Sitting of 30 May 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
THORNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a.
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble Marquess the Deputy Leader of the House was good enough yesterday to announce the course which he proposed that your Lordships should adopt with regard to the Indemnity Bill. Circumstances seem to have occurred which prevent the carrying out of the programme on the lines proposed by the noble Marquess, and perhaps he will be good enough to inform your Lordships what is the alternative procedure which he suggests.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the facts are as the noble Earl states. We hoped yesterday, when we were engaged in conversation across the Table, that the Indemnity Bill would be in your Lordships' House late last night, and that it would have been possible to take it to-day. But the Bill has not reached that stage after all, and will not, as I am informed, be through the House of Commons until Friday. In those circumstances your Lordships cannot take it this week. I am, therefore, driven to suggest that we might take it on Monday, if that suited the House. That would be the earliest day on which it would be possible to take it.
276
If there is a strong feeling in the House that we should not sit on Monday night the Government would, of course, desire to consider the wishes of the House, but it is not right that this Bill should be delayed, and unless I have a strong expression to the contrary I shall propose that your Lordships sit on Monday in order to deal with the Indemnity Bill. So far as I know, that would be the only business before your Lordships on that day, and therefore would be the first Order, which is, I think, what the noble Earl wishes to be arranged, if possible.
I would rather not say what the subsequent stages will be, because the Bill has not reached its final form in the House of Commons and until it has reached that final form it would be too soon to suggest how quickly the Bill might be dealt with in your Lordships' House. It may be that your Lordships will wish to consider the Bill rather more carefully, and therefore I will not say any more about taking the Second Reading on Monday. But supposing your Lordships are willing to take the Second Reading on Monday, I would put down a Motion with respect to Standing Order No. XXXIX in order that the first two stages could be taken together. The only inconvenience is that, normally, your Lordships do not have an opportunity of seeing a Bill in print before you reach the House, but I have been making inquiries and I think arrangements could be made so that your Lordships could have copies of the Bill on Saturday morning to enable noble Lords who wish to acquaint themselves with the provisions to do so in good time. I hope these arrangements will be convenient to your Lordships, but I am entirely in the hands of the House if noble Lords prefer some other procedure.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I can assure the noble Marquess that no difficulty will be placed in his way on this side of the House. The only question that occurs to me is whether it might not be convenient to meet formally on Friday and read the Bill a first time. In that case it could be printed and your Lordships would have an opportunity of reading it. It is not only a question of your Lordships reading and studying the Bill. There are the legal

277
advisers to noble Lords opposite and also the legal advisers to those of us who are fortunate to posses them on this side of the House, and if they could have an opportunity of studying the Bill in its printed form before Monday it would be convenient to everybody. Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to mention the matter again to-morrow, and we may then settle it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I shad, of course, thought of sitting on Friday. If it could be arranged that the Bill could be in the hands of noble Lords before Monday, it would be of immense convenience to the officials of the House should it be possible to avoid a Friday sitting. I am assured that the Bill can be in the hands of noble Lords on Saturday morning. The Rent Restrictions (Notices of Increase) Bill is down for Committee stage to-morrow, and I hope also to take the Commons Amendments to the Industrial Assurance Bill if noble Lords are willing.

MENTAL TREATMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Constitution of visiting committees.
1.—(1) A local authority may appoint as members of a visiting committee under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, persons who are not members of the council of the authority by which the committee is appointed, so, however, that the number of persons so appointed shall not exceed one-third of the total number of the committee.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911." The noble Earl said: This is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Extension of powers of visiting committees.
2. Subject to the approval of the Board of Control, a visiting committee shall, subject to the consent of the local authority by whom it is appointed, have power to do any of the following things:—
(3) receive and lodge as a boarder and maintain and treat in any institution under the control of the committee on such terms and conditions as to payment or otherwise as the committee may determine, any person who is desirous of voluntarily submitting himself to treatment and who applies in writing to the medical Superintendent of the institution to be received therein as a boarder:
(5) subject to and in accordance with a scheme to be approved for the purpose by the Board of Control, undertake research in relation to mental disorder and the treatment thereof, and make contributions towards the expenses of any body of persons engaged in such research.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (3), after "payment," to insert "(including the payment of expenses incidental to securing a recommendation for treatment by two medical practitioners or incidental to admission for and removal after treatment)." The noble Earl said: I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the London County Council. The object is to give power to visiting committees to pay, if necessary, for the medical certificates that are required for recommendation for treatment. It is not intended that the visiting committees should pay in all cases, but it is desired to give them power to pay if the persons themselves are unable to do so. I do not think there is any real objection to the Amendment, but I understand that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill wants a little time to consider the words. Perhaps it would be bettor if I formally move it now, and hear what he has to say.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, after ("payment") insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: As a purely drafting point the Amendment of the noble Earl should come in a subsequent clause, Clause 7, in which I also have an Amendment which carries out the latter part of the noble Earl's proposal. With regard to the payment of expenses for securing a recommendation for treatment by two medical practitioners I should like to have an opportunity of considering it in conjunction with the noble Earl, and perhaps we might then devise an Amendment on Clause 7 which would cover both points. When we come to that clause I propose to withdraw my Amendment in order that we may consider both points at the same time and avoid double drafting.
EARL RUSSELL: As the noble Earl pleases. I recognise that there has been very short notice of this Amendment and that time is required to consider it. I will not press it now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to omit from paragraph (5) "subject to and in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Board of Control." The noble Earl said: The London County Council has pointed out that this may be impracticable and that it is undesirable to submit an absolutely cut and dried scheme in regard to research work.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 32 to 34, leave out from the beginning of line 32 to ("undertake") in line 34.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Temporary treatment of mental disorder without certification.
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section any person who is suffering from mental disorder and is considered likely to benefit from temporary treatment in an institution, may on a recommendation for treatment duly given in accordance with the provisions of this section and without a reception order under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, be received as a patient into an approved institution (subject to the consent of the persons having control of the institution and on such terms and conditions as to payment or otherwise as may be agreed), and may be treated therein for a period not exceeding six months:
Provided that—

(a) a recommendation for treatment shall not be given under this section except in respect of a person who either is willing to submit to treatment or is incapable of volition, or in whose case, if he is a minor, consent to his reception as a patient in an approved institution has been given by his parent or guardian, and every such recommendation shall state whether the person in respect of whom it is given is willing to submit to treatment or is incapable of volition, or is a minor in whose case the necessary consent has been given, as the case may be; and

(5) Where the person to be received as a patient is incapable of volition or is a minor, there must be annexed to the recommendation for treatment a statement signed by a justice of the peace or a minister of religion to the effect set out in Part II of the Schedule to this Act.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in proviso (a) of subsection (1), after "minor," where that word first occurs, to insert "under the age of 16 years." The noble and learned Lord said: This Bill is founded upon a voluntary submission on the part of the patient to the treatment proposed, and, so far, there can be no objection to it. But when it comes to deal with minors under the age of 21 it substitutes for the will of the patient the will of the father or guardian. That may be very necessary in the case of children of tender years, but it seems to me that in the case of people nearly grown up, boys and girls of 17 and 18 years of age, that it is very undesirable that this machinery should be used to enable a father or guardian to compel their admission into one of these institutions and keep them there until they come of age, or until the father or guardian is pleased to allow them to come out.
The law with regard to minors does not, in its general principle, authorise such constraint. I believe that no father can get a habeas corpus to enforce the attendance of the minor where he pleases after the minor is of the age of sixteen. No doubt if there is a dispute between husband and wife with regard to the care and education of a child up to the age of twenty-one the courts will decide as between husband and wife, and no doubt the father or guardian, if the child is

281
being restrained of its liberty, can get a habeas corpus for him. But I have always understood that young persons of the age of sixteen and upwards can go where they like and take what form of work, profession or occupation they like, and therefore it is not easy to put them under this constraint.
I would further point out that marriage has always been considered as an emancipation, but under the Bill as it now stands a married woman of eighteen, or nineteen, or twenty might, notwithstanding that her husband did not wish it and she did not wish it, be placed by the father in one of these institutions and kept there until the age of twenty-one. I am sure this cannot have been the intention of the framers of the Bill, and it is for that reason that I have put down the three Amendments standing in my name, all of which relate to the same matter. Since I put them down I have had the advantage of some conversation with the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and I understand that he and those whom he represents are favourable to the view that there must be some restriction upon the power of parents to act for a minor, to put a minor son or daughter into one of these institutions against that son's or daughter's will. So far as I understand the position, the only difference between myself and the noble Earl is that he is rather doubtful whether sixteen is not, too young and whether it should not be seventeen or eighteen
I put it at sixteen because there is a principle regarding that age. The age of sixteen is, as I have said, the age at which compulsion for many purposes ceases, and also the age at which not a few young women or girls marry. But if the Government, on reflection, think that the age ought to be seventeen or eighteen, I shall be in your Lordships' and their hands with regard to that. It must be remembered, however, that if the age is put at anything above sixteen there ought to be a provision that a married woman shall be emancipated and shall not be regarded as a person whom a parent or guardian can put into one of these institutions against his or her will. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, after ("minor") insert ("under the age of 16 years").—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In moving this Amendment the noble Lord mentioned that he had had some conversation with me on the subject and that I had intimated to him that the Government would not be averse from accepting the principle of his Amendment. We do feel, however, that sixteen is a rather early age at which to give this power, especially in view of the possible state of health of the person who is to benefit by the provisions of the Bill. I would venture, therefore, with the noble Lord's permission, to suggest that for "sixteen" we should substitute "eighteen"; and in view of what the noble Lord has said about the question of married persons, and particularly married women, perhaps, with his permission, the Amendment now before the House might be withdrawn and the point might be considered again before the Report stage. As a matter of fact I do not think that this question of the status of a married woman has been considered, and I cannot at present give an answer on the point which the noble Lord raised. I think it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if he will consent to the course which I have suggested.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I shall be quite ready to have this matter dealt with on Report, as I gather that the noble Earl has suggested, instead of at the present stage. I hope the noble Earl and his advisers will consider that if the age is to be eighteen they will have to put in a proviso that a married person under the age of eighteen is to be treated for the purposes of this Act not as a minor, but as emancipated. If I am right in supposing that the noble Earl wishes to deal with the point on Report I am quite willing to withdraw these Amendments. I should add that these Amendments would involve a consequential Amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 5, which enables people who are in these institutions to leave them, and that there again it ought to be conditioned in the same way. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Discharge of persons detained in institutions under Act.
5.—(1) Any person received under this Act into any institution as a boarder or as a patient—

283
(a) may at any time leave the institution upon giving the medical superintendent or other person in charge of the institution forty-eight hours notice of his intention so to do; or
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "forty-eight hours" and insert "three days." The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to the clause which gives power to a voluntary boarder or patient to require his discharge at any time on giving forty-eight hours' notice. I have been asked to move it by those who are interested in administration, and who feel that a notice of forty-eight hours is very much on the short side and that if such notice were given, say, on Saturday at about mid-day it might be impossible to communicate with the patient's friends so that they could be ready to receive him as he should be received when discharged from actual care. They might well be away for the week-end or something of the sort. I appreciate that the reason of the shortness of the period is to preserve the liberty of the subject, but I think the noble Earl will probably agree that the liberty of the subject is not seriously infringed by the change from two days to three days, and I am told that as a matter of administrative convenience it is really almost necessary. Without it, some person might be discharged on a Monday morning without there being anybody to receive him and, as one very experienced alienist wrote to me, might be found cut up on the railway line a few hours later, having wandered in front of a train.
I have also ventured to change the form of the words and to put "three days" instead of "seventy-two hours." I do not think it can be necessary to have any exact limit of hours. It is obvious that dispute on such a point is not likely to arise under this clause, and the right to take discharge on notice will not be affected. I do not think you want an exact number of hours, and I suggest that "three days" is a more elastic and more convenient form of words. Some extension of the time is needed, and it will be very difficult to administer this clause properly without it. Since the introduction of the Bill we have had a discussion at a meeting of a learned society at which I was present, and this subject was raised by many
284
speakers and considerable attention was given to it. I think it will be found that most alienists with experience of the administration of asylums will agree that some longer time is necessary. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 17, leave out ("forty-eight hours") and insert ("three days").—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: When I saw this Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl I confess that I felt some reluctance about accepting it, not Because I do not admit the force of his point that there is very little difference between two days and three days, but that I did not wish it to be thought that it was desired through this Bill in any way to restrict the liberty of a patient entering into these institutions in so far as it can be preserved when proper regard is had to administrative convenience. I have been much impressed by what the noble Earl has said, especially with regard to week-ends, and I realise that it would be very inconvenient, and might possibly be dangerous, if a person gave notice to leave on a Saturday. It might be difficult to communicate with his relatives on Sunday, and they would not know he was leaving the institution, so that accident or inconvenience might result. Although the noble Earl did not mention the point, it might also lead to difficulties which would involve the necessity of restraint and certification.
Therefore, being impressed by the argument of the noble Earl, I should be prepared to accept the Amendment if he would alter the form of words. He has asked us to substitute "three days" for "forty-eight hours." I am told that for legal purposes it is necessary to put in the hours, and that is why "forty-eight hours" is mentioned in the original Bill. If the noble Earl is prepared to accept "seventy-two hours," I should be willing to accept the Amendment, of course on the understanding that it is not intended to impose additional restrictions but is merely for administrative convenience.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope the noble Earl who represents the Ministry will allow me to congratulate him upon his acceptance of this Amendment. It is not of importance in itself, but it is important

