in the Chair.] On Clause 1:—

moved to omit the words "or other products." He said they all knew that a certain amount of nuisance was occasioned by the cutting up of whales, and the clause provided that those who engaged in the industry must obtain a licence from the Fisheries Board at a cost of £100. But there were certain products of whales which could be treated without causing any danger to fisheries or nuisance to the public. There were, for instance, whalebone and the material with which cushions and chairs were stuffed. Did the Solicitor-General mean that those who carried on these industries should pay £100 a year for a licence to do so?

No.

said if that was so, more precise words than "or other products should be inserted in the clause. As the clause stood he thought it required explanation. Amendment proposed—

In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words or other products.' " —(Lord Balcarres.)

said the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone called his attention a few weeks ago to the words referred to, and suggested that they should receive further consideration. He was at first inclined to the view which had been expressed by the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division, but he had consulted those who with himself had been responsible for the drafting of the Bill, and. he was told that the words "from whales" in line 6 governed the words 'of oil or other products" which followed. That being so, the words which the noble Lord proposed to leave out were not open to misapprehension in the way he suggested. The words in the clause followed closely the words in the Newfoundland Act which dealt with the same thing.

said he did not regard what the right hon. Gentleman had said as any explanation at all. The right hon. Gentleman professed to sympathise with the view of the mover of the Amendment, but he wished to retain words in the clause which should be omitted if there was to be no doubt as to what was intended. The clause said—

No person shall in any part of Scotland land any whale, or engage in any way in the manufacture from whales of oil or other products, without a licence granted and issued subject to the conditions hereinafter provided..."

said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that there was no objection to any legitimate industries, which did no harm, to the public and which did not injure the fishing industry and that, therefore, they were not included in the words "or other products." The industries to which he referred were not subject to Governmental supervision, to the £100 licence, or to the penal clauses. Did these include the manufacture of manures or fertilisers? Were people to pay £100 licence fee and be subject to the other provisions of the Act? The manufacture of fertilisers was a nuisance and ought to be supervised. Did the words "other products" include the manufacture of whalebone, which was not a nuisance?

said he wished to make a suggestion to the Secretary for Scotland which he might consider before the Report stage and which might meet the objection urged by his noble friend, viz., to confine the limitations laid down in the first clause to the manufacture of oil and other products to the cases referred to under Clause 2 of the Bill. That would obviate all difficulty as to the manufactures which could be carried on in these factories which were really whaling stations.

said he would have no objection to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but it was impossible to alter the phrasing of the clause as to what were manufactures. The phrase was inserted in order to confine operations to manufactures from whales, and had been drafted with the best possible available advice. His advisers informed him that the words in the Bill really met the noble Lord's contention. While there would be restrictions on the primary manufactures from whales, there would be no restrictions on manufactures in a secondary or tertiary degree.

said he would withdraw his Amendment, but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would meet the case he had pointed out by inserting on the Report stage the word "primary" on line 7, after the word "other."

said he would be glad to consider the matter, but he could not give encouragement now to the idea that they would find any better words than those contained in the clause. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said he proposed the insertion of the words on the Paper in order to meet the objection which had been raised on the Second Reading by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. Amendment proposed—

In page 1, line 7, after the word products,' to insert the words 'or within three miles of low-water mark of any part of the coast of Scotland, pursue, kill, or shoot at any whale.' "—(Mr. Sinclair.)

said he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to insert these words, because they went a long way to remove many of the objections he had to the clause as introduced. If this Bill was to become an Act, as he hoped it would, he wanted it to serve the purposes it was intended to accomplish. They were going to licence under the Bill most of the persons engaged in whale fishery in the North of Scotland. But a loophole would still remain, after the Amendment was passed, which would allow persons who were not licensed to kill, pursue, or shoot whales where they pleased. Subsection of Clause 5 said—

Nothing in this Act contained shall make it unlawful for any person to pursue any of the whaling industries commonly followed in arctic or antartic waters, or to engage in the manufacture of oil or other products from whales captured in the exercise of any such industry.

said that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were not quite pertinent to the Amendment before the Committee, although they might be relevant to the question that Clause I stand part of the Bill.

