchartered salmon fisheries of Scotland as I propose to apply to the unchartered mussel scalps of Scotland. Wherever it cannot be shown that a private individual has absolute title to salmon fisheries by grant or charter, whether in sea or fresh water, the Crown should deal with those fisheries, and should deal with them in this manner: that they should be handed over, under proper conditions, to Local Bodies for the benefit and general good of the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment does not go so far as I would wish. Had it done so I should have been glad to have accepted it, and it would have formed an important addition to my Resolution, though, strictly speaking, it should not, perhaps, have been included in a Sea Fisheries Resolution. I am afraid I have wearied the House in dwelling on a subject which, if I cannot call it dry, is, at any rate, a special and somewhat technical one. I speak on behalf of a class of men who,
    346
    I think, are especially deserving of your interest and sympathy—men who go down, day by day and night by night, to the sea in boats, wrestling with the elements for their daily bread; men who endure many hardships, and who, by that hardship which they have to endure, bring an important addition to the wealth and prosperity of the country; men who bring a cheap and substantial change to the poor man's table and a delicacy to the rich man's—a food much appreciated by both classes. It is on behalf of these men that I speak, and it is in the interest of these men that I now beg to move my Resolution, and I ask the House to accept it without amendment or qualification.
    MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Member. For two reasons I do so: First, I think that this is a question for legislation; and, in the second place, I think the present time is an opportune one for giving effect to the Motion. I know that many Members in this House, representing English and Irish constituencies, envy Scotland for her Fishery Board. I admit as much as anyone to the full benefits which have accrued to Scotland from the possession of such a Board, but that is no reason why it should not be improved and its functions enlarged. On the question of the authority the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to pronounce upon the conduct of those who represent the feelings of Scotland I am not disposed to enter. But I really think that the people of Scotland—and especially the fishermen of Scotland—have taken the proper measure of the pronouncement of the right hon. Gentleman, and have passed it by with the silence it deserved. The rise and progress of the fishing industry of Scotland has advanced largely in recent years, as stated by the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board. I shall only

    347
    bring under the notice of the House very briefly one or two facts to show the importance of the fishing industry in Scotland, and the necessity there is for adequately protecting that industry. The Report of the Fishery Board for 1889 states that the fishing industry of Scotland gives employment to 111,858 persons, and the number of boats at present engaged amount to 14,714; that the capital invested by the fishermen in boats, nets, and lines amount to £1,603,307; and that the gross value of the sea fisheries of Scotland, exclusive of salmon, amounts to £1,517,376, affording an income to every person engaged in the industry of £13 11s. 3½d. I am not going to say that that represents in any way an equal distribution of the wealth produced by the fishing industry; but I mention it merely to give hon. Members an idea of the surprising importance which the fishery industry is to Scotland. And I hope that, keeping that in view, the Government will accept the Resolution of the hon. Member, not in any niggardly spirit, but accept it as generously as they can. The enormous growth of the fisheries in Scotland was shown by the fact that whereas the number of barrels of herrings caught in 1889, which was the first year of the establishment of the present Fishery Board, was 1,397,507, in 1829 the number of barrels caught was only 27,528. Since the establishment of the Scottish Fishery Board in 1882 the institutions, the circumstances, and the necessities of Scotland have changed. I do not suppose that even the Lord Advocate, when he comes to speak on the Resolution, will attempt to defend the present constitution of that Board. It is a remarkable thing that on a Board dealing with the fishing industry the only industry strongly and permanently represented is the legal profession; but what the legal profession has got to do with the practical management of fisheries is more than I can understand. With reference to that part of the Resolution which recommends the formation of a sufficient number of District Fishery Committees, it is perfectly true that there is a necessity for this. I think it is a self-evident proposition to hon.
    348
    Members who know the character of the fisheries in Scotland that it is necessary to have at the Central Board a representation of the different phases of opinion that exist in the fishery interests throughout the country. I should like to point out what has been already proved over and over again—the necessity that exists, not only as regards the culture of mussels, but of oysters. It has been pointed out over and over again that certain parts of the coast of Scotland are admirably fitted for the cultivation of oysters; and it is only reasonable that the persons selected for that particular district should be persons who pay particular attention to that kind of industry. With regard to the question of a close time for fishing, the difficulty is that what is recommended for, and believed in, as suitable for certain parts of the country is not suitable for other parts. If District Committees are established we could then leave the fixing of a close time to those District Committees. The present Fishery Board, for certain purposes, have already divided Scotland into districts, which shows that they recognise the necessity for dividing the country into districts. With regard to the title to the mussel beds there can be no doubt, I think, after the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman, that there is a likelihood of the mussel beds of Scotland being totally depleted unless some measures are taken for their protection. As to the enforcement of regulations, the right hon. Gentleman has stated the opinion of the Fishery Board on the subject; and it may be said that the complaints of the Board, are annual, that while powers have been given by statute to the Fishery Board the means of enforcing these regulations are withheld from them. The Board has complained over and over again on this subject. The Board has fixed certain limits within which steam trawling is prohibited. I myself in the month of January, have seen steam trawlers trawling regularly within the limits fixed by the Fishery Board; and they selected the Sundays for the purpose. By the Act of 1889 steam trawling is prohibited on the North East within certain limits. I