285
from the administrative point of view, and I welcome very much this readiness on the part of the noble Earl to meet a point of this kind. I hope the noble Earl behind me will accept the suggestion made by the Government. I really think it is a substantial improvement of the clause.
EARL RUSSELL: I am told that there are legal considerations which make it particularly advantageous to have a definite time, like seventy-two hours, instead of three days, which is subject to differing legal interpretations. I had not appreciated those legal considerations, and I am glad to move the Amendment in the form suggested.
Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 17, leave out ("forty-eight hours") and insert ("seventy-two hours").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Expenses of visiting committees.
7.—(1) Any expenses incurred by a visiting committee under this Act shall be defrayed by the local authority by which the committee is appointed out of the county fund or out of the borough fund or borough rate, as the case may be.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment in my name to subsection (1), to insert, after "Act" ("including expenses incurred in conveying patients to and from institutions"), is the one which I suggested should be withdrawn, because it is the same as the noble Earl's Amendment to Clause 2. I therefore do not move my Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to sub-section (1) the words: "any expenses incurred by the London County Council under this Act shall be defrayed out of the county fund as expenses for general county purposes." The noble Earl said: This is another Amendment desired by the London County Council and raises one of those complicated questions about the funds on which certain expenses should be charged. The London County Council are anxious that these expenses should be charged to the general county account,
286
and they point out that that is usual in similar cases. I understand that they are in negotiation with the Corporation of the City of London, who take a different view. The differences have not yet been quite reconciled, but if they are reconciled, as I hope they may be before this Bill leaves this House, I trust that some similar clause may be agreed to. If, however, this Amendment is objected to, I will not now press it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, at end insert the proposed words.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEAD: The Amendment proposed by the noble Earl has for its object the placing of the expenses of the London County Council under the Bill upon the general county rate, to which the City of London contributes, instead of upon the special county rate, to which the City does not contribute, which is provided by the Bill as it now stands. I venture to express a little surprise and regret that this Amendment has been brought forward, because the resolution of the London County Council to seek this alteration in the Bill was based on the assumption that it was intended that the Council should be the sole authority for London, including the City, whereas I believe, in fact, the City's separate position as a lunacy authority was somewhat overlooked in the preparation of the Bill—a mistake which I understand the Government have recognised and propose to rectify. It would seem, therefore, to follow that the two authorities should bear their expenses out of the appropriate rates raised in their respective areas.
This Bill is based upon the Lunacy Acts, and Clause 9 of the Bill provides that it is to be construed as one of those Acts. Under those Acts the London County Council is the local authority for London, exclusive of the City, and the City Corporation is the local authority for the City. These expenses are borne by the special county rates of the county and of the City respectively, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is but fair and equitable that these expenses should be borne in their respective areas. I venture, therefore, to hope that your Lordships will reject this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: With your Lordships' permission I would suggest that the course proposed by the noble Earl who moved the Amendment might be followed with advantage, and that this matter might be considered by those most interested, namely, the London County Council and the Corporation of the City of London, before the Report stage, by which time it is hoped that an agreement may be arrived at.
EARL RUSSELL: In view of the fact that I thought this course might be agreeable to the Government I did not trouble your Lordships with a long argument, and in the hope that some agreement may be reached I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Application to London.
8. The provisions of this Act relating to the constitution of visiting committees shall not apply to the administrative county of London, and the powers conferred by this Act on visiting committees shall, so far as relates to the said county, be vested in the London County Council, and Section thirty-five of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1915, shall have effect as though the said powers had been transferred to the London County Council by that Act.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave-out "administrative." The noble Earl Said: This clause, as drafted, would place the operation of the Bill in the hands of the County Council, but the Corporation are a separate authority, and it is desired to preserve their jurisdiction. This can be effected by leaving out the word "administrative," which has found its way by inadvertence into the Bill. I think my Motion to omit the word will prove agreeable to the City.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("administrative").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:—
".Asylums provided by any public authority in England or Wales for lunatics or other persons of unsound mind shall hereafter be called mental hospitals, and
288
accordingly for references in any public or local Act or in any order, regulation or other document issued under any such Act to any such asylum there shall be substituted references to a mental hospital."
The noble Earl said: This new clause is a small matter, but it introduces a new principle into this question of mental deficiency. Hitherto mental institutions have been described as asylums, and the word "asylum" has been associated with mental deficiency, and, perhaps, has contributed to the view that it is less a disease than an irremediable affliction.
I had an opportunity the other day of seeing the representatives of the nurses in mental institutions, and they were all very anxious that this new nomenclature should be introduced into the Statutes. I may also say that many other authorities, such as alienists, and the Board of Control, are anxious to adopt this title of "mental hospital" instead of "asylum." We want to emphasise the fact that mental deficiency is a disease, like other diseases, and that institutions in which mental disease is treated, and I hope cured, are hospitals in the same way as other hospitals for bodily disease are known as hospitals. Therefore I think that if we assimilate the title of these asylums with the title which is usually associated with the hospitals for the cure of bodily disease, we may do a certain amount towards impressing upon the public the fact that mental disease is like any other disease. I trust that the Amendment will prove acceptable to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Short title, interpretation, and power to make, adaptations.
(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "local authority" includes the Lancashire Asylums Board, the West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Board, and the Staffordshire Mental Hospitals Board and any other body constituted for the administration of the Lunacy Acts on behalf of any combination of local authorities, and in relation to a visiting committee which is appointed by two or more local authorities means those several authorities:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (2), after "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires," to insert: "The expression 'visiting committee' means a visiting committee under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. It is the definition of a visiting committee which properly comes under this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, at end insert ("The expression 'visiting committee' means a visiting committee under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

  PART II.
  Form of Statement to be annexed to Recommendation for Treatment in Case of a Patient who is incapable of Volition or is a Minor.
  I, E.F., of hereby declare as follows:—
  2. I am personally acquainted with, but am not related to, the above-named X.Y.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (2) of Part II, to leave out, "I am personally acquainted with but," and to insert, "The above named X.Y. is personally known to me but I." The noble Earl said: At present this paragraph reads:
  " I am personally acquainted with, but am not related to, the above-named X.Y."
  It has been thought that perhaps some of those patients might not be personally acquainted with a Justice of the Peace or minister of religion, and therefore it is proposed to alter the wording to read:
  "The above-named X.Y. is personally known to mo but I am not related to him."
  That means that if the patient is brought to a Justice of the Peace that would be sufficient knowledge of him; the Justice of the Peace would not be debarred through not being able to say he had known the patient for some time.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 10, leave out ("I am personally acquainted with but") and insert ("The above-named X.Y. is personally known to me but I").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  EARL RUSSELL: I called attention to this on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think the Amendment is a distinct improvement. The words "personally acquainted with" are perhaps, a little too strong.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 11, leave out ("the above-named X.Y.") and insert ("him")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Title:
  A Bill intituled an Act to amend the law with respect to the constitution and powers of visiting committees of asylums, the constitution of the Board of Control, and the exercise of the powers and duties of commissioners with respect to visitation and inspection under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, and the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1919, and to make provision for the temporary treatment of mental disorder without certification.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out "of asylums" and to insert "under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911." The noble Earl said: Consequent on your Lordships' acceptance of my Amendment to substitute "mental hospital" for the name "asylum," it is necessary to introduce an Amendment in the Title of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 3 of Title, leave out ("of asylums") and insert ("under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There are two consequential Amendments in the Title.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 1, lines 6 and 7 of Title, leave out ("Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911") and insert ("said Acts")
  Page 1, line 8 of Title, after ("1919") insert ("to substitute the name 'mental hospital' for the name 'asylum'").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Title, as amended, agreed to.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Prohibition of use of certain nets.
7.—(1) No person shall take or attempt to take salmon or migratory trout with any net having a mesh of less dimensions than two inches in extension from knot to knot (the measurement to be made on each side of the square), or eight inches measured round each mesh when wet, except in the case of a landing net in use as auxiliary to angling with rod and line.
(2) If any person contravenes this section he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
(3) The placing of two or more nets the one behind the other, or near to each other in such manner as practically to diminish the mesh of the nets used, or the covering the nets used with canvas, or the using any other artifice so as to evade the provisions of this section with respect to the mesh of nets, shall be deemed to be a contravention of this section:
Provided that nothing in this section shall render any person liable to a penalty for using in any place a net having a mesh of smaller dimensions than in this section specified, if the use of such a net is for the time being determined to he lawful in that place by a byelaw under this Act.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "or as hereinafter provided by section eighty-five of this Act." The noble Viscount said: I have put down this Amendment, which is of rather a technical character, because I want to clear up a point in dispute. It refers to the old story of the two sides of the Solway. After considerable difficulty, under Clause 85 I have got it laid down that the size of the mesh on the English side of the Solway shall always be the same as the size of the mesh on the Scottish side. When this Bill is passed that will be determined by Statute, not by any by-law, and the fishermen on the Cumberland side will
292
therefore have the Statute to protect them in using exactly the same mesh as is used on the north side of the Solway. But some question seems to arise under Clause 7, if the size of the mesh is regulated by law, whether the by-law will over-ride the Statute or the Statute the by-law; in other words, whether Clause 7, when the Bill becomes law, will be the governing clause and will over-ride Clause 85, or whether Clause 85 will stand good, notwithstanding Clause 7. I dare say this Amendment may not be necessary, but I move it in order to obtain from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill some statement of his view on this matter, and if his statement is satisfactory I should not press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, at end insert ("or as hereinafter provided by section eighty-five of this Act").—(Viscount Ullswater.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRET ARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): I am advised that the special Clause 85 relating to the Solway district will override the provisions of Clause 7, which are general in their application, and that there is, therefore, no necessity for the insertion of the words in the Amendment. Shortly, this means that if the mesh of net legal in Scotland is less than the mesh of net provided by Clause 7, or a by-law, say, in the Eden district, the smaller mesh will become legal, and therefore the statutory minimum laid down by Clause 7 is over-ridden. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I am quite satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Protection of waters containing fish from poisonous matter and trade effluents.
8.—(1) No person shall cause or knowingly permit to flow, or put or knowingly permit to be put, into any waters containing fish, or into any tributaries thereof, any liquid or solid matter to such an extent as to cause the waters to be poisonous or injurious to fish or the spawning grounds, spawn or food of fish and if any person contravenes this sub-section he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:
Provided that—

(a)A person shall not be so liable to any penalty for any act done in the exercise of any right to which he is by law entitled or in continuation of a method in use in connection with the same premises prior to the passing of this Act, if he proves to the satisfaction of the court before which he is charged that he has used the best practicable means, within a reasonable cost, to prevent such matter from doing injury to fish or to the spawning grounds, spawn or food of fish;