said he did not think this Amendment was necessary, because whales did not come within the three miles limit, or at any rate not in sufficient numbers to allow of their pursuit for profit. They were always thirty or forty miles out.

said he quite agreed with the object of the Amendment which was to prevent whales being pursued, shot at, or killed within the three miles limit. He also agreed with his hon friend that there would be no chance of so doing, but he thought this was a very clumsy way of providing for the object desired to be attained. A far more simple method could be found, and he hoped if only for the sake of neat and workmanlike draftsmanship the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw this Amendment, and merge this secton into Clause 4, which, with the addition of a very few lines, would give the result desired.

said he had considered these Amendments which had only been put down at the last moment as well as he could, but not so adequately as he would have liked, and he thought there was in them some indication of haste. He noticed, for instance, that the right hon. Gentleman had not put down an Amendment corresponding to the one before the House to Clause 4, which was necessary if this Amendment was to be incorporated in the Bill. But like the Bill these Amendments were not very effective. His objection was to the very drastic way in which the Bill was drawn. Nobody within the three miles limit was to pursue, shoot at, or kill a whale. But as the right hon. Gentleman knew, it frequently happened that in the great swirls that follow a storm these great mammals were driven within the three miles limit and become landlocked or stranded. Now if a whale got stranded in that way the poor animal would have to lie there, and if any man shot it to put it out of its misery he was liable to a heavy penalty. It was a case which did not often happen, but nevertheless one that had to be met. In the drastic terms in which this Bill was drafted no consideration was given to one of the ordinary incidents in the life of a whale. He submitted that this case ought to be further considered and that some modification should be introduced to meet a case in which some relief must be given.

said he was very anxious to meet the Committee in this matter, and in order to meet the noble Lord he would withdraw this Amendment and reconsider the question. If he found the Amendment was necessary he would reinstate it on Report and if not he would dispense with it altogether. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said when he was called to order on a previous Amendment he was commenting upon the fact that floating factories would be established and be more profitable, and he was pointing out that once those floating factories were established exactly the same inconvenience would arise as that of which they now complained. After the manufacture had taken place on these floating factories the carcases would be released and would float, and in some cases come ashore, when all the unhealthy conditions which were now complained of would again arise, and in other cases they would drift seawards and become a source of inconvenience and danger to the fishermen and fishing boats. But he thought this difficulty could be got over perfectly easily if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of excising Subsection 2 of Clause 5. He thought that they ought to put the licensed persons in as favourable a position as anybody else, but under the provisions of this Bill they put them in a less favourable position. He did not wish to labour this point, but would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether an Amendment could be made in the Bill in the direction he had indicated.

said that the effect of this Bill was unduly to harass an existing and flourishing industry. The causes which made it necessary were well known, and the effects of such harassing action could be readily anticipated. They might make it so difficult for these people in the north of Scotland to carry on their business that they would reconsider their position and act accordingly. At the present time with few exceptions the whale industry was carried on on the shore, and was carried on in the most efficient manner, but that was not the whole of the industry. The most highly organised part was carried on at sea by the blubber ships, which were at sea for months together. If this Bill was made too harassing by these huge penalties and licences, what would happen would. be that these blubber ships would not register in Scotland but elsewhere. Then these large and powerful vessels would be entitled to kill whales within the three miles limit or anywhere else. They were going to open up in regard to the whale industry those ridiculous controversies of which they had heard so much in the past with regard to trawling in the Moray Firth, where foreign vessels might trawl, and those of British subjects might not. These huge and powerful Arctic and Antarctic boats would be permitted to kill whales and make as much use of them as they could. But the system of these boats was a wasteful one. They killed more whales than they could properly use, and having taken the cream of the blubber from them they liberated the hugh carcases which, owing to their buoyancy, floated away to the shore and infected the water near the shore. Those carcases took weeks to disintegrate in the course of nature, and the nuisance would be infinitely greater than that caused by the remnants of a whale dealt with on the shore. By harassing the industry unduly they would drive the industry into other directions, which. might entail greater disadvantages on the industry and be infinitely more serious to Scotland. These were views which he certainly thought should be laid before the House.