    349
    have repeatedly seen in January trawlers coming five or six miles and trawling there on Sundays. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham stated, in reply to the deputation that waited upon him, that he thought it was a right thing to trawl, and that he would never do away with trawling; but I say that it is absolutely futile for the Government or the House of Commons to pass legislation on this subject unless they give the means of carrying it out. I would suggest to the Admiralty Authorities that, as they have, got a large number of ships which are not in actual service and upon which so much money has been spent, they could spare one or two of them for the purposes of protection on the coast of Scotland. I hope these matters will all be put right. I think the complaints of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick against the Government and the way they treated his attempt at legislating on the subject are well-founded, and I hope they will make amends at the eleventh hour. For my own part, I cannot see what substantial reason the Government can have for not accepting the Resolution and proceeding at once to carry it into effect by legislation.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a large representative element should be introduced into the Scottish Fishery Board; that a sufficient number of District Fishery Committees should be instituted to take charge of local fishery interests on the coasts of Scotland; that proof should be required of the titles under which Scottish mussel scalps are claimed and held; that power should be given to District Fishery Committees in Scotland to regulate, acquire, and work mussel scalps within their several districts; and that the regulations from time to time made in the interests of the various classes of fishermen working in Scottish seas should be enforced by an effective system of sea police."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
    MR. HALDANE: I, for one, entirely agree with the policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick. I do not propose, in the few minutes for which I shall occupy the time of the House, to go over the ground which he has already occupied fully
    350
    and adequately. I wish simply to ask the attention of the House to one or two points, These are not points which come before me from a mere general study of the question; they are matters which have been pressed on me by my own constituency, and into which I have made such inquiry as my opportunities permitted, and as to which I am bound to say there has been much complaint — and there has been good cause for complaint—and I feel it is my duty, as the Representative of these people, to do what I can to get attention given to them. The Resolution covers, I think, nearly the whole of them. If it were carried into legislation in the terms in which my right hon. Friend has brought it before the House, I believe, so far, at all events, as the fishermen on the North-East Coast of Scotland are concerned, their grievances would be pretty well met. In the first place, to take the matter of the Scottish Fishery Board, there is no respect in which the Scottish Fishery Board has been felt to be more defective than its financial circumstances. I believe that Board is anxious to do all it can for the promotion of the Scotch fisheries; but it is cramped and hampered at ever turn, not merely for the want of powers or for inquiry and assistance, but because Parliament has not chosen to put at its command the means necessary in order to enable it to do its work efficiently. In the case of the construction of a harbour, for instance, the number of official formalities to be complied with and the difficulties and impediments thrown in the way are so great, that the result is that it is almost impossible for a small fishing district in Scotland, unless it has got powerful friends to back it up, to obtain funds for the construction of a harbour. But, suppose its gets over the initial difficulty of finding security, suppose it has got over the matter of satisfying the authorities in London that it can provide sufficient security, I what happens? It gets so much, but

    351
    not enough to construct the whole of the harbour. Then it is driven to go to the Scottish Fishery Board again, and then it is told that they were prevented by the Legislature from advancing more than a certain sum and they could not give it anything. I must say it seems to me that this is not the way in which the fishermen of Scotland ought to be treated. They do not represent themselves merely—it is not the case of individuals or private persons coming and asking the Government for money. It is the case of an industry on which a whole locality depends; which strikes at the whole life of the whole line of the Southern Coast. It seems to me that if the Government had thought it right in the case of the Northern Coast to strengthen the hands of the Scottish Fishery Board they might do the same in the case of the Southern Fishery lines. There is one other specific point with which I shall venture to trouble the House. My right hon. Friend alluded to the case of the insufficient protection given to fishermen against trawling. Parliament has thought fit to pass a law which practically prohibits trawling along the East Coast of Scotland. One would have thought that, when Parliament thought fit to pass that law, at least it would have taken pains to see that that law was enforced. But that is not the case. When we come to see the machinery provided for the protection of the whole coast of Scotland, what do we find? For the protection of the whole coast of Scotland I believe there are only two vessels, and two only; one steamboat, the Jackal, which is useful in its way, and another sailing boat, which is wholly inadequate. The trawlers are nearly all worked by steam, and if they are looked after by a sailing boat, they have only to take her bearings and steam away from her, and carry on their trawling operations with impunity. The Jackal is so constantly required for other public purposes, for looking after other public interests, that she is ineffective for the protection of the interests of the fishermen against breaches of the law by trawlers. These are matters of great and pressing grievance which are brought before us
    352
    by our constituents, and what answer have we to give them? We have not the opportunity for raising these matters, and if we do try to bring them before the public the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is said, has got to look after the guardianship of the public purse; but what is the use of passing a law if you cannot spend money enough to enforce it? I am glad to see the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place. I believe he has got a certain number of torpedo vessels, which are steamboats I believe; could he not spare us a few of these for the purpose of more efficiently administering the law for the protection of these Northern shores? Another thing which the fishermen complained of very much was this: the Scottish Fishery Board do all they can to enforce the law against trawlers, but unfortunately its action is a fine which does not cover what an expert trawler can make in the prohibited waters. The result is that it pays the trawler to violate the law and pay the fine, and he sometimes comes out of Court in triumph with a balance of £20 in his pocket. Surely the time has come when some attention might be given to this subject, either in the form of a Bill, such as has been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman or founded on the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution, or in the shape of a Committee, the business of which would be to see how the Scottish Fishery Board can be strengthened, what alterations in the law are necessary to protect the fishermen against trawling through these waters, so that finally, under legislative sanction, all that concerns a great industry may be put on a more efficient footing than is the case at the present time.
    MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews, &c.): I rise to move an Amendment to the Motion in line 5, after "Scotland," to insert—
    "That powers should be granted by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to such District Fishery Committees to issue licences to fishermen to fish for salmon on suitable parts of the coasts of Scotland."
    I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, regards my Amendment as in no sense hostile to the