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

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

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

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

and a notice, if not accompanied by plans and specifications of the proposed new work, shall state where such plans and specifications can be inspected at all reasonable times by an officer of the fishery board or of the Ministry, as the case may be.
The expression "new work" means any work constructed after the commencement of this Act or any alteration after such date of any then existing work. This subsection shall not apply to any work constructed by any sanitary or other local authority in pursuance of any power given by a Public General or Local Act or by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament.
(3)Proceedings under this section shall not be instituted except by the fishery board
294
or by a person who has first obtained a certificate from the Minister that he has a material interest in the waters alleged to be affected.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved in proviso (a) of subsection (1), after "penalty," to insert "under this Act." The noble Duke said: This Amendment was moved in the House of Commons, when the Government said the words wore unnecessary, but apparently there was no other reason against their insertion. On the other hand, I am informed that there is a great weight of legal opinion that these words are necessary, and they are suggested by one of the greatest authorities, namely, the Chairman of the Severn Fishery Board. Your Lordships know that we are all convinced in general of the infallibility of the Law Officers of the Crown, but there was an incident which culminated in a very lengthy sitting in another place last night, which shows that their decisions and advice are not always correct. I rather think that the Home Secretary would have been glad if he had not entirely relied upon the advice of the Law Officer of the Crown. It appears to me that there can be no objection to putting these words in, and as I understand that there is a great difference of opinion among legal authorities as to whether they are necessary or not, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name in the hope that it may be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, after ("penalty") insert ("under this Act").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Duke is quite right in saying that this Amendment was moved in another place and was rejected. It was rejected, as he said, on the advice of the Solicitor-General that the words were unnecessary. I am afraid that I cannot pose as a greater legal authority than, or even as a legal authority half or quarter as great as, the Solicitor-General, and that on this occasion I can only support his contention in another place, to the effect that these words were unnecessary. The noble Duke has said that there is a difference of opinion among legal luminaries upon the point. Of course, he is better able to speak of that than I am, but I would point out to him, and I think your Lordships will agree, that

295
there is always a danger if unnecessary words are put into a Bill. As I have already pointed out, the Solicitor-General said very distinctly in another place that these words were quite unnecessary and I suggest, therefore, that your Lordships will not be doing a very wise thing if you agree to the insertion of them.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I will not press this Amendment, but I would like to point out to my noble friend that as the Solicitor-General has been found to have been wrong since he gave his opinion in this particular matter he may be equally wrong in this instance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to omit from proviso (a) of subsection (1) the words: "or in continuation of a method in use in connection with the same premises prior to the passing of this Act." The noble Duke said: The object of my Amendment is to leave out what I believe is now known as the Erskine Amendment, which was put into the Bill in your Lordships' House last year on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Erskine. I had hoped that my noble friend would have been in his place to-day to explain the merits of his Amendment which I do not think he did when it was accepted. He might possibly have been able to inform your Lordships and the outside public what those merits are, as they seem to be somewhat obscure.
This matter of pollution is, I think, the most controversial point in the Bill. I know that this view is not held by everyone and that it is difficult to say who is right, but my view is that the Erskine Amendment is very prejudicial to those who wish to stop pollution, and I do not think that there can be two opinions about it. It has been said that certain other words have been put into this Bill to deal with the point, but that is a doubtful matter. These words were only inserted on the Report Stage of the Bill last year; I think I might almost say that they were smuggled into the Bill. No one knew anything about the Amendment, and it was accepted, I think, without any debate or any real explanation of its meaning. Therefore I see no reason why, although it was put into the Bill by your Lordships last year, it should not be removed from this Bill. The present Government are not in any way committed to the Erskine
296
Amendment because the Bill was brought in by the Government which went out of office last autumn.
It has also been said that it was an agreed compromise, but I am informed that that is not the case. A circular was certainly sent out, but I am informed that no reference whatever was made in it to subsection (3) of this clause, and that it alluded to the so-called Erskine Amendment as having been put in to prevent certain industries closing down which would have to close down if pollution were stopped. Your Lordships will see that there is nothing of that sort about it, and there never has been an instance of any industry having to close down for that reason. If these words are allowed to remain in the Bill it means that anyone who has polluted or who does pollute streams at present, or even pollutes for one or two days before the passing of this Act, will be permitted to pollute in the future. That is a most undesirable thing. In 1876 persons who were polluting streams before the passing of the Act were more or less exempted from its action in the future, and this clause as it stands will permit all those who have polluted streams up to 1922 to continue polluting them as much as they please in the future. That, I think, is a good reason for asking for the deletion of these words.
In fact, if the whole of Clause 8 was taken out of the Bill and the section of the 1861 Act put into this Bill there would be a more effective provision against pollution. It seems to me that the only object of the clause as it stands is to put rather more money into the pockets of certain manufacturers. Your Lordships naturally wish to encourage all industries, but within certain limits. If you accept the clause as it is agriculture will be prejudiced, the food supply of the country as regards fish will be reduced, the employment of those who catch fish, either for their own amusement or for the supply of the market, will be very greatly reduced, and the amenities of the country generally will be made much worse. It is generally recognised that streams throughout the country are badly polluted. There are, in fact, very few streams which are not polluted.
I hope also that your Lordships will not do anything which will further spoil the appearance of the country. I remember that the noble Marquess the

297
Deputy Leader of the House was very anxious when the Housing Bill was under discussion that the look of the country should not be spoiled by the erection of ugly or objectionable houses. All sorts of promises were made in this House in regard to that. I do not know what has happened in the noble Marquess' locality, but I do not think that it can be said that the houses crected under the various housing schemes are particularly sightly. If this clause is allowed to pass as it stands it may be said when it is too late that most of the few remaining rural districts which have pure streams have had them polluted. Public authorities are seriously alarmed at the pollution which is already taking place in their districts. There are, as we know, a very large number of what were called during the war C3 men, and if the streams are to be further polluted that condition of things will not be improved.
I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the Thames and the Tyne. There is the Thames where millions enjoy themselves. This question of pollution is not one that concerns the rich alone as some people suppose. It is not a matter affecting merely a few millionaires who have salmon fisheries. It is a question which affects a very large number of people. There are many thousands of people all over the country who take their pleasures where the water is pure. Think what would happen if the Thames were in a state of pollution so that it could not be used. Why is the Thames kept pure? For the very good reason that it is greatly to the advantage of the country that it should be so kept. Ought not the same thing to be done in the rest of the country? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 23 to 25, leave out from ("entitled") in line 23 to end of line 25.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I should like in a few words to support the Amendment of the noble Duke. He has laid a good deal of stress on the question of not spoiling the look of the country, but he also went into a much greater question at the end of his remarks when he referred to maintaining the purity of water, and preventing anything that would destroy fish life. That is of far greater importance than destroying the look of the country. It is well known
298
by everyone who has anything to do with rivers that pollution can be of a particularly insidious nature. Very frequently you have factories on the banks of a river which will suddenly introduce some new process, resulting in the discharge of effluent into the river. Perhaps it is hardly noticed in the river itself, but it has an immediate and most destructive effect upon all fish life, and unless very rapid action is taken may do an enormous amount of harm. There is no doubt that the Bill now before the House is in very many respects a considerable advance upon the Act which is already in existence, and which has been found in too many cases not to effect that which it was intended to do.
The words which the noble Duke moves to delete from this clause have the effect of weakening the existing law instead of improving it. There is no intention of destroying vested industrial interests in the highly industrialised districts, where rivers are being converted into sewers and all fish are being destroyed, but what is desired is to prevent an extension of this evil. I am afraid that this clause will not do that unless it is very carefully safeguarded. The main objection to the words to which the noble Duke has referred is that they practically legalise pollution that has been brought into operation only a few days before the passing of the Bill. All that persons will have to do will be to prove that they have used the best available means for dealing at a reasonable cost with the effluent. That is generally done by the production of expert witnesses. We know the value of expert witnesses, and how expert witnesses can be produced to prove anything. When you consider that, and the delays which can be introduced for the purpose of preventing the operation of legislation of this description, I cannot help thinking that it would be a great mistake to leave these words in the Bill. They would undoubtedly have the effect of weakening the present law.
We must remember the one fact to which I called attention at first, that this poisonous effluent from factories can often be the result of some change of process, and that it is of a very insidious nature requiring to be summarily dealt with. It would be a very great pity if by the action of this Bill any manufacturer was able to claim immunity

299
simply because he brought a new process into operation just before the passing of this Bill, thereby practically rendering himself immune from penalties. I very cordially support the Amendment of the noble Duke.
LORD DESBOROUGH: As the Thames Conservancy has been mentioned in connection with this Bill, and as I happen to be Chairman of that body, I hope your Lordships will allow me to make one or two remarks on this subject, and particularly upon the question of pollution. I may say, incidentally, that the purification provisions of the Thames Conservancy Act, which are very extensive, were not introduced for the purpose of supplying amenities to the boating population of the Thames, but for the purpose of supplying pure drinking water for the citizens of London. The stringent provisions to which I have alluded came into operation very gradually, but they now extend over the whole area of the Thames watershed, which is some 3,600 square miles in extent. But if legislation of that sort were suddenly introduced into this country, instead of being brought in gradually, there is no doubt that it would be impossible to continue many of the great industries of the country. I also happen to be President of the Salmon and Trout Fishing Association, and the late Chairman of the Freshwater Fish Commission which was set up by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I have heard this particular matter discussed up and down the country for the last year and a half.
I most distinctly join issue with my two noble friends who have just spoken. I do not feel that I am competent to discuss the legal point, but I should like to say that, having heard a great many discussions by competent lawyers, I think that so far as pollution is concerned the legal position is not made worse but is most distinctly improved by this Bill. I received a letter this morning from a very competent lawyer who has dealt with this question for a year and a half, and he says that as regards the pollution question his view is that Clauses 8, 55 and 59, taken together, constitute a decided advance in the law relating to the subject.
That is, of course, what we want. I do not know whether those gentlemen who are interested in fisheries are so
300
satisfied with the state of a great many of our rivers at the present time that they think the present law to be absolutely perfect. I am myself far from being one of those. I think the present law, instead of being perfect, has absolutely failed to do that which it sought to do—namely, secure the purification of our rivers.
I should like to draw attention to one or two changes in the law which will be made if this clause goes through—and I most sincerely hope it will. If you want to use the machinery of the Act of 1861 you have first to prove that the water contains salmon. Under the new clause all that you have to do is to prove that the water contains fish, which enormously enlarges the opportunities for instituting proceedings to secure the prevention of pollution. Under the old law you have to prove that the liquid or solid matter has caused the waters to poison or kill fish, and you have also to combat the contention that the individual has used the best practical means within a reasonable cost to render the liquid or solid matter harmless. You have to do all this at the present time. There is also another most important point. Under the old law in all cases where more than £100 was at issue, a case in which the defendant proves that to prevent the matter complained of would cost more than £100, there was an appeal to the High Court. That provision has gone. The effect of the High Court procedure is, in practice, to stop all actions to prevent pollution, except in cases where the remedy costs £100, or less. And pollution went on.
I do not intend to detain the House at any length but I should like to refer to the opinion of the National Association of Fishery Boards, a most important body, representing all the important rivers in England and Wales. They have discussed this Bill at very great length, with great care and with great authority and responsibility. They have come to the conclusion that it would be a misfortune if this Bill were lost, both in the interests of the rivers and the fishermen they represent, and they are equally certain that the clause to which my two noble friends take exception is a vast improvement on the present law. The points in respect of which they say the present law has been greatly improved are—(1), Extension of the penal provisions to all