hoped the Committee would weigh well the words that had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division. He himself wished to urge another point which he thought the Committee ought to consider, and that was the very heavy blow that this Bill struck at what was at present a flourishing business. There were four of these whale factories in existence in the Shetlands, of which two were Norwegian, one nominally British but almost wholly Norwegian, and one entirely British. The first three were only doing fairly well, but the fourth employed five ships and did extremely well. If this Bill passed in its present form this flourishing industry would be transferred from the Shetland Islands to floating factories, and the amount of employment which they gave in the islands would be taken away. This Bill placed the limit of vessels that could be attached to a factory at three, and this prosperous concern had five. They were actually asked to reduce the number of steamers of a factory which gave a great amount of employment to the Shetlanders, and they should hesitate before they took that step.

said the more he considered the clauses of this Bill the more indefensible they seemed to be. It was a very serious thing, even after full consideration, to put such restrictions of a really serious character on an industry which had grown up owing to the needs and characteristics of a particular part of the British dominions, and in which a considerable amount of capital and labour was engaged. He did not see why these restrictions should be placed on the industry. It was said that the industry had resulted in a nuisance, but the scientific evidence given before the Committee did not bear out that fact, but on the contrary controverted it. No doubt when it was first started the industry did result in a nuisance, but with better equipment and more been methods that nuisance had been done away with. For many years past the industry had been so conducted that every scrap of the carcase of the whale was used up, even to the bones, which made cattle food and manure, and there was no nuisance now to any human being. Then there was the fantastic superstition that the catching of a particular kind of whale which inhabited the seas between thirty to eighty miles from Shetland would have a deleterious effect on the herring industry; but so far from this being the case recent experience had proved the contrary. For the last three or four years more of these whales had been caught than ever before, yet the herring fishery had not been destroyed. On the contrary it had increased. In 1903 the catch was 313,000 crans; in 1904, 543,000; in 1905 Shetland had nearly half the whole of the herring catch of Scotland, and in that year it reached the unprecedented figure of well over 1,000,000 crans. In face of those figures it could not be contended that there was any earthly grounds for thinking that the catching of a few hundreds of whales interfered with the herring fishing. The whole experience was the other way. Anybody who knew anything about fishing for herring or sprat or whale knew that whenever they came to legislate about deep-water fishing they always got into fearful difficulties and absurdities. What they must remember was that occasionally the herring fishery had a bad year from causes which they could not exactly ascertain, it might be that the failure of the fishery in a season was due to the water being too cold, to storms, or to other causes; still, they had no real knowledge on the point. The herring fishermen looked round, and, seeing that the fishing was not so good as in a previous year, or that it was bad, they said what they said in 1903 when the fishing was unprosperous, that there must be some cause for their industry going to pieces. "It must be this abominable whale industry," which was the only other thing they saw. They were really being asked to hamper, he believed to destroy, an industry which if left alone would grow, and against which there was no real ground of complaint that could be alleged by anybody who had any scientific knowledge on the subject. He entirely objected to this clause, because there was no real ground made out for it.

said the hon. Gentleman had dogmatised with some confidence on this subject, but he did not understand apparently the reason why the Government had been induced to bring forward this Bill or the object which they had in view. As the House knew, this measure attacked no one industry in favour of another, nor caused antagonism one to the other. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that in no country in the world was whaling carried on as it was in this country, absolutely without restriction or licence of any kind.

Iceland.