    353
    Resolution he has moved this evening. That was not my intention, and I am glad that my feeling in this matter has been properly understood. I feel, how-ever, bound to say that I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend should have thought it is duty, on a question of so great public importance, to occupy some 25 minutes of his speech with what I think I am not incorrect as describing as partisan recriminations. I was emboldened to put my Resolution on the Paper by the recommendations of the Committee, over which the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtownshire presided. If, however, it is thought that I am unnecessarily overloading the Resolution by proposing something which is not strictly germane I shall certainly not press my proposal, if any intimation to that effect reaches me from the Treasury Bench. But, Sir, the reasons which encourage me to bring this matter forward are these. I find, in the Report of the Committee in 1890, the following recommendations:—
    "As regards the future administration (in tidal waters) that in developing the resources of the fishings, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have interfered on certain parts of the coast with the pursuits of the local fishermen, which they had been permitted to carry on without interference for a number of years. We recommend that the future policy of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests be directed to the encouragement of local fishermen, by allowing them to fish on suitable parts of the coast on payment of a licence, and under such restrictions as to length and fashion of net as the district fishery boards, or, where such have not yet been formed, as the Fishery Board for Scotland may decide."
    I assume, for the purpose of my argument, that such power is vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. If it is not so, then the proper form of my Amendment should have been that power should be granted to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to carry out what the Committee recommended. I am quite prepared to admit the contention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, that in adopting such a policy they would run the risk of diminishing the revenue of the Crown. But, in my opinion, some regard ought to be had to the rights,
    354
    or at any rate the emoluments and advantages, of the fishermen on the coast. It was proved before the Committee that in certain districts in England the licence system has been enforced without detriment to the fish supply, what ever may have been the result upon the actual revenue. Now, Sir, there is a special case in relation to the rights of the Crown in salmon fishing, to which I should like to be allowed to refer. I mean the case of salmon fishing, ex adverso, of the Burgh of Crail. That case was brought under the notice of the Commissioners, and in their Report it is admitted that there had been something of the nature of harsh treatment of the Burgh by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, representing the Crown. Now, Sir, it seems to me that if the experiment of power to fish under licence be made, it might be made on that part of the coast of Fife where the inhabitants feel a grievance at having been deprived of some valuable property which they regarded as their own. I do not intend pressing the Amendment standing in my name if it is objected to, but perhaps it would be well as a matter of form that I should move it. I agree with most of the statements in the able and exhaustive speech of my right hon. Friend, except as regards the proof of title under which Scotch mussel scalps are held, as to which I reserve my opinion, and shall await the statement of the Government with interest.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I have not the honour of representing a fishing constituency, but I was a Member of the small Committee to which my hon. Friend who has just sat down referred, and I confess I take a very strong interest in the recommendation he has backed up in his speech. If the Amendment he has made in the least possible aggressive form had been hostile to the Resolution, I could not have supported it. But the Amendment is not hostile to the Resolution. My hon. Friend says the salmon fishings in possession of the Crown should not be let out as they are now as a source of