301
rivers; (2), power to take action before fish are actually killed; (3), a simplified procedure. It is most important that there should be some authority to make people who propose to set up factories show that what they propose to do will prevent rivers and streams being contaminated by their waste effluents. They have to do this under this clause.
There are eighteen Acts consolidated in this one Bill, and this is one of the most important clauses in the whole measure. If this clause goes out, a great deal of the rest of the Bill becomes absolutely nugatory. Other benefits proposed by the Bill include provisions under which future pollutions can be minimised or even prevented altogether; powers for fishery boards to take action under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts, 1871 to 1893, and for dealing with pollutions in tidal waters; and power by by-law to regulate manufacturers' effluents. Those are the benefits which those interested in the purity of our rivers expect to get by this Bill.
On the question of legalised pollution this is what they say:—
"This is neither a fair nor a correct statement of the case. The Amendment (the Erskine Amendment) does no more than protect from criminal proceedings under the law, as extended by Clause 8, manufacturers who can prove that they would be compelled to close down if debarred from discharging their effluents into the river."
It may be of interest to the House if I also read their opinion of the effect if the Amendment of the noble Duke is carried. They say:
"If this Bill is wrecked, no Government in the lifetime of the present generation is likely to bring forward any other Bill for the improvement of our fisheries. The position will then he that we shall remain under the present law, which is generally admitted to be almost entirely useless for the prevention of pollution; we shall have antagonised the Ministry; we shall have lost a chance which may never occur again—namely, the possibility of obtaining the friendly co-operation of the manufacturing interests; and pollution will go on just as before in ever increasing quantity…If this Bill is wrecked it will be nothing less than a calamity, and those who are responsible for its destruction will have committed a crime against the whole community."
I do not think the gentlemen who constitute the National Association of Fishery Boards, and who are primarily
302
anglers, would have made such a strong pronouncement if they thought that Clause 8 legalised pollution.
There is another aspect of the case which is very interesting. As my two noble friends are aware, a Pollution Committee has been set up by the Government and it has done splendid work. The Federation of British Industries are represented, and also those who are interested in, and qualified to speak on, the question of the purity of rivers and the maintenance of the interests of anglers. This Commitee has had many meetings, and I have a long list here of instances in which, by co-operation with the manufacturers, enormous improvement has been carried out in the prevention of pollution. The mere fact that the Federation of British Industries has taken the matter in hand exercises pressure on individual manufacturers who, perhaps, were in the habit of polluting rivers.
In addition, a great many experiments have been carried out whereby what are at present waste effluents can be turned into useful products. That is the line, to go upon. I feel certain that we shall get our rivers sooner into the state desired by all if we do not rely on long, tedious, and sometimes ineffective, prosecutions, but if we interest the great manufacturers of this country in trying to secure the purity of our rivers.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I should like to make the position quite plain. I think the noble Lord who has just spoken has misunderstood what has fallen from the noble Duke and myself. Speaking for myself, there is the fullest possible recognition that this Bill is a distinct advance upon the present law and I have no desire in the least to wreck it. The idea that the omission of these few words will wreck the Bill is one of the funniest things I have heard for a long time. We are as keen as the noble Lord, and I should be sorry indeed to see anything done which would in any way weaken the law and facilitate pollution. The only words to which we object are those which practically have the, effect of giving a legal right to persons causing pollution which has taken place, perhaps only a few days before the passing of this Bill. If they were omitted and the Bill were confined to the continuance of any right to which the person causing the pollution

303
is by law entitled, I do not see that any harm would be done. I am sure the noble Duke will agree with me when I say that there is no desire whatever to do anything to imperil the passing of this Bill. Our only reason in supporting this Amendment is to make the proposed measure more effective than it would otherwise be.
LORD GAIN FORD: The noble Duke was perfectly right in saying that this clause was in the nature of a compromise between——
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I did not say that. I said that it had been so described, but I did not agree.
LORD GAINFORD: The noble Duke may not agree, but I should like to tell your Lordships exactly what occurred behind the scenes. As a member of the Pollution Committee, which attempts to advise the Ministry of Agriculture in connection with matters of this kind, I have been working very hard for the last two or three years in the attempt to secure a non-controversial measure and to obtain its passage through this House with a view to removing the pollution which has occurred to the great detriment not only of scenery, but of the protection of fish in this country. In my capacity as chairman of one of the large fishery boards of the country I have been anxious to remove pollution. I have also had to work with a great number of persons interested in industries which have been polluting rivers. I have recognised that the mining community have turned a great quantity of dirty water into the streams of this country, and I have also found that chemical works have polluted rivers to a very great extent.
It has been necessary for this Pollution Committee, to which the noble Lord opposite has referred, to discuss how we could secure an improvement of the law which would not prejudice industry. We have come to a compromise in a great many directions, and, with a view to securing this Bill as a non-controversial measure, I had, somewhat reluctantly, to agree with the representatives of the Federation of British Industries to allow the words in dispute to be inserted. We gain so many advantages in connection with this Bill, so many means of improving
304
our streams and rivers which we did not possess before, that with a view to securing these advantages I had to concede that the existing rights of polluters should be maintained. Those of us who have been working behind the scenes recognise that chemical science has advanced to such a great extent that there are very few effluents in the country which cannot be treated by some inexpensive process to avoid the damage which is being done. Many people have thought, until recently, that the damage done to the rivers was due to the particular article of a poisonous character which was inserted in the water, but after investigation we have satisfied ourselves that poison can often be inserted in a stream where there is a large flow and remain in quantities insufficient in itself to do injury to the fish.
What does occur is that the poison mixing with the water has a chemical action upon the water which subsequently deprives the fish of the oxygen necessary to maintain life. On the River Tees, with which I have been associated, we have had occasions where fish did not die immediately the poison was put in, but in reaches sometimes miles below we have found fish turning up in hundreds and lying dead upon the banks. I mention that only because this Bill, if it passes into law, will effect a great improvement. We made arrangements behind the scenes with the representatives of trades, and those of us who are connected with the National Association of Fishery Boards agreed to this alteration of the law on the understanding that the Bill was to be regarded as a non-controversial one. I believe that if we carried this Amendment now we should run the risk of jeopardising the passage of the Bill into law.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In saying a few words on this Amendment I may be permitted, first of all, to call your Lordships' attention to a remark which fell from the noble Earl who supported the noble Duke. He told us that he does not wish to close down factories but only to prevent future pollution. If I may say so, I could not have summed up my own wishes better, or, I believe, the wishes of all those who are interested in this Bill. I hope therefore that if this Amendment is taken to a Division I shall

305
have his support in the Division Lobby, because I am quite certain that you cannot take such drastic steps as the noble Duke hinted at in his speech without closing down many industrial districts almost completely, and also a great many mines. Imagine what chance there would be for such a measure to remove pollution passing through another place!
Having said that, I think it is only right that I should try as shortly as possible to point out to your Lordships the present state of affairs. For many years past boards of conservators and other persons interested in our salmon and freshwater fisheries have complained that the existing law for the protection of fisheries against pollution is, to all intents and purposes, useless. I may tell your Lordships what, under the present state of the law, it is necessary to prove in order to secure a conviction. First of all, you have to show that the polluting matter has entered waters containing salmon or tributaries thereof; secondly, that fish have actually been killed or poisoned; and, thirdly, that the poisoning or killing is directly attributable to the matter which has entered the water from the works or premises controlled by the defendants. Imagine the difficulty of proving this in a large industrial district when you have selected a single manufacturer for prosecution. Indeed, it is almost impossible to prove any of these facts.
I should further point out that Clause 8 increases the protection afforded to fisheries, as such, in the following respects:—(1), It makes it an offence to discharge polluting matter into any waters containing fish—not merely into those containing salmon—thereby greatly extending the scope of the present law; (2), if the present Bill becomes law it will no longer be necessary to prove actual poisoning or killing of fish traceable to a particular factory, but only that matter is being put into the water by the defendants which causes the water to be poisonous or injurious to fish—a much easier thing to prove; (3), not merely fish, but the spawning grounds, spawn and food of fish are protected; and (4), manufacturers and others seeking to avail themselves of the defence of which the noble Duke now seeks to deprive them must satisfy the court that they had used the best practicable means
306
within a reasonable cost, not merely, as under the existing law, to render the matter complained of harmless, but to prevent it from doing injury to fish, or to the spawning grounds, spawn or food of fish. They must, therefore, prove that they cannot within reasonable cost either make the matter harmless in itself before discharging into the river, or keep it out of the river altogether.
We also propose by this clause to abolish the extensive and cumbrous High Court procedure, of which the defendant can now avail himself under Clause 6 of the Salmon Fishery Act of 1861, and thus greatly to simplify and cheapen prosecutions. This is a matter of the very greatest importance. In return for the acceptance by the representatives of industry of these extensions of the existing law in favour of the protection of fish, the late Government accepted the amendment of the clause as originally drafted, which it is now proposed to delete. The words in question make available for the owner of existing works the defence which under the Act of 1361 was applicable only to those who pleaded that the act complained of was done in the exercise of a right to which they were by law entitled.
In return for this concession we have secured the support of the representatives of industry for the other provisions of the clause to which I have referred, as well as other protection of fisheries against pollution provided by subsection (2) of this clause and by Clause 55 of the Bill, and also their co-operation with the Ministry in its endeavours to secure the amelioration of the condition of our rivers. The clause represents, in short, a bargain—in my opinion a good one—to which I feel bound to adhere. The suggestion which has been made that the words which the noble Duke seeks to delete legalise existing pollutions is not, as I am advised, correct. They do not in any way affect proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, or proceedings in an action at common law. They refer simply and solely to a prosecution undertaken under this particular clause of this particular Bill.
An Amendment similar to that now moved by the noble Duke was moved in another place and negatived. If your Lordships now insist upon this Amendment I am convinced that it will meet with strong opposition in another place,

307
and that the passage into law of this useful and much desired Bill will be jeopardised. As I have said before, I believe this Bill to be a distinct advance, and I am perfectly certain that if such drastic steps were proposed as are proposed by the noble Duke we should have the opposition of the whole of industry in this country against us. If, on the other hand, we leave the present law as ii is, I would only ask noble Lords to look at the present state of some of our rivers, and to ask themselves whether the present law is successful. I and others who have been associated with me in this matter feel strongly that this Bill will be a distinct advantage, and will help us to get rid of pollution of our rivers. I hope therefore that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think my noble friend Lord Desborough was under the impression, first of all, that I opposed the Bill, and, secondly, that I was moving to leave out Clause 8. On the contrary, I think it is an exceedingly good Bill, I am anxious that it should be passed into law, and I do not wish to do the slightest thing to jeopardise it. The sole thing I move is to leave out these particular words, which are commonly called the Erskine Amendment. With regard to the remarks made by Lord Ancaster as to the closing down of industries, this Bill does not apply to any river where there is no fish, and therefore the idea that if my Amendment were passed it would have the effect of closing down any industry—at any rate to a large extent—is quite fantastic. With regard to having powers under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts the noble Earl knows that those powers are useless, and are not likely to have any effect. I am glad I have raised the question. I was asked to do so, and I think I have initiated a valuable debate on a very important point. This question of pollution will probably have to come before Parliament again in the future, and I am not at all sorry I have raised it; but as there seems to be a considerable body of opinion against my Amendment, I will not put your Lord-ships to the trouble of a Division, but ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to leave out the last sentence of subsection (2): "This subsection shall not apply to any work constructed by any sanitary or other local authority in pursuance of any power given by a Public, General or Local Act or by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament." The noble Earl said: The speech of the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries was so sympathetic towards those who wish to prevent the pollution of our rivers, that I hope to have his support for my Amendment. The words which I beg leave to move to omit do provide a very large loophole. I should like to refer your Lord-ships to the subsection. You will see then that the words excluding this subsection from applying to works of any sanitary or other local authority refer to the words at the beginning of subsection (2): "No person shall within a fishery district discharge any trade effluent into any waters containing fish." "Effluent" seems to me a blessed word, and I think the Parliamentary draftsman who used the word instead of "pollution" is very much to be congratulated upon his ingenuity, but your Lordships will see that all the schemes which may be promoted by a sanitary or local authority are to be excluded from the subsection which forbids the pollution of rivers. I prefer, for the moment, to use the old fashioned word "pollution."
Under the Bill, as it stands at present, the provision which forbids the pollution of rivers is not to apply to these local or sanitary authorities. As your Lordships know, supposing it is a question of the promotion by any of these local authorities of an Order in Council or a Private Bill, it is very difficult indeed to get a body of the people affected to take action. Fishermen, or people engaged in angling, can hardly be expected to combine together to oppose the issue of such an Order in Council, and therefore the Order is likely to slip through without opposition. It seems to me to give an unfair advantage to these public bodies, and in view of the fact that the people interested have not those same facilities of appeal and of protest to which I think they are fairly entitled, I venture to hope that the noble Earl will not object to my Amendment. Your Lordships will see that under this clause as it is now drawn any local authority that gets a sewage