said he did not compare this country with Iceland. Rightly or wrongly the fishermen engaged in the herring fishing were unanimously of opinion as to the dangers of whaling as at present carried on to their industry. Some held the view that it should be altogether prohibited. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the figures were altogether indisputable; they made out no case whatever for the prohibition of this industry. But he thought that there was a case made out for regulating the whaling industry. Regulations in his opinion could not fail to be of great advantage. In the first place, they might do something to allay the strong feeling which was undoubtedly held, rightly or wrongly, against this industry, and also to benefit the industry itself. The hon. Gentleman had used exaggerated words when he said that the whaling industry would be destroyed by this Bill. The experience of other countries went to show that there were large profits when it was carried on heedlessly for a time; but there came a period when the source of these profits became exhausted, and then the period of prosperity was followed by depression and even ruin. Under these circumstances some years ago the Government caused an inquiry to be made, which was followed by a Report, which in turn was followed by proposals which, however, did not pass into law on that occasion. The inquiry was taken part in by a representative of the whaling industry; the people of Shetland were directly interested in the question because of the stations established there; so that there was every consideration before the Committee which would tend to preserve and not harass the industry. Those who examined the Bill would see that it gave a certain amount of protection to those who were already engaged in the industry; it would also give a certain amount of security to those engaged in it because the industry would be carried on in a manner conducive to its best interests, and, as far as possible, in proportion to its raw material. That was the view of those engaged in the industry, with whom he had been in constant communication, and he had never read any protest whatever against the general policy of the Bill. Last autumn he had an opportunity of going through one of those factories, one of the best managed, and the gentleman responsible for the establishment said he had not a word to say against the proposals of the Bill. This was not a question of setting the interests of one industry above or below those of another. The proposed system of licensing prevailed in all other countries where the industry was carried on. It was agreeable to those who were engaged in the industry, and the object of the Government was simply to place the industry under proper regulations so that it might be properly and profitably carried on. There was no reason whatever for believing that the Bill was a harassing measure to those concerned, and he brought it before the House because he believed that, in the special conditions, it was seriously and anxiously desired by the people of Scotland who were interested in the question. He asked the Committee to believe that if this were not a measure which was highly desirable in the public interest it would not be pressed on the attention of the House at this period of the session, and he hoped that the Committee would co-operate in passing it into law.

said that his constituents were largely interested in this matter, and they made constant complaints against the trade as carried on at present. It had become such a nuisance that those engaged in it had, it was said, been driven out of their own country, and* they had brought the nuisance to this country. He believed that a great many of the fishermen would prefer that this industry were prohibited altogether, and they had a right to state that wish, because Scotland belonged to the Scottish people, and not to mere trusts which were making money out of this nuisance. Though the Bill did not go very far, they hoped that it would do something to regulate this dangerous business. Therefore, he trusted that the Bill would he passed this session, so that there might be something done to abate the nuisance which was so inimical to the fishing interests of Scotland.

said the Secretary for Scotland had stated that this clause would protect the herring industry from the injury done to it by whaling under the present conditions. He had also argued that the Bill would give stability to the whaling industry, and render it more profitable. He was lost in amazement in trying to reconcile these two arguments. He had been left in absolute doubt by the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and they could not take his arguments as any explanation of the object of this measure.

said that as this was a Bill designed to protect British industries, he was inclined to support it on that ground.

said that the Bill would probably wipe out whale fishing and that was just what certain people in Scotland desired. In view of that fact it was somewhat remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman should tell the House that the Bill was being passed in order that whale fishing might become a useful and profitable industry, in which security of employment would be assured. Those were desirable objects, although he thought they were entitled to protest against the argument that the Bill was one simply to deal with local nuisances connected with whale factories. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2:— Amendments proposed—

In page I, line 17, to leave out the words 'one month,' and to insert the words 'two months.'

In page 1, line 18, after the word 'thereof,' to insert the words once in each of two consecutive weeks with an interval between each publication of not less than six days.' " —(Mr. Sinclair.)

moved to leave out Subsection (4). He said he was in some little difficulty because he noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had put down some Amendments which very much modified the clause in the direction he desired.

asked the hon. Member to allow him to move his Amendment first.

said that course would be the most convenient, and he would assent to it.

moved to leave out the words "shall be lawful for the Board," in order to insert the words "the Board shall." He explained that the recommendation of the Committee which inquired into this subject was that no factory should have more than one steamer, and that was a very emphatic recommendation. They had, however, to deal with the existing state of things, not with atabula rasa; and, therefore, the clause had been so drafted as to allow existing establishments to have two additional steamers. By a later Amendment he proposed to substitute the word " three " instead of "two," making altogether four, which was the number that one of the existing companies had. He thought this would be a fair arrangement, and it was founded upon the procedure in other countries where they only allowed one steamer for a certain number of miles of the coast. Amendment proposed—