    355
    revenue, but made available to the industrious local fishermen by giving them licences to fish for salmon in the open sea. He said, as the House knows, that there is a very interesting divergence between the practice of England and Scotland. In England salmon are open to fishermen in the open sea if they get a licence to fish for them, and the object of the restriction is to prevent the species from being destroyed. The necessity of obtaining licences is obviously most proper. In Scotland there is no man who would not desire that fishing should be carried out in such a way as to secure the proper consideration of the breed of salmon. But whereas white fish is open to all to take, the salmon, simply because its flesh is pink instead of white, is made in some cases the private property of individuals, while the remainder is administered by the Crown as the patrimonial property, and fishermen have no right to fish for salmon in their waters. The industrious fisherman, I believe I shall have sympathy in saying, should be allowed to take salmon in the open sea. So soon as we restore that power to the fishermen there will be an improvement. I say restore, because the present stringent law is Judge-made law of very recent date. It dates from 1849, and was confirmed by the House of Lords a few years later. Previous to that the Crown did not derive a single penny from salmon fishing. They now derive a revenue about which they need not cavil much, because it only amounts to something like £6,000 a year. The Government might have given a little more weight than they did to the recommendations of the Commission which suggested that the system of licences prevailing in England should be extended to Scotland. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend who seconded this Motion has spoken in much too disparaging terms of the Fishery Board established in 1882; it was an important step in the administration of the Scotch fisheries. In selecting the Sheriffs of maritime-counties to sit on the Board, it was to a certain extent desired to give a representative complexion to the Board, and I do not think the at-
    356
    tempt has been altogether unsuccessful. But I quite agree with the main purpose of my right hon. Friend, in saying that the time has come when we ought to make the administration of sea fisheries more thoroughly and frankly representative. The fisheries of Scotland are the harvest of the sea, and just as you give the toilers, who draw forth the harvest of the land, representation in the shape of County Councils and other institutions, so it is only right that similar interests on the sea should be represented, and I am glad to think that the principle which has been so well advocated to-night by my right hon. Friend is to be, to a certain extent, although to an imperfect extent, accepted by the Government. The Committee to which the hon. Member for St. Andrews has referred made a recommendation with regard to titles to salmon fishing inland, and they were of opinion that a great many of those fisheries, which in old time were of no value, had of late years been quietly annexed by proprietors, without any proper title to them. That may be a mistaken impression on the part of the witnesses; but it was recommended that the public authorities should examine into these titles. Some people have some delicacy in requiring men to show their titles, but I think that is false delicacy, and a somewhat unfair scruple towards the interests of the public; and I feel sure that there can be no objection to asking these private proprietors to prove their title. To me and to most of my friends it is a most unwelcome duty; but sometimes we must make complaints, and I think that if this coast had been, not in Scotland, but in England, or even in Ireland, we should not have had these complaints to make to-night. I hope the Government will be ready to make concessions to our reasonable demands, and that they will follow them up with practical legislation.
    Amendment proposed,
    To be made to the Question, after the words "coasts of Scotland," to insert the words "that powers should be granted by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to such District Fisheries Committees to issue licences to fishermen to fish for salmon on suitable parts of the coasts of Scotland."—(Mr. Anstruther.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DUFF: I will not follow my hon. Friend into the vexed question of the salmon fisheries, which is a legal question rather difficult to solve, but I shall be glad if the Law Officers of the Crown can throw some light upon it. At present it seems to be in an anomalous position, because a sea fisherman is not entitled to take salmon in territorial waters. He is entitled to do so outside them, but though he may catch a fish he cannot land it in order to dispose of it. Whilst I am perfectly willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Andrews, I wish to say a word or two upon the Motion, and to refer specially to a subject concerning my constituency on the Moray Firth. There are some points on which the Government have perfect power to legislate on which they have not gone far enough. On both sides of the Moray Firth the great complaint is as to the decrease of the fisheries due to the action of trawlers. It is believed that the water is being over-fished. In the Report of the Fishery Board for 1890 it is stated that the fisheries on the east coast of England had fallen off from 285,000 cwt. in 1887 to 137,000 cwt. in 1890. This was considered so serious that it was suggested that an International Congress should be assembled to consider the general question. I do not consider that trawling should be altogether abolished, for if it were, certain classes of fish could not be supplied to the public, but unless you impose some restrictions the fisheries will be exhausted, as they have been exhausted on the coast of England. The trawlers that used to fish the English coast are now betaking them selves to the coast of Scotland. I find from the Board of Trade Returns that the value of trawled fish landed on the east coast of England was £819,000 in 1887 and £509,444 in 1890; the total decrease in value in four years being £309,000. We have English trawlers coming in enormously increased numbers to Aberdeen, and if they
    358
    are allowed they will reduce the Scotch coast to the same condition as the English coast. Only to-day, on coming-down to the House, I stopped at a fishmonger's and asked the price of soles. He told me 2s. 2d. the pound. "That is rather high," I said. "Why," he replied, "last week they were 3s. 6d." I remarked that he had been a long time in the fish trade, and asked what they were when he began. He replied "10d. a pound," adding, "They all come from the coast of Holland now; we never get them from the English coast." That is the result of over-trawling, and unless some steps are taken to protect the Scotch fisheries we shall experience the same result in Scotland. An Act passed in 1889 enables the Government to close the whole of the Moray Firth, and I want them now to do so; and I hope that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman rises he will tell us what is the intention of the Secretary of State in this matter. A great deal has been said about the necessity of giving effect to the law, and the Lord Advocate has been appealed to on this question too. I am in a position to know the view of the Admiralty and the view of the Lord Advocate. The view of the Admiralty is that in the Navy Estimates a certain amount should be taken for effective service in the Navy, but that from that Service you cannot detach a certain number of vessels for the particular purpose of protecting the fisheries. Now, I think in the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board you ought to take a certain amount for this purpose, and that could be handed over to the Admiralty. I am asked why this has not been done already, and my answer is, Because the Secretary for Scotland is not in the Cabinet. We ask you to enforce the law, and the only way to enforce it is to take a Vote on the Scotch Estimates. Until that is done, I feel quite sure we shall not have an effective sea police in Scotland. With regard to what steps are being taken to give us cruisers to protect these fishings, I am bound to say the right hon. Gentleman has answered rather generally, and that his words are not sufficiently definite. It is absolute nonsense to pass a law against