309
scheme will be empowered to discharge any amount of undiluted sewage into the river. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 25 to 28, leave out from the beginning of line 25 to end of subsection.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, though it has a good deal of sympathy from me. The Ministry of Health, I believe, are very anxious that the words of this clause should remain as they stand at present. The subsection refers to notice being given of the proposed construction of any new works by which any trade effluents may be discharged into waters containing fish. What the noble Earl has overlooked is the fact that the clause contains the words "confirmed by Parliament." Where people are interested in the fisheries or the scenery, if they wish to offer opposition, the proper place to do so is in Parliament, because, if they oppose, in Parliament and are successful, the scheme will not go through. I hope therefore that, considering that Parliament will have control, the noble Earl will be satisfied, and will not insist on the Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Of course, I should not think of pressing the Amendment after that explanation, but I confess I think the noble Earl is unusually sanguine if he really supposes that the unfortunate anglers and fishermen who are concerned are likely to be able to persuade your Lordships to disallow any scheme brought before them with the full weight and authority of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture. When once these public Departments are persuaded, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Order is one which ought to be made, no amount of protest in this House is likely to persuade your Lordships to withhold your assent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Duke said: So far as I understand, the only object of this provision is to guard against the case of someone taking a frivolous action. I do not know whether there have been such cases, but it is very difficult to find them. The subsection takes away
310
a certain right of the public. Certain individuals and the public now have a right to institute proceedings against pollution. The subsection, 1 understand, deprives them of that, right in certain circumstances, unless they have the sanction of the Minister. Is it wise for your Lordships to take away any right from the public which they now possess? And is it very wise that a Minister should have to go into these cases and to give a certificate? It means great delay and a considerable amount of trouble for the Minister and also for the fishermen. In fact, it looks as if we were going back to the old days of D.O.R.A., when one never quite knew whether one would be allowed to sneeze without the permission of some Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 29 to 33, leave out subsection (3).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not think that this subsection is quite understood. If it is carefully read it will be seen that it is only in respect of proceedings "under this section" that it is necessary for a person to obtain a certificate that he has a material interest in the waters alleged to be affected before he can institute such proceedings. Such a certificate has no reference whatever to any proceedings under any other Act, or at Common Law. It would not do away with anybody's right under Common Law or, for instances, under Clause 55 of this Bill. It merely says that under this section a person who is bringing proceedings shall have, not the consent of, but a certificate from, the Minister that he is a person interested. As the noble Duke says, the intention is no doubt to protect people to some extent against frivolous prosecution, but there is no question of the Minister being allowed even to withhold his consent. All that he has to satisfy himself of is that the person has a material interest in the waters alleged to be affected. If the person shows that he has a material interest, the Minister is bound to grant him a certificate in order to take proceedings under this section.
LORD GAINFORD: This matter was debated at length between the industries and those who are interested in preventing pollution, and it was pointed out by the representatives of industries that they

311
ought not to be exposed to frivolous actions by individuals who were really not interested in the maintenance of the purity of a river. They said they had no objection to any action being taken under this section by riparian owners or by those who could show that they had a real material interest in the rivers, and certainly they had no objection to a fishery board taking action. It was thought by those who represented the industries of this country that any person might assert that he had some material interest in avoiding the pollution of a river. Eventually, we came to this arrangement, because we thought that we were fairly safe in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, who will decide whether a person has a bona fide material interest. I think, therefore, that we can safely leave this provision as it stands.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, for his explanation, but it seems rather a bad precedent that no one may institute a prosecution without getting a certificate from a Minister. I do not know to what it might lead in the end. However, if the provision is considered necessary, and this is one of the compromises made, I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Power for fishery board to construct and alter fish passes.
(7) For the purposes of this section a fishery board may purchase so much of the bank adjoining a dam as may be necessary for making a fish pass, and may for the purpose of such purchase take the like proceedings as are prescribed by this Act in the case of the compulsory purchase by a fishery board of a dam or obstruction, and those provisions shall apply accordingly.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP rose to move, in subsection (7), after "making," to insert "or maintaining."
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, after ("making") insert ("or maintaining").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Contents of the Order.
38.—(1) An order under this Part of this Act may provide for—
(e) enabling the fishery board with the approval of the Minister to erect and work by themselves or their lessees any fixed engine for catching salmon or migratory trout within the area, and for that purpose to purchase or take on lease any fishery land or foreshore specified in the order together with any easement over any adjoining land necessary for securing access to the fishery land or foreshore so acquired:
Provided that any such order—

(i) shall not authorise any such fixed engine to be worked for a period exceeding five years unless the authority is from time to time extended by licence of the Minister for such term as may be specified in the licence and not exceeding at any one time five years, and the Minister shall not grant any such licence until he has inquired into the effect of the working of the engine on the salmon or trout fisheries within the area; and

(ii) shall provide that all rents and profits of the fixed engines authorised by the order to be worked by the fishery board shall be appropriated for the purpose of such measures for the maintenance, improvement, or development of the fisheries in the area as may be approved by the Minister;

EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to leave out paragraph (e) of subsection (1). The noble Earl said: I admit that I am not an expert fisherman, like so many of your Lordships, but this is an Amendment which I am moving at the request of an expert, whose name has already been mentioned in the course of these proceedings. Your Lordships will see that it is in order to prevent the erection of, or the allowing of fishery boards by the leave of the Minister to set up, new fixed engines for taking-salmon. In the opinion of the Severn Commission it is most undesirable to give this power either to the fishery boards or,

313
indeed, to the Minister. In those circumstances I venture to hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept my Amendment, which represents a very considerable body of opinion.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Amendment is to leave out the whole of paragraph (e)?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, lines 11 to 19, leave out paragraph (e).—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment. Being, with many of my neighbours, an owner of fixed engines of the type referred to, I should very much like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill whether this provision contemplates the institution, as the noble Earl suggests, of entirely new fixed engines for taking salmon, or whether it only contemplates the taking over for a time of existing fixed engines from private owners with a view-to their ultimate abandonment and so of clearing the river of those fixed engines altogether?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think it plainly says "erect".
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The part of this clause which the noble Earl seeks to leave out, though there have been a few alterations in the wording of it, is a consolidation of the existing law. The law has existed in this condition for sixteen years, and no exception has been taken to it. I think it would be of interest to your Lordships to know that many fishery boards in the country have obtained Provisional Orders under the Act of 1907, from which these words are taken, specifically providing for giving effect to the provision, and if the noble Earl's Amendment was accepted it would raise a storm of protest from the fishery boards throughout the country. Your Lordships will bear in mind that these words were part of the Bill when it passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House last year, and no exception was then taken to them. In the circumstances, therefore, I am unable to accept the noble Earl's Amendment, and I hope that he will not press it.
In reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, I think it is highly
314
probable that in many instances fishery boards would adopt these powers in order, perhaps in a rather roundabout way, to get rid of the existing engines. Circumstances might arise in which it might be necessary, and I believe it has been found necessary or desirable to kill a large number of salmon in the least expensive and most expeditious manner, and this is a provision which has been found useful in the past by many fishery boards. As I said before, the provision has already been in existence for sixteen years, and I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD GAINFORD: I think that the clause ought to be left in the Bill as it stands, if I might express an opinion as representing one of the fishery boards. The public are really protected, I think, by the fact that the erection and working by themselves of any of these engines can only be done with the express approval of the Ministry. That really safeguards the public, and I am sure it is not likely to be abused.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Might I ask the noble Earl in charge of the. Bill whether this provision would enable a fishery board, after erecting engines under the section, to lease them?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: It would.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I will certainly withdraw my Amendment now, but perhaps the noble Earl would allow me to reserve to myself the possibility of bringing it up again on Report with a view to omitting, perhaps, the word "erection"—allowing them, that is to say, to put up new works. I think that is the point of objection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Applications for orders.
39.—(1) An application for an order under this Part of this Act may be made by a fishery board constituted under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act, or by a county council, or by persons who in the opinion of the Minister are the owners of one-fourth at least in value of the several fisheries proposed to be regulated or constitute a majority of the persons holding licences to fish in public waters within the area of the proposed order, or by any association of

315
persons which in the opinion of the Minister is sufficiently representative of fishing interests within such area.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit from subsection (1) all words after "regulated." The noble Earl said: The object of my Amendment is to confine the right to apply for an Order to the owners, the county councils, and the fishery boards. In that way a number of persons who have no real interest in the river itself will be excluded from the power of applying; that is to say, the majority of the persons holding licences to fish in public waters. It is clear that a number of people who really have nothing to do with it might take out licences, and, having done so, might apply for power to have an Order made under the Act. If the right was restricted to those who have a real genuine interest in the river, it would be a considerable improvement of this Bill and would go some way in the direction of removing certain of the fears which, undoubtedly, affect a number of people with regard to this Bill at the present time.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, lines 9 to 14, leave out from ("regulated") in line 9 to end of subsection.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The first two lines of the words proposed to be omitted—" or constitute a majority of the persons holding licences to fish in public waters within the area of the proposed order "—are pure consolidation and are taken from the Act of 1907. The remaining words, which enable an association of persons to make a similar application, are new and have been inserted with the full approval of the fishery boards throughout the country to enable associations of anglers to make application in the same manner as licensees. I cannot but think that your Lordships will feel that an anglers' association is a most suitable body to make an application for the formation of a fishery board, and I can see no reason for either altering the existing law in this respect or for refusing the extension of the law to anglers' associations. I am, therefore, unable to accept the noble Earl's Amendment, and I hope that he will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47:
Representative members of net fishermen.
47.—(1) In every fishery district in which there are any public rights of fishing, and such rights are exercised by fishermen duly licensed to fish for salmon otherwise than with rod and line, there shall in each year be elected such number of representative members of the fishery board for that district as hereinafter mentioned; (that is to say)—
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The first Amendment to this clause is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 28, leave out ("representative").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The next Amendment on the Paper is consequential upon that just passed.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 29, after ("members") leave out ("of") and insert ("representative of the holders of such licences on").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48:
Representative members of rod fishermen for fish other than salmon.
48.—(1) In every fishery district in which duties are payable for licences for fishing with rod and line for fish other than salmon there shall be appointed or elected such number of members representative of the holders of such licences on the fishery board for that district as is hereinafter mentioned, that is to say:
if the aggregate amount of duties for such licences does not exceed the sum of fifty pounds, one member;
if the aggregate amount of such duties exceeds fifty pounds, one additional member for every additional fifty pounds or part of fifty pounds; so, however, that in a district in which duties are payable for licences for fishing for salmon with rod and line the number of such representative members shall not exceed one-third of the total number of members of the fishery board in the preceding year.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, in subsection (1), after "fishing" ["fishing for salmon"] to insert "other than." The noble Earl said: "I have a small drafting Amendment