In page 2, line 16, to leave out the words 'It shall be lawful for the Board,' and to insert the words the Board shall.' " —(Mr. Sinclair.)

was understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered that there might be differences in the capacity of steamers.

said that the steamers were practically of one pattern at present. They were specially equipped for the purpose of capturing and killing whales. The steamers were of a certain size, and they were manned by crews of a certain strength. The owners of the factories did not send out larger steamers than were necessary.

said he understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to do anything to injure the business of factories at present engaged in this business. That being so, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely certain that there was no factory employing more steamers than the number he proposed to authorise.

pointed out that the largest existing company, which was entirely British owned, had five steamers, but the Secretary for Scotland proposed only to allow them to have four. He had received a letter from the company on the subject. The proposal was not fair.

asked that the matter should be reconsidered before the Report stage. His hon. friend had pointed out that one company had five steamers, and it appeared to him that under the proposal of the right hon Gentleman their business might be interfered with if the number was limited to four.

said the Government had been in communication with those interested in the various points in the Bill, and, so far as he was aware, they had received no communication on this particular point. He had taken such steps as were open to him to ascertain the facts, and he thought the Government had gone to the utmost limit, and were doing substantial justice.

though the question should be reconsidered. If it could be shown that four was a reasonable number the right hon. Gentleman's position would be unassailable, but the statement made by the hon. Member for Blackpool indicated the necessity for further consideration.

said he had not received any information on the point. The communication which was sent to the hon. Member for Blackpool should have been addressed to those who were responsible for the Bill.

said the right hon. Gentleman desired to leave every existing factory in its present position, but the limitation of the number of steamers to four would operate unfairly in regard to the larger factories. The factories which at present employed one or two steamers would be able to extend their business until they had four steamers employed, but the large factories which now had four steamers would be precluded from developing their business further. That was on the asumption that all the steamers were exactly alike, but was that a reasonable assumption? Was it not likely that the moment the limit of four was applied, there would be an increase in the size of the steamers? There was no provision in regard to that in the Bill. By this regulation they would simply be paying a premium to the large and powerful factories under the excuse of diminishing whale fishing. It was only another instance of what was constantly seen, namely, a provision which was passed with one object operating in the opposite direction. The effect of the restrictions imposed would be to increase the size and power of the whaling steamers, and would thus defeat the object desired by the right hon. Gentleman. Amendment agreed to. Amendments proposed—

In page 2, line 20, to leave out the word to.'

In page 2. line 22, to leave out the word two,' and to insert the word three.'

In page 2, line 37, to leave out the word three,' and to insert the word 'four.' "—(Mr. Sinclair.)

said that the object of licensing a factory, workshop, or indeed any industry, was to give a certain status to it, and to grant the local authority or the Government a right of entry in order that the relations between the authorities and the factory should be clearly defined. He maintained that the licence duties sought to be imposed were unnecessarily severe. The £100 licence was not for each factory, but for each steamer; so that, a company owning four steamers would have to pay £400 in licences. He held that there were no other factories in this country which paid such high registration dues. There were no such licence duties on great collieries or groups of mines, but here they were proposing to impose a licence duty which might amount to a fourth of the whole capital of the industry which had been established by the energy of the people of Scotland. Why not put on a licence duty of £500 at once and kill the industry if the licence was to be taken as penal? In the case of a gunpowder factory, which permitted inspectors to go in and see that the work was properly carried out, the licence fee was merely nominal. Amendment proposed—

In page 3, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words one hundred,' and to insert the word ten.' "—(Lord Balcarres.)

said that, of course, there was no penal intention at all. This licence duty had been fixed after very careful consideration. He was aware that in other countries the licence duties were very large. They amounted in Newfoundland to £300, although they had been lately reduced to £150. This was a very profitable industry, and some fund had to be found to meet the cost of administration. So far as he was aware he had no reason to believe that the people concerned considered the licence fee onerous; at any rate, it was not generally objected to.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. It would be unfair to the poorer factories who worked on a low scale with one steamer, while the large factories with more than one steamer would pay a smaller licence on each.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 3:—

said it seemed to him that this clause placed the licensed persons at a disadvantage. Supposing the crews of two ships killed a whale just outside the three miles limit, the unlicensed person seemed to be at liberty to capture the creature and bring it alongside and tow it into port by another vessel, but the licensed person could only use his steamer apparently to kill the whale and bring it into port. The unlicensed person therefore enjoyed an advantage and the licensed person was penalised. Amendment proposed—