    359
    trawlers and then have no means of giving effect to it. By so doing you will simply bring the law into contempt. I am willing to admit that the Government have made a movement in the right direction, but there is still a great deal for them to do. I regret that they have given no effect to the recommendations of the Commission with regard to mussel fisheries on the east of Scotland. There is nothing the fishermen feel more than the enormous price they have to pay for these mussels. I would quote an extract to the House from which it appears that the average price of Scotch mussels is about £1 5s. a ton, of Irish mussels £2 9s. a ton, and of Dutch mussels £3 3s. a ton, and a steamer arrives from Holland bringing the mussels along the East coast of Scotland. Three-fourths of the mussels the fishermen on the East coast of Scotland get are got either from Ireland or Belgium. On the coast of France they raise mussels to the value of £90,000, and on the coast of Scotland to the value of £11,000. I cannot help thinking, if some effect was given to the recommendations of the Commission presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), we should not be in the bad position we occupy in this matter, on which the Government might have legislated. I hope when the Lord; Advocate replies he will state to us what their intention is as to this, and that the Government will be able to enable those fishermen to raise their own mussels on the shores of Scotland.
    MR. BARCLAY: I think the House is very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire for raising this discussion, and for that portion of his speech devoted to the subject of his Resolution. With respect to that Resolution, I do not think there is very much difference of opinion as to its substance, and I hope the Government will be prepared to accept the greater part, if not the whole of it. For myself, I would be prepared to go a little further than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-
    360
    shire with respect to mussels. I understand his proposal to be rather of a negative character; that mussels should be protected and left alone rather than cultivated. If we are going to cultivate mussels, I do not think these committees are the best means for doing so. The cultivation of mussels is a matter requiring great skill and a very considerable amount of science, and I doubt very much whether the district committees are best suited for this purpose. There is no doubt also that a certain amount of money would be required for the cultivation of the mussels. I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman intends to provide this money. I have very considerable doubts whether County Councils will consider themselves sufficiently interested to advance the money necessary for the purpose, say 1d. per £1 on the rates. And those County Councils who advance the money will naturally understand that the mussels should belong to them, and that they should get the profit when they have been developed. I think it would be much simpler and more economical that the Treasury should put at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland, for two or three years, say £2,000 or £3,000 per annum, for the purpose of cultivating mussels. It will be necessary to have this sum for two or three years, because some years must elapse before the crop will be matured. No doubt in time they would develop and improve if left alone and properly protected, but it is desirable the mussels, should be brought to maturity at the earliest possible time, because of their great scarcity at the present moment. I, therefore, think the House would do well to urge upon the Government to give Scotland £2,000 or £3,000 a year for the purpose of cultivating mussels. I also think there will be considerable difficulty in working out this district committee scheme for the cultivation of mussels. I am told there would be sufficient mussel scalps for the whole of Scotland if properly distributed, but along the coast of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire there are scarcely any beds, and some arrangement would require to be made by which the quantity of mussels

    361
    could be divided all round the coast. It is only a few years since Holland took up the cultivation of the mussel, and now she is able to supply the coast of Scotland as well as her own fisheries. There are, however, in Scotland at the present time a large uumber of unappropriated mussel scalps, and if these were properly cultivated they would amply supply the whole of Scotland. I do not think there is much to be gained by calling on the claimants to produce their charters. Apart from those in the Montrose basin, there is not a mussel scalp in Scotland, that I know of, which rents at more than £25 per annum, and it would be far better for the Fishery Board to try to get the beds it desired by agreement, rather than undertake the expense of going to law to determine their ownership. If the Board had powers to acquire the beds by agreement or compulsory purchase that would be more likely to meet the necessities of the case. I hope the Admiralty will be prepared to place at the disposal of the Fishery Board more vessels for performing the duties of sea police. There is no use in passing a protective law unless it be enforced, and the people of Scotland are perfectly entitled to call on the Government to enforce the law they have made. The Fishery Board should be more representative of the fishermen, and should be clothed with greater powers than it possesses at present, such, for instance, as a general control of the fishing in territorial waters, with the exception of salmon; and if a Bill should be introduced dealing with the constitution of the Fishery Board, I hope that point will be fully considered. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the allowance to the Fishery Board for scientific and other purposes, and to see the Board doing something in the way of the cultivation of other sea fish than mussels. The experiments which have been made in the United States and other places have been so encouraging that I think an effort should be made to do something of the kind in Scotland.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said as to the cultivation of mussels, but I cannot
    362
    agree that it is not desirable that an order should be made for the purpose of investigating the charters of mussel beds. As to the District Committees, they will have important duties; under the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) they will have the duty of returning a member each to the Scotch Fishery Board, and therefore I hope the districts will be sufficiently numerous; eight should be the least number. Men will be elected in each district having the full confidence of the fishermen, and then the Fishery Board will also have the confidence of the men, and I hope of the Government. I think we have a right to ask why the Government has not yet carried through any legislation dealing with the constitution of the Fishery Board, and the due provision of safeguards against steam trawling. I have not the least doubt that the members of the Fishery Board desire to do the best they possibly can, but it is notorious that none of them are practical men, and the Board does not possess one iota of the confidence of the fishing populations of the country. It has made regulations, but has not put them into force, and it has not been supported in carrying through those regulations by Dover House. We had the benefit of a short administration of that office by the First Lord of the Treasury, and that was regarded with confidence in Scotland. If you have a head of that office who is not in this Chamber, who has no strong policy of his own, and is not in the Cabinet, he can do very little to support the Fishery Board. Constant complaints are made of the manner in which steam trawling is allowed to go on. The vessels provided by the Admiralty have not the speed necessary, and the promised reinforcement of the sea police has not yet been put into active operation. The effects of steam trawling have, in consquence, been most disastrous in the Moray Firth, and there is the greatest privation of the fishermen in that locality and on the