317
which I expect the noble Earl is ready to accept. I think it is only a slip. In the second line of the clause the fish are described as "other than salmon" and I suggest, therefore, that the same words should be put into line 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 34, after ("fishing") insert ("other than").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am afraid I did not quite follow the object of the noble Earl's Amendment and, perhaps, he would put it down again on Report and allow me to enquire whether it is necessary drafting or not. I rather thought his object was to keep out altogether the people who take licences for coarse fishing.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think if the noble Earl, will kindly look at Clause 48 he will see that in the third line use is made of the words "other than salmon." When we come to deal with practically the same point in line 34, I think we need to have the same words in over again. It is only a drafting amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If the noble Earl will bring it up again on the next stage I shall be much obliged.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "one-third" towards the end of subsection (1), to insert "or such other proportion as may be agreed between the Minister and the fishery board." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that this clause contemplates the representation upon fishery boards of persons who are in no way interested in the salmon in the river—of associations composed largely of persons who take out licences to fish for coarse fish—up to no less than one-third of the total membership of the board. Those whom I seek to represent on the river Severn feel very strongly that this limit is too high, and, in fact, that it would not be right to give these gentlemen who have no definite continuing interest in the administration of the river so large a representation.
I may remind your Lordships that these people who come from the larger towns—and whose pleasure and amusement we wish in no way to curtail—can hardly claim to have the same right of administration in the matter of the fishery as
318
those who are interested in the salmon of a river, we will say, of considerable estuarial length where salmon fishing is an important industry, where a very large amount of food is provided for the needs of the nation by means of the salmon fishing industry, and where the persons having riparian interests are obviously those who are most likely to have a continuing interest in the good administration of the river from the fishing standpoint. Those gentlemen to whom I have referred are not interested in the industry of fishing. They have no continuing interest in the river, and have no riparian or other continuing rights in connection wth the property adjoining the river. In my very modest Amendment I suggest that it be left in certain cases—and I think the river Severn would be one—for some consultation to take place between the fishery board and the Ministry before the actual numbers of those representing other interests than salmon fishing is determined. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 36, after ("one-third") insert ("or such other proportion as may be agreed between the Minister and the fishery board ").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I appreciate the object of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment. The question of the numbers to represent line fishermen on the fishery board is one that has been frequently discussed, and there is considerable difficulty in satisfying all parties in regard to it. The object, however, of Clause 48 is to lay down a general principle of representation which may be applied universally unless there is some very special reason against it, and I think the noble Lord will find that there is already in the Bill a provision which will enable effect to be given to the object which he has in his mind. Clause 38 (1) (c) provides for an Order being made modifying in their application to a particular fishery board or area any of the provisions of this measure, and it would therefore be open to any fishery board who desires to adopt a different limitation of representation to do so by applying to the Minister for an Order under Section 38. This being so I do not think there is any necessity to insert the words in Clause 48, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. He wishes to make his exception a general application,

319
while we, on the other hand, desire to make his proposal exceptional when we make the Order, leaving the regular rule as it stands in the Bill.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Of course, I recognise that there is a very general discretion given to the Ministry under Clause 38 to which the noble Earl has referred, but I am bound to say I think it would be a very invidious task to throw upon any fishery board the duty of moving under that clause with a view to limiting the representation of those who take out licences for coarse fishing, and I should like, in confirmation of my protest against the terms of this clause, to point out to your Lordships that you may conceivably have a river some fifty, or sixty or seventy miles long, and over the whole of that area, except for, say, about three miles, there may be none of those who are allowed under this clause to enjoy this very extensive right of representation. In fact, you may have, in other words, nine-tenths, or more, of the whole of the water of a river containing a very large quantity of salmon that is available as human food which has no representation at all of the class which this particular clause is intended to benefit. It is with some reluctance that I would accede to the request of the noble Earl, and I venture to hope that he will consider, if I do not press this Amendment, how on Report he can meet my friends in the lower reaches of the Severn in some way that will be more satisfactory.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord has raised a new point which has not been brought to my notice before. It might be rather difficult and unpopular for the fishery board to ask that the Order should be made out so that those representing fisheries should have their representation limited. I will consider the point before Report. The noble Lord must bear in mind that there will always be rivers where these rod-fishermen who fish for coarse fish will provide a very large proportion of the total revenue of the boards. One is always liable to pressure from those people who find the money that they should have representation, and pretty strong representation. There are two sides to this question, and I will look into the matter again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59:
Power of boards to make byelaws for certain purposes.
59.—(1) A fishery board, or where there is no fishery board the Minister, may, subject to the provisions of this Act, make byelaws for any of the following purposes; (that is to say,)—

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

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

() To authorise the fishing with rod and line for eels during the annual close season for freshwater fish:

LORD VIVIAN LORD VIVIAN had given Notice of two Amendments—namely, (1), in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out; "September" and insert "November"; and (2), in paragraph (b), to substitute "December" for November." The noble Lord said: The Freshwater Fisheries (No. 2) Bill provided that the close season for nets should commence not later than November I and for rods not later than December 1. In this Bill, under this clause, September 1 has been substituted for November 1 and November 1 for December 1. This means that the close season for nets has been advanced by two months, and the close season for rods by one month I think in the rivers where there is practically no run of spring fish (such as the rivers we have in Cornwall, the Camel and the Fowey) fishing would he of very little use as most of the fish are caught at the back end of the season. I do not think any harm would be done by the Amendment, because under Clause 60, subsection (4), the Minister has power to revoke existing by-laws, but if the Bill passes in its present form it seems to me that the Minister would not have power, even if it appeared advisable, to extend the open season for nets and rods in any district beyond September 1 and November 1 respectively.
The intention is to try to help those rivers where we get our sport at the

321
end of the season. The fishing at the beginning of the season is not good. Little is caught either by nets or by rods. We get our sport towards the end of the season, and our plea is that the dates should be as stated in the Amendment. I hope the noble Earl will be, able to give me some information on this point and also help us out of our difficulty. I hope, too, that he will be able to tell me that when a fishery board is of the opinion that the close season should commence not later than September 1 in the case of nets and November 1 in the case of rods, it can obtain powers to make by-laws to that effect, with subsequent modifications when necessary. That, at any rate, would meet our case.
Amendment moved—
"Page 41, line 10, leave out ("September") and insert ("November").—(Lord Vivian.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The provisions of the two paragraphs referred to by the noble Lord in his two Amendments were recommended by the National Association of Fishery Boards, and for this reason I cannot see my way to accept his Amendment. I would point out that by Clause 93, subsection (2), of the Bill by-laws at present in force in any district—and he is interested in the Cornwall district—are kept in operation until amended. Further, under Clause 38, an Order can be made, on the application of the fishery board, excepting from the application to a fishery board and its area, or modifying in their application, any provisions of the Bill. That includes the area in which the noble Lord is interested. By this means provision can be made for exceptional treatment in any district which requires it. Where the fishing continues later in the season, and the Minister wishes to alter the by-law, and there is opposition to it, a local public inquiry must be held. I think the interests of those for whom the noble Lord speaks are amply guarded in the Bill.
LORD VIVIAN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his statement. It is a little difficult to take it all in, but when I have seen it in print and submitted it to the fishery boards of the Camel and Fowey I shall be able to state whether I am satisfied. Meanwhile, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GAINFORD: I hope the noble Lord will also communicate with the National Association of Fishery Boards. He will find that they have looked thoroughly into this particular point. Before we assented to these alterations we were satisfied that there was an elasticity in the Bill which would be quite satisfactory to all those interested in the protection of fish. Fish vary between river and river. Between the Wye and the Dee there is an extraordinary difference which was not previously understood so far as the habits of the small fry are concerned, and by investigation we have found that whilst one period as close time suited one river for a succession of years it subsequently had to be varied to the advantage of the river. There is an elasticity in regard to close time provided in the Bill which will meet all views.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, in paragraph (t) of sub-section (1), after "eels" to insert "and pike." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships are now discussing the making of by-laws, the power" to be given, and the subjects on which by-laws are to be allowed. My object is to enlarge that by allowing by-laws to be made which will authorise fishing with rod and line for pike as well as for eel. There is nothing in the Amendment which makes it obligatory. It is purely permissive, and, therefore, may commend itself to the noble Earl. One speaks with a good deal of hesitancy on this question because what is true of one part of the country and of one river is not true of another. But there is the demand in those districts where pike is increasing to a large extent that they should have this power of making by-laws authorising the fishing with rod and line for pike. I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 17, after ("eels") insert ("and pike").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: This by-law power was inserted in the Bill in conformity with the provision contained in Clause 35, and there does not seem to be any reason for enabling pike to

323
be taken during the close season otherwise than as provided in Clause 35, which deals with the close season for freshwater fish. The noble Earl will see that under Clause 35 the owner or occupier of a private fishery, or any person authorised by him, can fish for pike during the close season if such waters are waters in which salmon or trout are specially preserved. That covers the case of the taking of pike on the ground that they are predatory fish and therefore unwanted. Save in such cases as I have mentioned it is considered that pike should be the subject of a close season just as are any other freshwater fish, as they form a considerable portion of the freshwater fish which are desired by anglers for the purposes of their sport. The rigid regard to the close season for freshwater fish, which include pike, imposed by Clause 35, is looked upon by the anglers' associations of this country as of the utmost importance, and I cannot, therefore, consent to the insertion of words which would in any respect weaken that position. For the reasons I have given I cannot accept the noble Earl's amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is a good deal of common ground between us. We agree that circumstances are different in different rivers. Surely the best authority to settle this point is the fishery board for the district. I propose that the fishery board should have power to make by-laws dealing with this question. I do not insist that they should make by-laws unless they consider it necessary; I suggest that they should have the power to make by-laws if they think it desirable. That is not in any way a power which it is unsafe to give to these boards, and surely they will know best what are the particular desires of their particular neighbourhood. Clause 35 only gives power to the owner or occupier. What I suggest is that the fishery board, which represents all the various interests including the very anglers to whom the noble Earl has just referred, should also have this power. I venture to think that this is a case in which we may safely leave to the local authority, so to speak, to the fishery board, the power to act or not to act as they think best in the interests of that particular neighbourhood.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will look into the matter before the Report stage. The only point that occurs to me at the moment is that the angling associations will probably be in a minority on the fishery boards and may be out-voted, so that they may not think that their interests will receive the attention which they ought to receive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60:
Rules for making, confirming, and publishing byelaws.
60.—(1) Byelaws made by a fishery board under this Act shall be made, confirmed, and published in accordance with the following rules:—
(4) The Minister, if he considers that the revocation of a byelaw is necessary or desirable for the maintenance or improvement of the fisheries in any district, may, after giving notice to the fishery board and considering any objections raised by that board, revoke the byelaw.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Earl said: My Amendment proposes to leave out the subsection which gives the Minister power at any time to revoke a by-law if he thinks it desirable. He is obliged merely to give notice to the fishery board and to consider any objections raised by that board, and he may then proceed to revoke the by-law. In view of the fact that these by-laws are probably made with the assent of the fishery board, that assent ought also to be obtained before the Order is revoked. As it stands the sub-section gives the Minister not quite autocratic or despotic powers, but a final voice, without obliging him to do more than listen to the representations of the fishery board. It allows him, even against the advice of the fishery board, to revoke an Order if he wishes to do so. I can hardly expect that the noble Earl will wish to concede to any other party, even to the fishery board, the power which he is claiming for the Minister in this Bill, but I venture to say that, just in the same way as the Minister is obliged to have the consent of the fishery board before he makes an Order, he should also have the consent of the fishery board before he revokes an Order.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, lines 25 to 29, leave out subsection 4.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
EARL BUXTON: I should be glad if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill can toll us what sort of case the Government had in mind in framing this subsection, and whether cases have arisen already in which there have been disputes between the Minister and the fishery boards such as to authorise or justify the assumption of such tremendously autocratic powers.
THE EARL OR ANCASTER: This sub-section has the strong support of the National Association of Fishery Boards and also of the angling associations, and I should be very sorry indeed if it were omitted. I cannot, I am afraid, say exactly why the fishery boards and the angling associations are very desirous that this provision should be included in the Bill, but I rather believe that it is owing to the fact that thorn are in certain parts of the country fishery boards which are moribund and which cannot be made to take any action. I believe the Association of Fishery Boards think that with this power the Minister would be able to do things which ought to be done by these fishery boards which are practically moribund. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he would consider giving the power to the Minister only after he has failed to get the approval of the fishery board or has possibly failed to get any communication from it. I have no doubt about the existence of these moribund fishery boards, but where boards exist and are doing good work the power which is to be given the Minister under this Bill, to act in direct opposition to the wishes of the fishery board and to revoke an Order of which they are heartily in favour, seems to be rather dangerous. I cannot help thinking that there must be some happy medium, some way of meeting that difficulty without perhaps going to the length proposed in my Amendment. We ought to be able to obtain some clause, if the noble Earl will turn the matter over in his mind, which will prevent the Minister from acting in complete opposition to an active Board, while at the same time giving him those powers for which the noble Earl asks and for which, I think, in the particular cases which he mentioned, the demand is not unreasonable.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not think there is any intention that the Minister should have power to revoke a by-law made by an active fishery board. The case I mentioned was of a moribund board. I believe that if you write to some of these boards you never get an answer. I think it is to meet that sort, of case that this provision has been put in the Bill, but I will look into the question again before the Report stage.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62:
Limitation of licences.
62.—(1) A fishery board may (by order confirmed by the Minister limit the number of licences to be issued in any year for fishing for salmon or trout in public waters within the fishery district with any instrument other than rod and line specified in the order, and provide for the selection of the applicants to whom licences shall be issued where the number of applications exceed the number of licences which may be granted:
Provided that—

(a) the Minister before confirming an order under this section shall direct the order and notice of his intention to confirm the order to be published in such manner as he thinks desirable by and at the expense of the fishery board, and shall take into consideration any objections to the proposed order which may be received by him within the time prescribed by the notice;

(b) if the number of licences as limited by the order is less than the number of licences issued in any one of the previous three years, and objection to the order is duly made by any person who has during each of the previous two years held any such licence, the Minister before confirming the order shall cause a public inquiry to be held in the locality by an officer of the Ministry; and

(c) the Minister shall not confirm an order unless he is satisfied that the terms of the order relating to the selection of licences are such as to secure that any licensee dependent upon fishing for his livelihood will be able to obtain a licence.