To leave out Sub-section 1."—(Mr. Forster.)

said that by this sub-clause the Government were simply giving effect to the general practice. In some cases steamers had been employed merely for the purpose of towing into port whales which had been killed by other steamers. This practice had given rise to great disputes. The whole point was purely a technical one, but the Government were merely carrying out what was recognised as the general practice in the matter. It was only fair that this provision should be made.

said the right hon. Gentleman said he was carrying out the general practice of the whaling industry, but he did not think that such a custom should prevail. The Bill would render it possible for a tow boat to take possession of any whales which they might find floating on the sea killed by other vessels.

said that matter did not arise till Clause 5. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved to leave out Subsection 3, for which he could find no justification. It provided that the harpoon should be fixed to the rail of the steamer. Amendment proposed—

To leave out Subsection 3.' "—(Mr. Forster.)

said that the Government did not desire to do anything to favour lawlessness, but here again the provisions of the Bill were founded upon the general practice, and that was to have this fixed rope attached to the steamer, and to have the rope attached to the harpoon. No objection had been taken to this up to the present. He thought the subsection met the necessities of the case.

said, of course, the harpoon must be attached to the boat or vessel from which it was fired, but this provision said that it should be attached to the steamer from which the boat came.

said he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out to him a desirable alteration of the Bill.

said the interpretation accepted by the right hon. Gentleman showed the absurdity of the whole thing Whether they liked it or not all ship( must carry the harpoon, and therefore al new inventions which might hereafter be discovered to kill whales in a more humane manner.

said it must be perfectly clear that this clause could only apply to small boats. In the ease of large steamers they could not have harpoons attached to them. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved to leave out the words which, gave the Fishery Board power to prohibit the shooting of whales within a distance of forty miles from low-water mark of any part of the coast of Scotland for a period not exceeding five weeks during the summer herring fishery. He did not think this was a power that should he given to the Scotch Fishery Board. A prohibition of that sort for five weeks during the time of the herring fishery would point to prohibiting the killing of whales for the whole year. It was a power which might be capriciously used to kill a prosperous industry.

said this provision was designed really to ensure that there should be no conflict between the whale industry and any particularly successful herring fishing that might be going on at the time. It would reconcile the herring fishery interest to the Bill, and the prohibition would not be harshly exercised.

complained that this provision would punish the licensed whalers very hardly indeed, while unlicensed whalers would be absolutely free from it. Licensed persons would be able to sail in waters over which the Fishery Board had no jurisdiction, and always provided that they were not observed by the officers of the Board or their unlicensed competitors might set this provision at naught. Ho really thought it very hard that they should be asked to pass a Bill which would give power over the people engaged in the industry, but not over the waters in which these people were carrying on their business. However good the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman might be, or however desirable his object, he would be put into a false position if he were given jurisdiction, for that was what it came to, miles out at sea from the coast of Scotland, where he had no jurisdiction at the present time. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman had further time to consider the matter, he would see that the proposal could not be justified by the facts. He did not doubt that it was very desirable to allay the strong feelings which he had reason to know existed in the minds of the fishermen, but he really thought that when the right hon. Gentleman told them that the power would be very sparingly exercised, he gave them pretty clearly to understand that it was never meant to he exercised at all.