    363
    Forth. These, men are, perhaps, as strong, manly, and independent a portion of the population as you can find, and they have been driven to despair and almost starvation, by the want of sufficient checking of the depredations of the trawlers. I hone this great question will at last rouse the attention of the House, and that something may be done to put an end to what has been a scandal in the past.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I think the Government might now give the House their views on this question. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been presented, but I cannot sit down without saying, in the strongest terms, that I agree with all that has been said as to not putting the law in force. It is notorious—and I am sure the Government and Dover House know it—that every day trawlers are going into territorial waters, sweeping the sea, to the great detriment of the inshore fishermen. We have been told that an additional boat has been given for the Police Service, but it only steams 10½ knots an hour, while many of the trawlers go at much greater speed. The effect is that the trawlers come so much into the territorial waters that they can well afford to pay an occasional £20 or £30 fine. The figures given by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff) show that the trawlers cause a serious loss to the fishermen. The Fishery Board is most desirous to carry out the law, but it is entirely without the power to do so. Again and again has it acknowledged the necessity for building harbours on the coast of Aberdeenshire, but for the past seven years I have been constantly told that it is under engagements, which will absorb all their funds for the present year, and for some years to come. I agree that there will be some difficulty in the way of District Boards dealing with these questions, and there is a great deal to be said in favour of one Central Board, properly constituted, made up of men coming from the different dis-
    364
    tracts, who would lay before the Board the necessities of each district, I deprecate the suggestion that both Parties must be up and doing because we are approaching a General Election and fishermen, have votes. My charge is, that both the present and past Governments have grossly neglected the great fishing industry for many years, though I believe there has been a disposition on the part of the present Government and Opposition to aid the fishermen. I have often pointed out to the Fishery Board the advantage which would be obtained in checking trawling, not only by giving cruisers, but by utilising the Coastguard Service and their means of telegraphic communication. There is another point I desire to mention. The attention of the Government appears to have been directed to the necessities of the West Coast, to the neglect of the East Coast. Special Votes have been given by the House for harbours and other works on the West Coast. If anything is to be done in the direction of the cultivation of mussels, a larger sum must be put at the disposal of the Fishery Board. The Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) has frequently acknowledged the grievances brought beforehim by the fishermen, but his plea has been that the Government were indisposed to give that assistance which he and the Fishery Board thought absolutely necessary. I hope, therefore, the Government will be able to say that this great industry, on which the livelihood of so large a portion of the population depends, will receive that attention which those who represent the people know has been so long denied to it.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think there is much difference of opinion in the House, or any part of it, as to the general merits of the subject which has occupied us since 9 o'clock. But one observation will, I am sure, be received with general acceptance by every Member of the House. It was when the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) said there was no