(2) The Minister may, with the consent of the fishery board, vary the order before

327
confirmation, after publication by the fishery board, if the Minister so directs, of the proposed variation in such manner as such directions may require.
(3) An order under this section may be revoked by the Minister, or by an order made by the fishery board and confirmed by the Minister in like manner as the original order.
(4) This section shall not apply to any instrument which is worked by one man only and is not worked from a boat.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to leave out Clause 62. The noble Earl said: This is a very long clause of which to suggest the omission, and I am afraid I can hardly expect that the noble Earl will accept my Amendment. This is the clause which gives the Minister power to say what number of persons may be licensed to fish in public water. As the law now stands, anybody who pays a fee can take out a licence. Your Lordships will see that this clause goes a long way to limit the power of the public to exercise the rights of fishery, because the Minister is really autocratic in this matter and has the final word in deciding who shall or shall not be entitled to take out a licence and to fish. I am bound to say that I think some sort of limit should be put upon the authority of the Minister in this respect. All through this Bill we have done very little but give to the Minister more and more powers, and had it not been for the noble Earl's kindness in saying that he would give further consideration to my last Amendment, I should be obliged to say that we are being asked to give him more and more powers which may be exercised against the wishes of the elected representatives on the fishery boards.
I cannot hope that the noble Earl will accept this Amendment, but I trust that he will be able to suggest some method by which the possible misuse by the Minister of these powers might be corrected. We are constantly met in your Lordships' House with this position. It is a very frequent argument on the part of the noble Earl, or of a noble Lord representing a Government Department, to say that he has no intention of doing this and no intention of doing that. We are perfectly willing to give the noble Earl himself and the present Minister of Agriculture all the power for which he asks, but we cannot be certain that a Minister may not come afterwards who
328
will not use his autocratic powers in the same wise way as we know they will be exercised by the present Minister and by the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
Pages 48 and 49, leave out Clause 62.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will try to state the case for this clause. In the first place I do not think that there is any question of autocratic action on the part of the Minister, because the fishery board may by Order confirmed by the Minister limit the number of licences. The fishery board—that is, the representatives of the people on the river—desire that the number of licences issued for the net fishing should be limited, and they have to come to the Minister to confirm the Order. Before the Order is confirmed, if there is any opposition to the reduction in the number of licences, then there is to be a public Inquiry at which all the people who object are to be fully heard. I think if the noble Earl reads through the whole clause he will see that it is very difficult indeed for anybody to be harshly treated, and that there will be ample opportunity of being heard before the number of these licences to fish with nets is reduced. There have been already certain concessions made with regard to this point. Certain concessions were made to the River Severn as regards the lave net fishermen, and there are others upon which for the moment I cannot put my finger, but this case has been met so far as we can possibly meet it.
It must be perfectly palpable to noble Lords that there are some rivers suffering from over-netting and that the only thing to do would be to some extent to decrease the amount of netting in those rivers. It has already been laid down that anybody entirely dependent for his living upon net fishing shall not have his licence taken from him, and we have tried to save the interests of the net fishermen in every conceivable way. In the interests of the net fishermen themselves there is a strong case for some power to limit the number of licences. Suppose, for a moment, as we hope by this Bill, either by the decrease of pollution or the improvement of the passages for fish, and other means, the fishing of a river is largely improved. Will the present men engaged in netfishing

329
in these rivers be pleased if they are overrun by an enormous number of strangers, Who will try to join in the net-fishing and can come along and get licences merely by asking for them? I believe that in the interest of the existing net fishermen some such provisions as these are necessary, and in view of all the safeguards which surround them I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I think I may add that something like 98 per cent. of the total catch of salmon is taken by the net fishermen, and anything done towards the improvement of the rivers must go to help the net fishermen more than anybody else concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63:
Penalty on use of unlicensed instrument for fishing.
63.—(1) If any person in a fishery district fishes for or takes salmon or trout otherwise than by means of an instrument which he is duly licensed to use for that purpose he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, in subsection (1), after "trout," to insert "or freshwater fish." The noble Earl said: I cannot help thinking that the Amendment which I suggest here is one which is more likely to receive the approval of the noble Earl- It really supplies an omission from the Bill. The noble Earl will see that this is the clause which deals with penalties on the use of unlicensed instruments. The Bill requires that licences shall be taken out for fishing for freshwater fish, but unless these words are put in no penalty can be inflicted upon people who fish for freshwater fish. Therefore it would be unnecessary for them to take out a licence for freshwater fishing, because for any breach of the terms of the licence no penalty can be inflicted upon them. There are thousands of licences taken out at the present time upon the Severn, for fishing for freshwater fish, and I imagine that nobody will in the future think it necessary to take out such licences if no penalty can be inflicted for breaking the conditions of the licence. The noble Earl will perhaps appreciate that, although this looks a small matter and appears to be a drafting point, it may largely affect the number of licences taken out for fishing for freshwater fish.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 43, after ("trout") insert ("or fresh water fish").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, as I am assured that it is unnecessary. I think it would be impossible to insert the words, as at the moment there are many districts in this country where no licences are required for freshwater fishing, and where no fishery board exists to issue such licences. It is useless in such cases to make it an offence to fish without a licence. If the noble Earl will look at Clause 65 of the Bill he will see that the Minister may by Order extend the foregoing provisions of Part VII of this Bill, which relate to licensing, and if that is done the provisions of Clause 63, which make it an offence to fish without a licence, will automatically become applicable to fishing for freshwater fish. I am told that the Amendment is unnecessary, and would not make sense.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 83 agreed to.
Clause 84:
Special provision us to the Solway Firth.
(2) The provisions of Part V of this Act relating to appointed members, representative members, and ex-officio members of a fishery board shall not apply to the constitution of the Solway District Board.
(3) An Order made under this section—

(a)shall not authorise the imposition by the Solway District Board of contributions assessed on several fisheries;

(b)shall not enable the Solway District Board to erect fixed engines; and

(6) The expenditure incurred by the Solway District Board shall be defrayed out of contributions to be paid by the several fishery boards or district boards of the fishery districts abutting on the Solway district in such proportions and with such remedies for enforcement thereof as may be prescribed by Order made under this section.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(3) Any reference in this Act to the Minister shall in relation to the Solway District be construed as a reference to the Minister and the Fishery Board for Scotland, acting jointly."
The noble Duke said: I think your Lordships are aware that the clauses affecting the Solway were only introduced in the Bill on the Report stage in the House of Commons. Before they were introduced there copies of the proposed clauses were sent down to the various fishery boards to obtain their approval and consent. These provisional clauses have been, I think, all inserted in the Bill, with one exception, and that is the Amendment which I have on the Paper. I am under the impression that there may be some difficulty in inserting these words, but as the fishery boards attach great importance to the substance of my Amendment, and I am not prejudiced in favour of the exact words, I shall be glad if the noble Earl will produce another Amendment on the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In the draft of this clause which was discussed with the various representatives of the Scottish district boards the words sought to be inserted by the noble Duke appear, and I am most anxious that he should not think that, in deleting the words from the clause when it was inserted in the Bill there was any breach of faith on the part of His Majesty's Government. I think it was understood that the clause which was under discussion at the meeting I have mentioned was a draft clause only, which would have to be settled by those responsible for drafting the Bill before it could be inserted, and when those responsible came to consider the clause in detail it seemed clear that the words referred to by the noble Duke were unnecessary, and, moreover, might lead to serious administrative difficulty if retained in the clause.
Your Lordships will observe that the object of Clause 84 in this Bill is to set up a district board to control the Solway. It provides that the Order constituting the Solway district and the board to control it shall be made by the Minister and the Fishery Board for Scotland, acting jointly, but that after the Order is made, and the district is constituted, the law applicable to that district shall be the law as provided in this Bill. Throughout this Bill the person responsible
332
is the Minister, and if, therefore, it becomes necessary for any representation to be made, or any notice given, to the responsible authority, it seems clear that such notice should be given to the Minister. It would only lead to trouble and confusion if two persons were mentioned, instead of one. It would, furthermore, be invidious to introduce a Government Department which is in no way concerned with the administration of the law in the Solway district. To give an illustration, if a private person within the Solway district desired to take proceedings under Clause 8 of this Bill, whereby he has to obtain a certificate showing that he has a material interest in the waters alleged to be affected, it would seem rather absurd that he should not only have to obtain such certificate from the Minister but also from the Fishery Board for Scotland.
I hope that the noble Duke will be satisfied with this explanation. I believe that what he has said is perfectly right, but, as I have explained, when the clause came to be drafted it was found that after you had constituted the Solway Fishery Board and placed the Solway under this Bill, which is an English Bill, and with which the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is concerned, it would tend to administrative difficulties, and serve no useful purpose, to add also the Fishery Board for Scotland.
THE DUKE OR BUCCLEUCH: I do not venture to dispute what the noble Earl has said, but surely his Department should have considered this before. It was very largely on the basis of the understanding that I have mentioned that we agreed to the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. I do not for a moment desire to impute bad faith to the Ministry, because I am very grateful to them for the trouble they have taken and the great tact they have shown in trying to meet this case of the Solway, but I must say it is rather unfortunate that the draft clause was not adhered to. Possibly between now and the Report stage something might be done to meet the case. But I think the Scottish Fishery Board have just cause to complain, after what they were led to believe, and they will be very much astonished if these words do not appear in the Bill. However, I have no wish to press the Amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (3). The noble Viscount, who had two other Amendments on the Paper, to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (3) and to leave out subsection (6), said: These three Amendments deal with the same matter, and, with your Lordships' leave, I will say what I have to say upon all of them together. This new Solway Board, which was recently constituted, and quite recently put into the Bill, is one which, I hope, may solve a great number of the difficulties which have arisen between the two sides of the Solway. But it seems to me rather a peculiar board. It is not permitted to raise any money of its own. The money which it is going to raise will be out of the pockets of other people. It is apparently going to cadge round to the different districts near it, and get what it can out of them. I do not think that is a very hopeful prospect for the Board, to begin with. But, even assuming that it is successful, I am afraid that it will always labour under the stigma of being a "kept" board. It will be kept by these other boards all round; it will not be standing on its own.
Why should it not be entitled, like other fishery boards, to levy contributions for its own purposes? I propose that it should be so enabled to levy the contributions that it requires to carry on, and I propose therefore that paragraph (a) should be struck out. That paragraph says that an Order made under this section
"shall not authorise the imposition by the Solway District Board of contributions assessed on several fisheries;"
Why not? Why should it not impose contributions on several fisheries? There are several fisheries—using the word "several" in the legal sense—on the north side of the Solway, and there are several fisheries on the south side of the Solway. They might well be brought under contribution in order to provide the funds for the board.
Then paragraph (b) says that the Order
"shall not enable the Solway District Board to erect fixed engines."
Why should it not erect fixed engines? We have just had a discussion on a former clause, in which we have given to all fishery boards the power to erect and
334
work fixed engines. Why should not this board have the power to do the same? There are no fixed engines on the Cumberland side of the Solway, but, if this board decides to erect them, they would lease them, and they would obtain a very substantial amount for them, which would go towards the expenses of the board. Subsection (6) says that—
"The expenditure incurred by the Solway District Board shall be defrayed out of contributions to be paid by the several fishery boards or district boards of the fishery districts abutting on the Solway district…
It seems a very unreasonable thing to set up a board to prey upon other boards. Why should it not raise its own funds? I submit that the suggestions which I have made will improve the general position of the board, and give it a status and position equivalent to the status and position of other boards throughout the country, so that it will not be dependent upon what it can get out of its neighbours.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, lines 27 to 29, leave out paragraph (a).—(Viscount Ullswater.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: With your Lordships' permission I propose to deal together with the first and third Amendments standing in the name of the noble Viscount, as they both deal with the same point, namely, the means of raising revenue by the Solway Board. I am unable to accept either Amendment for the following reasons. In the first place, this clause, as it stands in the Bill, has been thoroughly discussed with the fishery-boards concerned, and, after amendment, has been approved or acquiesced in by all of them. Secondly, the Solway District, when formed, will be created out of the districts of the various fishery boards and districts abutting on the Solway, and the Scottish and English boards derive their revenue each in a different manner. The English boards depend for their revenue upon licences to fish, whereas the Scottish district boards have no power to grant licences but depend for their revenue upon rating.
These facts make it practically essential that the funds of the Solway District Board shall be derived not by directly raised revenue but by contributions from the various boards adjoining after they have raised their own revenue by their own methods. If the Solway Board were