I said "discreetly.

said he had found in his life that it was only discreet to exercise one's power when the opportunity was either legitimate or when it promised the success of one's efforts. He did not think that the opportunity would arise under the forty miles limit, nor did he think that it would offer a prospect of success. He approached this Bill in a non-controversial spirit, but he felt that he ought to divide the House against this provision, which it was injudicious to include in the measure, and which he thought would involve the right hon. Gentleman and his successors in endless difficulties. He did not believe for a single moment that it would ever have any real effect in curing or mitigating the evil to which it was ostensibly directed. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not insist upon it.

said that if the right hon. Gentleman went on with this clause he might get into international difficulties. Suppose that some of those companies placed their ships under the Norwegian or German flag and did what was prohibited by this Bill with in the forty miles. He quite admitted that any British subject when he came ashore would be liable to the laws of this country and could be punished, but surely the right hon. Gentleman could not cause a Norwegian subject to be punished for doing something under the Norwegian flag outside the three-miles limit. It was a point to which the law officers of the Crown might turn their attention, because whatever the justiciary of Scotland had laid down with regard to the Moray Firth, he could not see that the country could be allowed, outside the three-miles limit, to exercise any jurisdiction except over British subjects.

said this was a very grave matter. They had no right forty miles out at sea. The three-miles limit was recognised by international agreement; it represented the limit of the tidal flow in the twenty-four hours. Then why was forty miles chosen? Why not 400, or any other limit they chose to name? But so far as the distance of forty miles was concerned, it so happened that in this part of Scotland they were 80 miles from the shore of a foreign country, and when they got out to sea forty miles with what reason could the argument on the part of the foreign country be resisted when they claimed that they had an equal claim with us to come from their shores a distance of forty miles and claim to exercise jurisdiction as was proposed by this Bill? Surely the Government might explain whether there was a particle of reason why they should fix upon forty miles. What justification was there from, the international point of view. The right hon. Gentleman knew he could not enforce it. And by this proposal ho was going to take away the wretched little gun-boat which was now watching the fishing industry of Scotland, and send it forty miles out to sea during certain specific weeks of the year. The fact was they were opening up a question which did not belong to this country alone. He submitted they were entitled to some explanation of this arbitrary selection of the limit of forty miles.

said that this limit of forty miles was based on the recommendation of the Committee, and was adopted as-affording a general protection of the kind which it was desired by the Bill to afford. The Committee would realise that there was no intention, nor was there anything in the Bill to harass or tend to destroy the industry. The Government were steering a course which they thought would be just to all interests. This provision was based on the recommendation of the Committee, who recognised that it was desirable to give the Fishery Board power to suspend the whaling trade for a short period while the summer herring fishing was going on. It was true that they would have no general power to enforce this regulation; but they would have the power to issue licences under particular conditions. He had some confidence in submitting this proposal, because no objections against it had reached the Board. There was no reason to believe—in fact it would be against the interests of all concerned—that this power of suspension would be used otherwise than discreetly. The herring was a most capricious fish. They sometimes appeared in great numbers, and there might be hundreds of boats engaged within forty miles around the coast of Scotland. That might be very exceptional, but if in such a case there was extremely profitable fishing going on, surely it would be wise to give power to the Fishery Board to prevent its being interfered with by whale fishing.

said he knew the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to do all he could in the interests of the herring fishing industry, but the fact seemed to be ignored that they might have the licensed person operating within two or three miles of an unlicensed person, and a great amount of bitterness was bound to be created by a system of that kind. He would not press his Amendment to a division, and although he had been silenced he was in no way convinced.

said that assuming the Board exercised its power in this matter the licensed person would be under a great disadvantage as compared with the unlicensed person. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell him what proportion the Scottish whalers who would be licensed bore to the total number of whalers in those waters. If the licensed Scottish whalers were the vast majority of the total number, there might be a great deal to be said in favour of this proposal.

contended that by this proposal they were making a preserve for the foreigner. He understood that these fishing grounds were equally close to Norway, and consequently the right hon. Gentleman was going to say to our own people, "You shall not do these things," when it was impossible for him to stop Norwegian ships doing the very same thing. It was ridiculous to make those fishing grounds simply a preserve for the foreigners. They could not punish foreigners for anything done outside the three-miles limit, and all they could do was to go to the company and say, "Unless you dismiss these foreigners we shall not give you a licence again."

said he had not yet heard a single voice raised on behalf of the hundreds of herring boats which would be affected. This clause he admitted would do a great deal for them, but not all that was desirable. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way on this point.