    365
    population in England or Scotland more deserving of the sympathy and support of the House than the fishing population along the coast of Scotland. Anyone acquainted with the character and circumstances of that population will cordially endorse the sentiment which fell from the hon. Gentleman. Now, Sir, it appears to me that this discussion, useful in itself, has diverged somewhat from the Resolution placed on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman. For example, the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Haldane), followed by at least, I think, one other Member, complained of the scant liberality with which the Imperial Exchequer has treated these fishermen in Scotland, especially in respect of harbour construction, and he pointed to the fact that while large sums had been given to the Western Highlands, nothing, at all events of a similar kind, had been done in Scotland, and only a small amount of £3,000 a year was allocated out of the money received from the Herring Brand for the purpose of constructing new harbours or improving old ones. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman says that Scotland has been badly treated, it has been treated incomparably better than England. I am not aware of any grant at all comparable with the grant to the Western Highlands of Scotland having been made to any part of England. Then, if the Herring Brand were abolished, the proceeds would not go into the pockets of the fishermen, and I do not think at present it is a burden on the fishing population. The right hon. Gentleman complained of the position of the Scotch fishermen, but, bad as their condition is, it is far better than the position of the English fishermen. For my own part, I desire to see every possible assistance given to the Scotch fishermen, but it is absurd to come to this House and complain of the difficulties they have to meet, when the
    366
    speakers who make the complaint are bound to admit that the Scotch fisher-men are placed in a better position than their English comrades have ever been. I mention that as an illustration of the manner in which the Resolution is drawn, and I may add that there is not a single Word in the Resolution which deals with public lines or deals with the financial position in any way of the fishing population of Scotland. It was, I think, the right hon. Gentleman who raised the question of the line which ought to be drawn in the Moray Firth within which trawling was not to be permitted. That is a very important question, and one to which, as I happen to know, the attention of my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland is now turned; but it is not a question that comes within the purview of this Resolution.
    MR. R. W. DUFF: The Resolution refers to Scotch sea fisheries, and trawling certainly comes under that head.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No legislation is required for an ordinary line within which trawling is forbidden in the Moray Firth; that can be done by an Executive Act. Of course, if you are going to attempt to draw a line outside the limit of the territorial waters, I admit that is a very different Question. It is a question of International Arbitration, and without International Arbitration it is vain to attempt to draw a line in extra-territorial waters. That line would have effect only so far as our own fishermen were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman who opened this debate attempted in one part of his speech to make out that this was a question of Party politics; that it was a question on which the two sides of the House were acting in competition with one another, and he suggested that the Party of which he is an ornament had done a great deal more than those to whom he is opposed for the fishermen,, and he specially pointed his moral by an attack on the right hon. Member for West

    367
    Birmingham. The right hon. Member for Berwickshire seems to have forgotten that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham is not now for the first time an advocate of the rights and claims of the fishermen of Scotland or of England. He has been so for many years. He was, during those years of fruitful legislation of which the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to boast, a Member of the Government, and in all probability it was to him that the legislation, spoken of with so much pride by the right hon. Gentleman, was due, considering that during those five years he was at the head of the office which more than any other has to do with the special interests of the maritime population of this country. It is not my business to defend the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. It is sufficient to know that now, as ever, he has shown himself an active and intelligent advocate of the claims of the fishermen, and the credit due to him for his proceedings in this matter is not likely to be diminished in the opinion of the population of Scotland by the Party attack which has been made upon him in this House. That brings me to the special point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and on this point I have very little to add to what I stated to a deputation I had the honour to see yesterday on this subject. The deputation consisted largely, if not entirely, of Members of this House, and many of the points advanced by the right hon. Gentleman were advanced by that deputation. One of the subjects which excited most interest, if I may judge from the speeches which I heard, was the question of what I may describe as sea police. This is a very important matter, and there is no doubt that the fishery regulations laid down by this House are in some cases neglected and in some cases openly defied. There is no doubt that it is the business of the Government to bring to an end a state of things which is incapable of defence, but I want the House to realise that the Admiralty must be seconded by local effort. The Legislature has no power over a trawler or any other kind of fisherman outside territorial waters. A trawler might lie, so to speak, on the very edge of the territorial waters
    368
    during the day time, and as soon as night comes on it might pass within the territorial waters and commence poaching operations. If it puts out its lights and takes the obvious precautions which naturally suggest themselves to conceal its identity, the difficulty of protecting a coast line of the length of Scotland would be—I will not say insuperable—but, at all events, very considerable; and if the Admiralty are to cope effectively with a state of things of that kind, it must necessarily be with the co-operation of the District or other Local Authorities in existence or to be created. The hon. Member for Aberdeen has suggested that the Coastguard might be more largely-used in that matter; but I will point out that their services can only be made thoroughly effective if they were brought into co-operation with some Local Authority, in concert with whom they might take steps to secure the desired end. I do not propose to deal at length with the next point, the constitution of the Fishery Board. It is admitted on all hands, and has been admitted, in most practical shape, by the present Government, that the Fishery Board should have a more representative character given to it. The Secretary for Scotland proposes immediately to introduce a Bill dealing with that matter and with all the points touched upon in the Resolution. I must, however, deal for a moment or two with the burning question of the provision of bait for carrying on the fishing operations. Almost all the speakers have dwelt upon the difficulty and hardship now imposed on the Scotch fishermen from the fact that there is great difficulty in obtaining one of the three requirements of their industry. Fishing without bait is an impossibility. The difficulty of obtaining bait is great and is increasing, and that difficulty should be as far as possible diminished, if not wholly removed. But while we are all agreed as to the character of the grievance, which is more hardly felt on the East Coast than on the West, I cannot feel wholly satisfied with the solution of the difficulty proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He has suggested that powers should be given to the Local Authorities to buy beds, where the owner is willing to sell, and,