335
empowered to rate several fisheries on the Scottish side and exercised the power, one of two things must happen. Either the fisheries falling within the Solway district must be taken, for this purpose, out of the district to which they now belong and contribute and the district board be deprived of its rating power over them, or they must be subjected to an additional rate over and above the existing rates levied by the district board. In the one case the district board, and in the other case, the owners of the several fisheries—that is, the private fisheries—would be very justly indignant. For these reasons, and in view of the agreement which has been arrived at, and also in view of the different methods of raising revenue in the two countries, I hope that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment but will allow the clause to remain as drafted.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I will not press my Amendment, but I would like to say that the agreement which has been arrived at and was cited by the noble Earl was by no means unanimous. I hold in my hand a letter from one of the most influential gentlemen in that part of the world, who says that he did not agree at all with the so-called agreement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "several." The noble Duke said: This is only a drafting Amendment. I think the clause would be all the better if the word "several" were omitted. It is rather confusing, and there appears to be no particular object in it.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 24, leave out ("several").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had on the Paper an Amendment, after subsection (6), to insert the following new sub-section:—
"(7) Such Order shall confer on the Boards a right of appeal against the amount of any such contribution to the Minister and the Fishery Board for Scotland, acting jointly."
The noble Duke said: With regard to this Amendment, there was an interview between the representatives of some of these fishery boards and the Ministry of
336
Agriculture and Fisheries at which several things were done. At that interview the point was raised that this board, which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, rather aptly described as a "kept" board, might be rather expensive. It was, therefore, thought that there ought to be some limit. The members of this board are not elected by those who are assessed and there is very great danger that they might be extravagant and wasteful in their expenditure. It would seem to be desirable, therefore, that some check should be put upon them. For that reason I beg to move my Amendment. My noble friend will probably agree with me that the words as drafted may not be quite suitable, or that there may be a better way of carrying out the principle of the Amendment. If he is in general agreement with the principle and will take steps to check the expenditure, I shall be quite satisfied.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I appreciate the noble Duke's point, but I do not think I can accept the words as they stand on the Paper. Between now and the Report stage, however, we will endeavour to see whether we can find words to carry out the object he has in view.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 85 to 91 agreed to.
Clause 92:
Interpretation.
92.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "salmon" means all fish of the salmon species:
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved, in subsection (1), after, "The expression 'salmon' means all fish of the salmon species," to insert "but does not include trout or herling." The noble Viscount said: I placed this Amendment on the Paper on the authority of a piscatorial expert of some standing. I have not the faintest idea what a herling is or what it looks like, nor, indeed, whether the word ought to be pronounced "herling" or "harling." I am told that at the meeting which took place when these matters were all discussed this definition was put forward and was agreed to by the Ministry

337
of Agriculture and Fisheries, but it does not seem to have been inserted in the Bill. I put the Amendment down in order to obtain from the Minister in charge of the Bill some explanation as to why this definition was not included in it after it had been agreed to by his Ministry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 7, after ("species") insert ("but does not include trout or herling").—(Viscount Ullswater)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am afraid that I am not learned on this subject and can only give the noble Viscount the information that I have. I am informed that neither trout nor herling are of the salmon species and, therefore, there is no necessity for the, inclusion of the words suggested by the noble Viscount. The question is purely a legal one and as I am advised that no question could arise if the matter became the subject of a decision by the Courts, I hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment. I feel sure that the two definitions of salmon and trout leave the question of interpretation free from all doubt.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: Perhaps the noble Earl would take the opportunity between now and the Report stage of inspecting a herling. He might then be in a better position to advise the House as to whether it ought to be included or not.
THE DURE OF BUCCLEUCH: I rather suggest that that course should be followed because there is a great dispute about it. "Herling" is a local name. The herling is rather like a sea trout but smaller. There is an everlasting dispute as to whether the herling is a sea trout or not, but it is undoubtedly of the salmon species.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I think there is another point in connection with the Interpretation Clause which requires consideration apart from the herling which is entirely recognised in my part of the world as being a young sea trout just as a grilse is a young salmon. On page 64 of the Bill there are these words:—
"The expression 'unclean' in relation to any fish means that the fish is about to spawn…"
No salmon comes into any river except when it is about to spawn; so that if this
338
definition is allowed to stand as it is it will make nonsense of the whole Bill. I suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the measure that he should consider the propriety of altering that particular definition on Report.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In reference to the herling I am informed that there is no doubt as to whether these words should be in. On the other hand, I am told that the point about unclean salmon which has been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Stair, is an important one and one which will require consideration before the Bill reaches the Report stage. I am very much obliged to him for bringing it to my notice, and I shall be very pleased to look into it.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I desire to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First, Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

  PART I.
  Limits of Solway District.
  So much of the estuary known as the Solway Firth as lies to the east of a line drawn from the most projecting point of land south-east of Whitehill between Portling Bay and Porto warren Bay to the northern boundary of the parish and town-ship of Seaton, in the county of Cumberland, including the foreshore and all rivers, creeks, and streams, and water as far as the tide flows and reflows, except so much of the Rivers Ellen, Waver, Wampool, Eden, Esk, Sark, Annan, Lochar, and Nith, and their estuaries, as lies above the following lines, namely:—
  As respects the River Nith, a line drawn from the eastern extremity of the southern bank of New Abbey Pow to Scar Point, in Dumfriesshire.

PART II.
Enactments which are to cease to apply within the Solway District.
The local Act of the session of the forty-fourth year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, chapter forty-five, intituled "An Act for the better regulating and improving the fisheries in the arm of the sea between the county of Cumberland and the counties of Dumfriesshire and

339
Wigton and the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, and also the fisheries in the several streams and waters which run into or communicate with the said arm of the sea." except section nine thereof.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in the paragraph: "As regards the River Nith, a line drawn from the eastern extremity of the southern bank of New Abbey Pow to Scar Point, in Dumfriesshire," to leave out all words after "line," except "in Dumfriesshire," and insert "drawn from Carsethorne Pier in the Stewartry of Kircudbright to Caerlaverock Castle." The noble Duke said: I placed this Amendment on the paper at the instance of the fishery board who want their boundary altered. If, however, they could be sure that the limits recommended by the Stafford Howard Report would be carried into effect they would not wish any other action to be taken. What they are alarmed about is this. It has been recognised by the Stafford Howard Report as being very necessary that there should be a playground for the salmon somewhere in the estuary if for any reason they are not able to go up the river at once, and the board are rather afraid that the salmon will be deprived of such a playground if the present limits are observed because there may be nets in the river. If, as I say, the recommendation in the Stafford Howard Report can be carried out they do not want this Amendment to be pressed.
Amendment moved—
Fourth Schedule, page 71, lines 34 to 36, leave out from ("line") in line 34, to ("in") in line 36, and insert ("drawn from Carsethorn Pier in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright to Caerlaverock Castle").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment at the present time, and I do not know that I should enter into what appears to be a technical point. I will say, however, that the Royal Commission of 1895, as one of their recommendations, proposed that the limits of the Solway district should be as defined in the Bill. They also recommended that fishing by whammel nets should be limited in extent, and one of the proposed limitation lines was a line drawn between the two points set out in the noble Duke's Amendment. Under Clause 59 of the Bill the Solway District Board would have power to
340
define the limits within which this kind of fishing may be carried on, and no doubt they would do so. I imagine, however, that when an Order is made under Clause 84 of this Bill the Order will specify the limits within which whammel net fishermen may carry on their fishing, and I have no doubt that such limits will be those laid down by the Royal Commission. There are obvious advantages in the whammeling limits being defined by the Order and not in the Bill, as for various reasons it might at some time become desirable for such limits to be altered. The Amendment would reduce the limits of the Solway as recommended by the Royal Commission, and for the reasons I have given I regret I cannot accept it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think the answer given by my noble friend will quite satisfy those who asked me to put the Amendment down. As long as the recommendations of the Stafford Howard Commission are adhered to I think that will give them what they want.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, at the end of the second paragraph of Part II to leave out "except section nine thereof." The noble Duke said: This is a drafting Amendment, and I think the noble Earl will be willing to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 16, leave out ("except section nine thereof").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I have no objection to the noble Duke's Amendment, but I would ask the Ministry of Agriculture to consider very seriously the necessity for repealing the whole of this Act. I have the Act in my hand, and before it is finally repealed I think it would be very desirable if the Ministry would look at it carefully from the point of view of fishing in some of the lakes. I am told that the repeal of this Act would have a very serious effect upon the lake trout fisheries. They are regulated by Section 15 of the Act. In lakes such as Ullswater there are only small trout, and nets of one-inch mesh are in general use, and are quite large enough. If you are going to abolish the one-inch mesh, and compel the use of a two-inch mesh, I am afraid you will destroy practically the

341
whole of the fishery in these lakes. If the noble Earl would ask his advisers to look into this matter before the Report stage I shall be satisfied.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I shall be prepared to do that. The noble Viscount has raised a point with which I was not conversant, and I am not sure that my adviser is conversant with it. I do not know whether it would be more convenient, in these circumstances, that the noble Duke should not move his Amendment now, but should bring it up again on Report, when I shall be in a position to deal with the point raised by the noble Viscount.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not think it matters one way or another. As I understand, under the Bill the whole of the Act to which Lord Ullswater has alluded is repealed, except this particular section. It is a legal point. I do not know to what the section refers. I think it was to the other part that my noble friend was referring, and not to this particular section.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no objection to putting the Amendment in now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not know if this would be a suitable moment to ask when the noble Earl proposes to proceed further with this Bill.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Would it suit the noble Earl to put it down for Wednesday or Thursday of next week?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Wednesday next would suit me, but I do not know if it would suit other members of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We only desire to suit the convenience of the House. I thought a full week would probably be sufficient. I am reminded that there is an important Notice down in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for Wednesday next, so I think we had better put this Bill down for the day following.

ALDERNEY (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WAR MEMORIALS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.