concurred entirely with what had been said by his hon. friend. If a boat was discovered shooting whales within this limit, and if the boat belonged to a licensed company, it might be pleaded in defence that it was not intended to land the whale in Scotland. It might be pleaded that it was the intention to land it in Norway. If that plea could be successfully advanced, then, of course, the provisions in the clause would be entirely nugatory.

said he thought that in the case figured by the hon. Gentleman the boat so acting would be guilty of an offence.

moved to leave out Subsection (2). His reason for making the proposal was that unlicensed people should not be put in a better position than those who had been at the trouble and expense of taking out licences. The Sub-section said:—

Nothing in this Act contained shall make it unlawful for any person to pursue any of the whaling industries commonly followed in Arctic or Antarctic waters, or to engage in the manufacture of oil or other products from whales captured in the exercise of any such industry.

said the subsection was desirable to make it quite certain that whalers equipped for long voyages were not interfered with under the provisions of this Bill. It was not quite correct to say that the Bill proposed to give to foreigners what was denied to our own people.

said that the right lion. Gentleman declared that he did not propose to confer greater privileges on foreigners than on Scottish people; that all he had stated was that this Bill imposed licences on Scottish people to establish factories. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was not lawful for a person to pursue, kill, or shoot whales within Scottish waters, but it was lawful for foreigners—he meant persons who were not Scotsmen—to pursue, kill or shoot whales within Scottish waters. That was the distinction which he drew and which would be maintained if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in keeping in this section of the Bill. However, he wished to withdraw his Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

asked whether it would be an offence under Clause 6 for the directors and managers of a company engaged in the whale fishing industry to take out more than one licence among them?

said he did not see how that question arose under this clause.

said that an important question had been raised on a former Clause, which the right hon. Gentleman said had better be delayed. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at Clause 3, Sub-section 1, he would find that no holder of a licence for the prosecution of the whale fishery should use any boat or steamer except a whaling steamer. That was to say he could not use a tow-boat to tow the whale which he had killed. Clause 6 agreed to. Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

said he understood the Patronage Secretary had a statement to make with regard to the next Order on the Paper, Notification of Births Bill.

said he did not think it would be fair to ask the House, after such a week as they had had, to begin at eleven o'clock the consideration of another Bill, which would take two or three hours. He had agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Somerset, that the deliberations on all their Bills were to come to an end at eight o'clock to-morrow evening—that the Government should have all their Bills then. It would be extremely serious if the discuscussion on any particular Bill were protracted, or that they should have to drop any particular one of their Bills. That was the distinct and categorical understanding with the noble Lord's chief, and he was sure hon. Gentlemen opposite would carry it out.

said he was glad to see that the hon. Gentleman had at last found salvation, and on that he congratulated him. The Patronage Secretary had been driven to take pity on the frailties of human nature, and had announced that the limit had been reached, and that the House was not to be kept up that night. As to the arrangement with his right hon. friend to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, of course these things were necessarily approximate. It was known to all those engaged in making these arrangements that they were loads within elastic limits. Suppose that at eight o'clock to-morrow evening there was one question that remained to be be discussed, he was sure that the Patronage Secretary would not say that the bargain was absolute and definitely ruled all discussion of the question that remained.

No.

thought the hon. Gentleman could not persist in taking a different view. He did not for a moment suggest that there was any desire or the slightest intention to deviate even by a hair's breadth, from that arrangement; but he was sure that if at eight o'clock there was one particular question on one particular Bill remaining to be discussed, the Patronage Secretary would riot say that the bargain to bring the proceedings to an end absolutely ruled that question out from discussion.

said he desired to say just one word in justification. He had had practically an ultimatum, or rather a threat, from an hon. Member opposite, that if the Government did not take the Notification of Births Bill to-night, they would give them three or four hours discussion on it to-morrow. Of course he knew eight o'clock was not a hard and fast line but it was in con- sequence of that veiled threat that he made the remark.

said he had many objections to this Bill which he had not pressed, and he had not divided the House once on the strict understanding that further business would be taken after the Bill under discussion; he had refrained from dividing the House in order to save time for considering the Notification of Births Bill. Clause 9 agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.