    369
    where the owner is not willing to sell, to establish new mussel beds. It appears to me that a great part of the present difficulty arises from the fact that the old mussel beds have not been properly cared for and have gradually deteriorated, and are now wholly incapable of supplying the amount of bait which they formerly supplied and may be made to supply again. If the Local Authority is to be restricted merely to buying when the owner is willing to sell or going to the costly operation of establishing new mussel beds, it is evident that they would not be placed in the most advantageous position for remedying the evil under which they suffer. I am bound to think that in any Bill brought in to deal with this question, in addition to the powers suggested by the right hon. Gentleman there ought to be a further power of compulsory purchase under a Land Clauses Consolidation Act. That Act, as the House is aware, affords ample safeguards to private rights. It gives ample powers for compulsion when the necessity is manifest, and I see no objection, either in principle or practice, to allowing compulsory purchase under the safeguards and limitations provided by the law. With respect to title, I may point out that the money would not be paid until the owner had satisfactorily made out his real title to the mussel beds to which he laid claim. In my judgment, therefore, the Resolution in so far as it deals with the question of title, is unnecessary, and in other respects it is inadequate. In the Bill which my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland proposes to introduce he will be prepared to take the far more statesmanlike course of introducing the compulsory powers of which I spoke without taking away this question of doubtful title. This is, however, relatively a small matter, and I need not interfere with the general harmony which appears to prevail on both sides of the House; and therefore if I do not think the Resolution goes quite far enough, for the reasons I have indicated I have no objection to accept it on behalf of the Government as an important contribution to any legislation or proposals which the Government are prepared to introduce.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I congratulate the Government on once more bending the knee before the expressed wish of Members of this House in regard to a Resolution for the second or third time this Session, and, to quote the words of a noble Lord,
    "At the point of the bayonet a concession has been wrung from the Government by the expressed wishes of both sides of the House."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When I made the few and humble remarks yesterday to the deputation to which I have alluded the point of the bayonet had not been presented.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: Quite true, but the point of the bayonet had been bared to the First Lord's breast, because my Resolution was on the Paper yesterday, and was in the hands of the First Lord of the Treasury when he spoke to the deputation yesterday. The First Lord of the Treasury finds fault, or at all events tried to insinuate, that I had done a very improper thing in introducing some element of Party politics into this question. In dealing with this question I never, before tonight, endeavoured to introduce any Party element into it, and I did so tonight because the ally of the First Lord of the Treasury, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, made a bitter Party attack in his speech on this subject at Edinburgh, and it was necessary that an answer should be given to that speech. I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice of my intention to allude to the question, but unfortunately he was better engaged elsewhere in entertaining his Party. One more point. I should like to congratulate the Government most heartily on having accepted, with regard to this question, the principle of compulsion. It is a principle which they have again and again and again refused to admit.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The compulsion to which I refer is under the Land Clauses Act of Scotland, 1845.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I have no doubt we shall hear of this question of

    371
    compulsion again, when the Small Holdings Bill comes up, and I hope we shall be as successful in obtaining compulsion on that measure as we have been now.
    MR. H. F. ANSTRUTHER: The First Lord of the Treasury has made no reference to the terms of my Amendment, but I shall be quite willing to withdraw it on assurance that some principle of the kind will be included in the Government Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I quite agree with the spirit of the Amendment, and I have no objection to its being added to the Resolution. I do not think it would be expedient, however, to overload the Bill which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks) is introducing, but I think this is a subject that should be dealt with.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That a large representative element Should be introduced into the Scottish Fishery Board; that a sufficient number of District Fishery Committees should be instituted to take charge of local fishery interests on the coasts of Scotland; that powers should be granted by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to such District Fishery Committees to issue licences to fishermen to fish for salmon on suitable parts of the coasts of Scotland; that proof should be required of the titles under which Scottish mussel scalps are claimed and held; that power should be given to District Fishery Committees in Scotland to regulate, acquire, and work mussel scalps within their several districts; and that the regulations from time to time made in the interests of the various classes of fishermen working in Scottish seas should be enforced by SUB effective system of sea police.

    SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
    Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 1st March, 1892, declaring that Alfred Boucher, Senior Fireman,
    372
    Naval Ordnance Department, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

    NAVAL DEFENCE ACT, 1889.
    Copy presented,—of Contracts entered into by the Admiralty by virtue of "The Naval Defence Act, 1889," Section 7 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 17, of Session 1890) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    RAILWAYS (WESTERN HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND).
    Copy presented,—of Report of a Special Committee appointed to inquire into certain Schemes for the improvement of Railway communication on the Western Coast of Scotland, with Treasury Minute of Appointment and Instructions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    BRAZIL (No. 1, 1892).
    Copy presented,—of Article 69 of the Constitution of the United States of Brazil, dated 24th February 1891 (Nationality in Brazil) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 987 (New Orleans), 988 (Suakin), and 989 (Galveston) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    EAST INDIA (BEHAR CORRESPONDENCE).
    Address for—
    "Copy of Correspondence between the India Office and the District and Local Officers of the province of Behar, Bengal, as to the advisability of carrying out the proposed cadastral survey in that province."—(Mr. Herbert Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
    House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

MILLBANK PRISON BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 37.)
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 38.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.

SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 39.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock.